utterance
stringlengths 594
850k
| label
listlengths 11
11
|
|---|---|
COMMISSION DECISION
of 26 December 2007
amending Decision 2006/415/EC concerning certain protection measures in relation to highly pathogenic avian influenza of the subtype H5N1 in poultry in Germany
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2007/885/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
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 (1), and in particular Article 9(3) thereof,
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 (2), and in particular Article 10(3) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
Commission Decision 2006/415/EC of 14 June 2006 concerning certain protection measures in relation to highly pathogenic avian influenza of the subtype H5N1 in poultry in the Community and repealing Decision 2006/135/EC (3) lays down certain protection measures to be applied in order to prevent the spread of that disease, including the establishment of areas A and B following a suspected or confirmed outbreak of the disease.
(2)
Following outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza of H5N1 subtype in the United Kingdom, Germany and Poland, Decision 2006/415/EC was last amended by Decision 2007/878/EC of 21 December 2007 amending Decision 2006/415/EC concerning certain protection measures in relation to highly pathogenic avian influenza of the subtype H5N1 in poultry in those Member States (4).
(3)
As a further outbreak of the disease has occurred in Germany outside the restricted area, the delineation of the area under restriction and the duration of the measures should be modified to take account of the epidemiological situation.
(4)
Decision 2006/415/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.
(5)
The measures provided for in this Decision should be reviewed at the next meeting of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
The Annex to Decision 2006/415/EC is amended in accordance with the text in the Annex to this Decision.
Article 2
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 26 December 2007.
|
[
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION
of 10 February 2005
authorising certain Member States to use information from sources other than statistical surveys for the 2005 survey on the structure of agricultural holdings
(notified under document number C(2005) 284)
(Only the Danish, German, Estonian, English, Finnish, French, Dutch, Slovenian, and Swedish texts are authentic)
(2005/124/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 571/88 of 29 February 1988 on the organisation of Community surveys on the structure of agricultural holdings (1), and in particular Article 8(2) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
When determining the characteristics to be surveyed, an effort should be made to limit, as far as possible, the burden on respondents to the survey. In accordance with Article 8(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 571/88, certain Member States have asked to be authorised to use, in the 2005 survey on the structure of agricultural holdings, for certain characteristics, information that is already available from sources other than statistical surveys.
(2)
The results of the Farm Structure Surveys are of great importance to the common agricultural policy. It is necessary to maintain a high quality of information, and therefore the use of data from sources other than statistical surveys can only be accepted if these data are as reliable as those from statistical surveys.
(3)
The Member States having asked to be authorised to use data from sources other than statistical surveys have provided the Commission with technical documentation as to the relevance and the accuracy of these sources. Following examination of this technical documentation, the authorisations requested by the Member States should be granted.
(4)
The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee for Agricultural Statistics established by Council Decision 72/279/EEC (2),
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
1. The Member States listed in the Annex are authorised to use information already available from sources other than statistical surveys in the Farm Structure Survey 2005 for certain characteristics.
Those sources shall be as set out in the Annex.
2. The Member States concerned shall take the necessary measures to ensure that this information is of at least equal quality to information obtained from statistical surveys. They shall provide a report assessing the quality of these information sources.
Article 2
This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Belgium, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Estonia, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Slovenia, the Republic of Finland, the Kingdom of Sweden, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Done at Brussels, 10 February 2005.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION
of 23 November 2005
on the State Aid which Italy is planning to implement for Fincantieri
(notified under document number C(2005) 4433)
(Only the Italian version is authentic)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2006/639/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 regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1540/98 of 29 June 1998 establishing new rules on aid to shipbuilding (1),
Having called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the provisions cited above (2) and having regard to their comments,
Whereas:
I. PROCEDURE
(1)
By letter dated 31 July 2003, Italy notified the Commission of the aid. By letters dated 16 September 2003, 6 November 2003, 1 December 2003, 4 February 2004, 12 February 2004, 26 February 2004, 5 April 2004, 25 May 2004, 23 June 2004 and 8 July 2004, it provided the Commission with further information.
(2)
By letter dated 22 October 2004, the Commission informed Italy that it had decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty in respect of the aid.
(3)
The Commission decision to initiate the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (3). The Commission invited interested parties to submit their comments on the aid.
(4)
The Commission received comments from interested parties. It forwarded them to Italy, which was given the opportunity to react; its comments were received by letter dated 12 April 2005.
(5)
Other letters were received from Italy dated 25 November 2005, 18 May 2005 and 12 October 2005.
II. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE AID
(6)
Italy requested the Commission to grant an extension of the delivery limit of 31 December 2003 provided for in Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1540/98 of 29 June 1998 establishing new rules on aid to shipbuilding (‘the Shipbuilding Regulation’) as a condition for receiving contract-related operating aid. The extension was requested for Fincantieri, for the delivery of five cruise ships, for a total contract value of € 2,1 billion and an aid amount of € 243 million.
(7)
Fincantieri is a state-owned company operating eight shipyards (Monfalcone, Marghera, Sestri Ponente, Ancona, Palermo, Castellammare, Muggiano, Riva Trigoso) in Italy. It is specialised in building cruise ships but also builds other types of seagoing vessels and military ships.
(8)
Italy explained that the final contracts for the ships concerned were signed in December 2000 and delivery, according to the contracts, was planned for June and December 2003. The ships were ordered by various subsidiaries of Carnival Corporation (‘Carnival’), a US cruise operator. Italy promised, on this basis, contract-related operating aid for the building of the ships.
(9)
Italy stated that the shipowner requested a postponement, in the autumn of 2001, of the delivery dates to various dates in 2004 and 2005. This request was motivated by the severe impact on the cruise industry of the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001. Fincantieri agreed to this and Italy requested an extension of the delivery limit so that the ships could still qualify for operating aid.
(10)
In their notification the Italian authorities referred to the Commission's decision of 5 June 2002 (4) authorising a similar extension of the delivery date for a cruise ship under construction at Meyer Werft, Germany. Italy emphasised the similarities between the two cases in terms of (i) the reason given for the extension (the impact of the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks), (ii) the relevant market (cruises) and (iii) the commercial dependency existing between the shipyard and the shipowner (Carnival is Fincantieri's largest customer).
(11)
By decision dated 20 October 2004 the Commission granted the extension of the delivery limit for four of the ships, but expressed doubts that it could grant the extension for the fifth. The doubts concerned ship 6079 with planned delivery in October 2005. This ship was originally intended to be delivered in 2005 but the delivery date was changed to December 2003 in late 2000; otherwise the ship would not have been eligible for operating aid.
(12)
The aid amount that Italy would grant to Fincantieri if the Commission were to extend the delivery limit for ship 6079 is approximately € 33 million (9 % of the contract value of the ship).
(13)
There were chiefly two reasons for initiating the formal procedure. One was doubts concerning the feasibility of the plan, whereby one of the five ships (ship 6077) was to be built at the Ancona shipyard, involving a complex production process in which hull sections had to be moved for assembly to a second yard (ATSM Trieste) and back to Ancona, since the length of Ancona's dock is shorter than the ship. Furthermore, Ancona had never built a ship of similar complexity before, casting doubts on the ability to manage this operation, not least concerning outfitting. Linked to this, the construction of ship 6077 at Ancona would have implied an exceptionally high amount of outfitting at the Palermo shipyard because of the shift of production from Ancona to Palermo.
(14)
The second reason for initiating the formal procedure was doubts concerning the estimated amount of outfitting that would have had to be done by Fincantieri if all five ships had been delivered in 2003. This would have involved, in the Commission's estimation, twice as much outfitting work in 2003 as Fincantieri had ever done in any other year. Furthermore, for the shipyard at Marghera, the outfitting planned for 2003 would have amounted to around 40 % more than the yard had ever done before. The Commission therefore had doubts as to whether the production plan for Fincantieri in general, and for Marghera in particular, was realistic.
(15)
For these two reasons the Commission doubted that all five ships could have been delivered in 2005. However, on the basis of the same information and analysis, the Commission accepted that it could have been possible to deliver four of the ships.
(16)
The Commission considered that the main doubts concerned ship 6079, which is the third sister ship to 6077, built at the same yard, Marghera, with planned delivery in October 2005. The delivery of this ship was postponed in relation to the December 2000 production plan owing to the decision to build ship 6077 at Marghera. These doubts are also based on indications (letter of intent signed before the final contracts were signed in December 2000) that the current production sequence, with a very late delivery for ship 6079, was originally intended.
III. COMMENTS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES
(17)
Fincantieri submitted comments in a letter dated 3 March 2005.
(18)
It stated that any of the company's yards, irrespective of whether they were part of the cruise ship or transport vessel divisions, were in a position to build the same ship components, without any need to alter production engineering choices or executive planning in the workshop, as it would be possible to count on a network of subcontractors that could meet quality and quantity requirements.
(19)
It also stated that the Ancona shipyard would have had no problems building an entire cruise ship of the dimensions and design characteristics of ship 6077 (the sister ship of 6079), including all fittings, using only its own production facilities, infrastructure and plant, if only the agreement between Fincantieri, the local and regional authorities, the port authorities and the metalworkers’ unions set out in the memorandum of intent of 6 December 1999 had been implemented immediately. However, this did not take place.
(20)
When the production engineering of ship 6077 was examined it was decided to build the ship in two parts: the larger section at Ancona and the smaller section at Riva Trigoso. The same production plan had been devised for building the aircraft carrier Conte di Cavour at the Riva Trigoso and Muggiano yards, and had been employed for the construction of the Disney Magic cruise ship at the Ancona and Marghera shipyards in 1997. The so-called jumboisation was planned at the ATSM dry dock in Trieste. As the latter had a dock that was suitable for fitting out and finishing ships, it could have overcome any production difficulties encountered at the Ancona shipyard while offering the significant advantage, which should not be underestimated, of proximity to the industrial area around the shipyard at Monfalcone.
(21)
In the final analysis, in choosing to build the 6077 at Ancona, at least for a large section of the hull and much of the outfitting work, Fincantieri adopted an effective and far-sighted strategy which, should problems arise, offered a number of alternatives that would take advantage of the integrated nature and flexibility of its yards to ensure that it would be possible to deliver the ship by the end of 2003 as required by the contract.
IV. COMMENTS FROM ITALY
(22)
The comments from Italy following the initiation of the formal procedure reflect the comments made by Fincantieri, i.e. that the December 2000 plan was challenging but realistic. Italy considers that the delivery dates could have been kept thanks to Fincantieri's production flexibility, in other words its ability to ‘pool’ the construction process by outsourcing to other yards (including some not normally engaged in the building of cruise ships), through an infrastructure and plant investment project dedicated to that end and through advanced building techniques.
(23)
Concerning the planned involvement of ATSM in the construction of one of the ships, Italy's comments reflected those of Fincantieri, i.e. that ATSM could easily have combined the two outfitted sections of vessel 6077, although this method of construction is an alternative, and in some ways a less satisfactory one, to the ‘normal’ sequence of construction phases. In any event, the work of joining sections has now become routine for Fincantieri. As regards the Commission's doubts about Ancona's previous experience in building ships of similar complexity, Italy considers that it had gained such experience with the construction and outfitting of around half of the Disney Magic and with the passenger ship Danielle Casanova.
(24)
Italy also argues that the Palermo yard has in the past (1996-97) carried out much more demanding production plans than the one envisaged in 2000. As regards the Commission's estimation that the December 2000 production plan would have involved, in 2003, twice as much outfitting work as Fincantieri had ever done in any other year, Italy refutes that statement and claims that in almost all the yards the December 2000 production plan would have relied on the ‘standard capacity’ of the yard in question, and only in certain cases would peak capacity have been reached.
(25)
In reply to the Commission statement that for the Marghera shipyard the outfitting planned for 2003 would have amounted to around 40 % more than the yard had ever done before, Italy states that the workload (including outfitting) scheduled for the Marghera yard in the plan dating from 2000 was absolutely consistent with the capacities and capabilities actually demonstrated by the yard since it had previously managed to deliver four ships in 15 months, as was planned for 2003.
(26)
Italy was also offered the opportunity to comment on the essential elements of the report by the independent expert whom the Commission consulted when it assessed the information provided by Italy prior to the launch of the formal investigation procedure.
(27)
In its reply dated 18 May 2005 Italy commented on three main aspects of the expert's report.
(28)
First, according to Italy, the expert based his assessments on total delivery in the year 2003, without taking account of the production cycle, in other words the gradual increase in compensated gross tonnage (cgt) that occurs throughout the construction period. By not distributing, over the time-span necessary for actual production, the tonnage relating to the nine ships scheduled for delivery in 2003 (some of which were at an advanced stage of construction by the end of 2002), the expert had concluded by asserting that in 2003 Fincantieri would have had to produce twice the cgt it had produced in the past. That finding was, in Italy's opinion, incorrect since, for the purposes of assessing Fincantieri's production capacities, the tonnage delivered in 2003 did not correspond to the tonnage actually produced in that year. Italy claims that the production data were consistent with capacities observed in the past and in any event did not exceed the maximum capacity levels.
(29)
The production data demonstrate in Italy's view that even in the years that would have been most busy, namely 2002 and 2003, the production volumes for the Monfalcone, Marghera and Sestri Ponente shipyards would not have diverged by more than 20 % from historical values. As regards the payload (accommodation and air conditioning), which is the significant and distinctive part of the work on ships of this type, the difference is even more marked in the case of the Sestri Ponente shipyard (which increased its output from 1 863 tonnes in 1998 to 14 303 tonnes in 2003); such a steep increase was facilitated by using subcontractors and extending the scope of their responsibilities via turnkey contracts.
(30)
The figures for output in terms of hours of labour (in-house/outsourced) show that, in the years preceding the ones covered by the production schedule, greater use was made of subcontracting than was contemplated in the December 2000 schedule.
(31)
Finally, Italy claims that the fear that subcontractors might have been insufficient or unavailable is completely unfounded, also in view of the fact that the fitting-out of the ‘hotel’ part of the ships (which coincides with the last phase of production in the shipyard) involves the very subcontractors with whom Fincantieri has long-term cooperation relationships. Even in the unlikely event of a shortage or unavailability of skilled workers, the problem would easily be overcome through outsourcing the work to the building sector, mainly firms involved in the construction of large hotels, given the similarity of the furnishings and fittings in the ‘hotel’ part.
(32)
Italy concludes by fully endorsing the comments made by Fincantieri.
(33)
By letter dated 12 October 2005 Italy commented on the conclusions reached by the second expert consulted by the Commission in order to assess the arguments put forward by Italy in its reply to the decision initiating the formal procedure.
V. ASSESSMENT OF THE AID
(34)
According to Article 87(1) of the 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, insofar as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the common market. The Court of Justice of the European Communities has consistently held that the criterion of trade being affected is met if the recipient firm carries out an economic activity involving trade between Member States.
(35)
The Commission notes that the question of extending the delivery limit is decisive for determining whether the ship in question qualifies for contract-related operating aid under Article 3 of the Shipbuilding Regulation. The operating aid in question consists in financing from state resources part of the costs that the yard in question would normally have to bear when building a vessel. Moreover, shipbuilding is an economic activity involving trade between Member States. The aid in question therefore falls within the scope of Article 87(1) of the Treaty.
(36)
Under Article 87(3)(e) of the Treaty, categories of aid specified by a decision of the Council acting by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission may be considered compatible with the common market. The Commission notes that the Council adopted the Shipbuilding Regulation on that basis on 29 June 1998.
(37)
The Commission notes that, according to the Shipbuilding Regulation, ‘shipbuilding’ means building of self-propelled seagoing commercial vessels. The Commission also notes that Fincantieri builds ships of this type and that it is consequently an undertaking covered by the Regulation.
(38)
Italy's request has to be assessed on the basis of the Shipbuilding Regulation, although it expired at the end of 2003. This is because the scheme under which Italy granted the aid was approved in accordance with that Regulation, the aid was granted when the Regulation was still in force, and the rules linked to the three-year delivery limit are laid down in that instrument.
(39)
According to Article 3(1) of the Shipbuilding Regulation, a maximum ceiling of 9 % for contract-related operating aid was allowed until 31 December 2000. Under Article 3(2), the aid ceiling applicable to the contract would normally be the one in force at the date of signature of the final contract. However, this does not apply to ships delivered more than three years from the signing of the contract; in such cases, the ceiling applicable is the one in force three years before the date of the delivery of the ship. Consequently, the last delivery date for a vessel qualifying for operating aid was, in principle, 31 December 2003.
(40)
Article 3(2) stipulates, however, that the Commission may grant an extension of the three-year delivery limit when this is found justified by the technical complexity of the individual shipbuilding project concerned or by delays resulting from unexpected disruptions of a substantial and defensible nature in the working programme of a yard due to exceptional circumstances, unforeseeable and external to the company. It should be noted that Italy bases its request for extension of the delivery limit on such exceptional and unforeseeable circumstances.
(41)
The Commission notes that the Court of First Instance interpreted a similar provision in its judgment of 16 March 2000 (5), in which it stated that the provision in question must be given a restrictive interpretation.
(42)
The Commission first points out that the present Decision concerns one ship, but the assessment is based on the entire production planned by Fincantieri in December 2000. Delivery of all five notified ships in 2003, plus other ships already scheduled for delivery in 2003, would have imposed a very heavy workload on the Fincantieri yards. The Commission therefore considered it necessary to verify that Fincantieri would have been technically able to deliver the ships in question by the end of 2003.
(43)
The additional information provided by Italy and Fincantieri in response to the doubts raised by the Commission in its decision initiating the formal procedure was analysed by the Commission and by an independent technical expert (6) at the Commission's request. The report drawn up by this expert was made available to Italy for comments by a letter from the Commission dated 26 August 2005. Italy commented on this report in a letter dated 12 October 2005.
(44)
The first doubt raised by the Commission was the ability of the Ancona shipyard to build, in combination with the ATSM shipyard in Trieste, one of the five cruise ships (6077) covered by the notification.
(45)
Italy claims that it would have been possible to build one of the five ships at Ancona and ATSM even though the dry dock at Ancona is shorter than the ship in question, thanks to a special procedure used once before for a cruise ship, i.e. combining two ship sections (jumboisation). The Commission did not state in the decision initiating the formal procedure that such a method would be impossible, but underlined its complexity; Italy agrees with this and acknowledges that it was a ‘less satisfactory method of construction’.
(46)
In the decision initiating the formal procedure, the Commission noted in this context that Ancona had never built ships of similar complexity before, to which Italy replied that it had built a major section for three similar ships, and a passenger ship approximately half the size of the ship in question (44 000 grt as compared with 82 500 grt). The sections and the ship were thus considerably smaller than the cruise ship 6077 planned to be built. Since in cruise ship construction complexity is closely linked to size, the Commission in this respect concludes that Italy has not successfully refuted the facts set out in the decision initiating the formal procedure.
(47)
The decision also stated that construction of one of the cruise ships at Ancona and ATSM in Trieste would have involved moving other planned construction to another Fincantieri yard, Palermo, and that the Commission had doubts that this yard could have coped with the resulting increase in outfitting work. Italy argues that such work would have been theoretically possible. However, no evidence is provided and the reply focused on construction in terms of cgt instead of the precise issue of outfitting. The Commission nevertheless notes that production at Palermo in 2003 was 33 000 cgt, which falls far short of the maximum production claimed by Italy (63 000 cgt) and is far less than the production according to the December 2000 plan (53 000 cgt).
(48)
Furthermore, Italy informed the Commission that already in June 2001 (less than six months after the contract for the five cruise ships was signed) there was a production crisis at Palermo, even without the extra work planned, which made it necessary to delay deliveries. The Commission therefore considers that the Palermo yard would not have been able to fulfil the December 2000 plan as regards outfitting, and Italy has not given any reply on this point.
(49)
The Commission also notes that the information provided by Italy and Fincantieri shows that it was not clear in December 2000 whether the outfitting of ship 6077 was intended to take place at ATSM or at Ancona. According to the production plan dated December 2000 and exhibit 5 in the letter dated 25 May 2005, the outfitting was to take place at Ancona, but the letter from Fincantieri dated 3 March 2005 states that the outfitting was to take place at ATSM to overcome any production difficulties encountered at the Ancona shipyard.
(50)
According to the expert consulted by the Commission, Italy has not come forward with convincing information as regards the organisation and resources to be set up at ATSM's dry dock and he strongly doubts that a yard, mainly used for ship repair and inexperienced in cruise vessels, could be turned into a fully organised yard able to deliver a cruise vessel within a tight deadline.
(51)
Italy commented on this aspect in its letter dated 12 October 2005. Italy considers that Fincantieri's organisational skills were sufficient to put, at short notice, ATSM in a position to perform its intended task. It also stresses that in its ship-repair activities ATSM is currently working in synergy with Fincantieri. However, the Commission is still not convinced by Italy's arguments that ATSM could be transformed from a dry-docking facility for ship repairs into a fully functioning shipyard in a short period of time.
(52)
The conclusion is thus that Fincantieri itself doubted Ancona's ability to outfit the ship; neither has it provided any proof that ATSM was able to do so. Based on the above observations, the Commission considers that the December 2000 plan was unrealistic and unspecific both as regards the construction of a ship at Ancona/ATSM and as regards the situation at Palermo, confirming its doubts on these points.
(53)
In the decision initiating the formal procedure, the Commission estimated that delivery of all five ships plus all the other ships planned would have involved twice as much outfitting work as Fincantieri had ever done before, and that for the Marghera shipyard the outfitting planned for 2003 would have amounted to around 40 % more than the yard had ever done before.
(54)
Italy replied, for one thing, that the hull erection capacity was sufficient. This argument is however not relevant, since the Commission did not question the ability to construct the hulls.
(55)
Fincantieri and Italy also question the Commission's estimates of the amount of outfitting in relation to previous years and argue for example that the increase was not more than 20 %. They also claim that it would have been possible to accomplish the necessary outfitting within the deadline with the help of the network of subcontractors.
(56)
The Commission maintains, however, and is supported in this by its technical expert, that the outfitting issue is as pertinent as stated in the decision initiating the formal procedure. Although Italy has indicated that individual yards could have increased their production up to their peak level by operating two shifts, to do so simultaneously in all or most of its shipyards would, in the Commission's opinion, involve a very high risk and cost and would place a heavy strain on management capacities, particularly since Italy underlines the central management structure of Fincantieri's production process.
(57)
The outfitting work is particularly critical for hulls 6078 and 6079, which were both planned to be built at the Marghera shipyard and delivered before the end of December 2003, with an interval of only two months between them. The Commission's view, supported by the expert's assessment, is that Italy, although providing some figures on how it had planned to accomplish all the outfitting, has not given a proper reply to this important point.
(58)
In its letter dated 12 October 2005, Italy comments on this point made by the expert, stating that delivery of two ships within a period of two months was feasible, and that for example nine months had been set aside for ship 6078, compared with seven months for 6079, so as to be able to work on 6079 if necessary. The Commission points out here that the planned outfitting times for sister ships 6075, 6076 and 6077 were nine, eight and ten months respectively. Nine months for 6078 therefore appeared to be not particularly long, and seven months for 6079 extremely short, given that the outfitting work on that vessel was planned to be carried out simultaneously with ship 6078.
(59)
The Commission takes note of Italy's statement that the outfitting time for some previous ships was reduced to seven or even six months. However, this took place in shipyards that were able to work in the normal way, outfitting one ship at a time.
(60)
The fact that Marghera managed in the past to deliver four ships in 15 months does not dispel the Commission's doubts, since they mainly concern the two planned deliveries within two months. The Commission also notes that real production at Marghera in 2003, which was still considered a busy year for Fincantieri (7), was around 130 000 cgt, far less than the planned production of 160 000 cgt for 2003 in the December 2000 plan.
(61)
The delivery of four ships in a short timeframe would furthermore, in the view of the expert consulted by the Commission, have caused difficulties for the shipowner, who would probably have had to overcome serious organisational problems in order to be in a position to take delivery of four vessels within two months.
(62)
As for ships 6078 and 6079, which were planned to be delivered from the Marghera shipyard, the planned production times of 18 and 19 months were according to the Commission's expert extremely short. In this respect the expert questions the claims made by Italy in its letter dated 25 May 2005 that there would be a learning curve which would reduce the time needed for the later ships in a series. While this assumption is correct when ships are built in the same yard and with the same methods, it is, according to the expert, not correct when the same type of ship is built in different locations, with different teams, as would have been the case under the December 2000 plan.
(63)
In its letter dated 12 October 2005, Italy comments on this point. It considers that there is a learning curve even when ships are built in different locations. The Commission can agree that a certain learning curve exists even when production takes place at different yards, e.g. as regards aspects linked to the central management structure and the supply of major equipment. Nevertheless, when ships are built in different locations, and even with different production methods, it is clear that this learning curve is much less significant than when there is repeated production in the same yard.
(64)
The Commission notes that the three sister ships 6077, 6078 and 6079 would not have been built at the same yards and with the same production methods under the December 2000 plan. It also notes that according to Italy ship 6079 is in fact not the third in a series but the fifth, and that labour savings of 16 % and 8 % for the first and second sister ships had already been achieved. To expect additional efficiency gains and time savings for each further ship is even less plausible for the last two ships in a series of five than in a series of three ships. The Commission therefore considers that the estimated reductions in production times for ships 6078 and 6079 in the plan dating from 2000 were unrealistic.
(65)
The technical expert consulted by the Commission following the initiation of the formal procedure provided the Commission with some examples of what kind of information Italy/Fincantieri could have provided to show that Fincantieri really had the intention and the capability to deliver all five ships by the end of 2003.
(66)
One such example is orders to suppliers for main items such as propulsion systems or main power generators. These have to be ordered at an early stage so as to be sure to receive them in time. Another such example would be contracts with subcontractors, which should have been concluded before the end of July 2001 according to the process description presented by Italy, and in any event before September 2001. However, Italy has only presented a list of subcontractors that potentially work for Fincantieri. A third example of proof that could have been provided would be actual dates of downpayments on contracts or performance bonds/bank guarantees arranged for the orders and normally produced against payment of the first instalment for a new ship.
(67)
Italy and Fincantieri did not provide any such evidence of Fincantieri's intention and ability to deliver all the ships by the end of 2003, including ship 6079, even though by letter dated 26 August 2005 the Commission informed Italy that precisely this type of information would have been useful. The lack of such information further supports the Commission's view that the December 2000 production plan was unrealistic and that ship 6079 could not have been delivered by the end of 2003.
(68)
The Commission finally notes that according to a press release issued on 20 June 2005 by the ship operator (Holland America Line), the vessel in question (ship 6079), to be named MS Noordam, is to be delivered in January 2006. The Commission notes that if this information on the delivery date is correct, the aid could not have been granted by Italy even if the Commission had allowed an extension of the delivery limit until the end of October 2005, as requested by Italy.
VI. CONCLUSION
(69)
The Commission has analysed the information provided by Italy following the Commission decision to open a formal investigation into the technical ability to deliver all the ships that were scheduled for delivery in 2003 according to Fincantieri's December 2000 plan, and in particular hull 6079. In the Commission's view the information that Italy has provided has not dispelled the doubts it raised concerning the feasibility of the December 2000 plan submitted by Italy. The original doubts were shared by an independent expert. The new information was assessed by another independent expert, who also came to the same conclusion as the Commission. Italy had the opportunity to comment on the conclusions set out in the reports by both experts.
(70)
Based on its assessment of all the available facts the Commission comes to the conclusion that the original production plan, with delivery of all five notified cruise ships before the end of 2003, was unrealistic. The doubts concerning the ability to deliver ship 6079 by the end of 2003 have therefore been confirmed.
(71)
The Commission notes that it has already authorised an extension of the delivery limit for four ships produced by Fincantieri, in accordance with Article 3(2) of the Shipbuilding Regulation. That provision applies only to unexpected disruptions of a substantial and defensible nature due to exceptional circumstances, unforeseeable and external to the company, and the Court has already stated that it should be given a restrictive interpretation.
(72)
On the basis of the conclusion set out in paragraph 70, an extension of the delivery limit is not defensible, and for this reason the Commission cannot authorise an extension of the delivery limit for hull 6079,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
The three-year delivery limit laid down in Article 3(2) of Council Regulation No 1540/98 cannot be extended for ship 6079 built by Fincantieri.
The contract-related operating aid for the ship may accordingly not be implemented.
Article 2
Italy shall inform the Commission, within two months of notification of this Decision, of the measures taken to comply with it.
Article 3
This Decision is addressed to the Italian Republic.
Done at Brussels, 23 November 2005.
|
[
0,
1,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 334/2007
of 28 March 2007
amending Regulation (EC) No 1592/2002 of the European Parliament and the Council on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Aviation Safety Agency
(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 1592/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2002 on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Aviation Safety Agency (1), and in particular Article 6(2) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1592/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council requires products, parts and appliances to comply with the environmental protection requirements of Annex 16 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation (hereinafter ‘Chicago Convention’) as issued in March 2002 for Volume I and November 1999 for Volume II, except for its Appendices.
(2)
The Chicago Convention and its annexes have been amended since the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 1592/2002.
(3)
Therefore Regulation (EC) No 1592/2002 should be amended in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 54(3) of the same Regulation.
(4)
The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the European Aviation Safety Agency Committee established by Article 54 of Regulation (EC) No 1592/2002,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
In Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 1592/2002, the first paragraph is replaced by the following:
‘1. Products, parts and appliances shall comply with the environmental protection requirements contained in Amendment 8 of Volume I and in Amendment 5 of Volume II of Annex 16 to the Chicago Convention as applicable on 24 November 2005, except for the Appendices to Annex 16.’
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, 28 March 2007.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION of 28 November 1997 approving the 1998 programmes for the eradication of anaplasmosis and babesiosis in Réunion and of cowdriosis and babesiosis in Martinique presented by France and fixing the Community financial contribution (Only the French text is authentic) (98/46/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Decision 90/424/EEC of 26 June 1990 on expenditure in the veterinary field (1), as last amended by Decision 94/370/EC (2), and in particular Article 24 (6) thereof,
Whereas Decision 90/424/EEC provides, in particular, for the possibility of a Community financial measure for the eradication and monitoring of cowdriosis, babesiosis and anaplasmosis transmitted by insect vectors in the French overseas departments;
Whereas France presented a programme for the eradication of anaplasmosis and babesiosis in Réunion and a programme for the eradication of cowdriosis and babesiosis in Martinique;
Whereas after examination, the programmes for Réunion and Martinique have been found to fulfil all the Community criteria for the eradication of diseases, pursuant to Council Decision 90/638/EEC of 27 November 1990 laying down Community criteria for the eradication and monitoring of certain animal diseases (3), as amended by Directive 92/65/EEC (4);
Whereas the abovementioned programmes are included in the list of programmes for the eradication and monitoring of animal diseases which may receive a financial contribution from the Community in 1998, as laid down in Commission Decision 97/681/EC (5);
Whereas in view of the programmes' important role in achieving the objectives pursued by the Community as regards animal health, the Community's financial contribution should be set at 50 % of the costs borne by France, up to a maximum of ECU 500 000;
Whereas the Community will make a financial contribution provided that the measures planned are carried out and the authorities supply all the information necessary within the time limit laid down;
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. The programme for the eradication of anaplasmosis and babesiosis in Réunion presented by France is approved for the period 1 January to 31 December 1998.
2. The programme for the eradication of cowdriosis and babesiosis in Martinique presented by France is approved for the period 1 January to 31 December 1998.
Article 2
France shall bring into force by 1 January 1998 the laws, regulations and administrative provisions to implement the programmes referred to in Article 1.
Article 3
1. The Community financial contribution shall be 50 % of the costs borne by France for the implementation of the programmes referred to in Article 1, up to a maximum of ECU 500 000 for the programmes referred to in Article I.
2. The Community's financial contribution shall be granted after:
- a quarterly report has been forwarded to the Commission on the progress of each programme and the expenditure incurred,
- a final report has been forwarded to the Commission by 1 June 1999 at the latest on the technical implementation of each programme, accompanied by supporting documents relating to the expenditure incurred.
Article 4
This Decision is addressed to the French Republic.
Done at Brussels, 28 November 1997.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION of 20 December 1993 concerning the conclusion on behalf of the European Coal and Steel Community of the Additional Protocol to the interim Agreement on trade and trade-related matters between the European Economic Community and the European Coal and Steel Community and the Republic of Poland and to the Europe Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States and the Republic of Poland (94/50/ECSC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community, and in particular the first paragraph of Article 95 thereof,
Having regard to the conclusions of the European Council which has taken place in Copenhagen on 21 and 22 June 1993,
Whereas the Commission has negotiated on behalf of the Communities an Additional Protocol to the Interim Agreement on trade and trade-related matters and to the Europe Agreement with the Republic of Poland;
Whereas it is necessary to approve this Additional Protocol;
Whereas the conclusion of the Additional Protocol is necessary to attain the objectives of the Community set out in particular in Articles 2 and 3 of the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community;
Whereas the Treaty did not make provision for all the cases covered by this Decision;
Having consulted the Consultative Committee and with the unanimous assent of the Council,
HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Article 1
The Additional Protocol to the Interim Agreement on trade and trade-related matters between the European Economic Community and the European Coal and Steel Community, of the one part, and the Republic of Poland, of the other part and to the Europe Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States of the one part and the Republic of Poland of the other part, is hereby approved on behalf of the European Coal and Steel Community.
This text is attached to this Decision (1).
Article 2
The President of the Commission shall give the notification provided for in Article 8 of the Additional Protocol on behalf of the European Coal and Steel Community.
Done at Brussels, 20 December 1993.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1935/2002
of 29 October 2002
amending for the seventh time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and extending the freeze of funds and other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1893/2002(2), and in particular Article 7(1), first indent, thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 lists the persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation.
(2) On 25 October 2002, the Sanctions Committee decided to amend the list of persons, groups and entities to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources shall apply and, therefore, Annex I should be amended accordingly.
(3) In order to ensure that the measures provided for in this Regulation are effective, this Regulation must enter into force immediately,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is amended in accordance with 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.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 29 October 2002.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 839/2004
of 28 April 2004
fixing the adjustment coefficients to be applied to the provisional reference quantities of traditional operators and the provisional allocations of non-traditional operators for the purposes of the additional quantity provided for with a view to issuing import licences for bananas in May 2004
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 838/2004 of 28 April 2004 on transitional measures for imports of bananas into the Community by reason of the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia(1), and in particular Articles 6(2) and 7(2) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Regulation (EC) No 838/2004 fixed the quantity available for the issue of licences in May 2004 with a view to importing bananas into the new Member States at 87000 tonnes, broken down into 72210 tonnes for traditional operators and 14790 tonnes for non-traditional operators. To ensure that this quantity is complied with, and in the light of the notifications from the national authorities, Articles 6(2) and 7(2) of the above Regulation provide that adjustment coefficients are to be fixed for applying to the provisional specific reference quantities of traditional operators and the applications for provisional specific allocations made by non-traditional operators, as the case may be.
(2) According to the notifications from the national authorities, the total provisional specific reference quantities of traditional operators amount to 574641,501 tonnes. The total applications for provisional specific allocations made by non-traditional operators amount to 203401,506 tonnes.
(3) The adjustment coefficients to be applied for the purposes of determining the quantities for which import licence applications lodged at the beginning of May may be issued should therefore be fixed accordingly for traditional and non-traditional operators.
(4) In order that importers can lodge licence applications at the beginning of May 2004, this Regulation must enter into force immediately,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
For the purposes of the available quantity for which licences may be issued in May 2004 for importing bananas into the new Member States, fixed in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 838/2004:
(a) the adjustment coefficient to be applied to the provisional specific reference quantity of each traditional operator as referred to in Article 6(2) of the above Regulation shall be 0,67019;
(b) the adjustment coefficient to be applied to the application for a provisional specific allocation made by each non-traditional operator as referred to in Article 7(2) of the above Regulation shall be 0,25073.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 May 2004.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 28 April 2004.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION
of 8 August 2005
concerning the placing on the market, in accordance with Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, of a maize product (Zea mays L., line MON 863) genetically modified for resistance to corn rootworm
(notified under document number C(2005) 2950)
(Only the German text is authentic)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2005/608/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 18(1) thereof,
After consulting the European Food Safety Authority,
Whereas:
(1)
Pursuant to Directive 2001/18/EC, the placing on the market of a product containing or consisting of a genetically modified organism or a combination of genetically modified organisms is subject to written consent being granted by the competent authority of a Member State, in accordance with the procedure laid down in that Directive.
(2)
A notification concerning the placing on the market of two genetically modified maize products (Zea mays L., line MON 863 and hybrid MON 863 × MON 810) was submitted by Monsanto SA to the competent authority of Germany.
(3)
The notification covers importation and use as for any other maize grains including feed but not food use, with the exception of the cultivation in the Community of varieties derived from the MON 863 transformation event as well as with the exception of the cultivation in the Community of MON 863 × MON 810 hybrids.
(4)
In accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 14 of Directive 2001/18/EC, the competent authority of Germany prepared an assessment report, which was submitted to the Commission and the competent authorities of the other Member States. That assessment report concludes that no reasons have emerged on the basis of which consent for the placing on the market of MON 863 maize as well as MON 863 × MON 810 maize should be withheld, if specific conditions are fulfilled.
(5)
The competent authorities of other Member States raised objections to the placing on the market of the product.
(6)
The opinion adopted on 2 April 2004 by the European Food Safety Authority, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (2), concluded, from all evidence provided, that Zea mays L. line MON 863 is unlikely to have an adverse effect on human and animal health or the environment in the context of its proposed use. The European Food Safety Authority also found that the scope of the monitoring plan provided by the consent holder is in line with the intended uses of MON 863.
(7)
Concerning the hybrid MON 863 × MON 810, the European Food Safety Authority considered that it is scientifically valid to use the data from the single lines MON 863 and MON 810 to support the safety assessment of the hybrid MON 863 × MON 810, but decided regarding the need for confirmatory data for the safety assessment of the hybrid itself, to request a 90-day sub-chronic rat study with the maize hybrid in order to complete its safety assessment. Thus, only the safety assessment of the maize line MON 863 has been finalised.
(8)
An examination of each of the objections in the light of Directive 2001/18/EC, of the information submitted in the notification and of the opinion of the European Food Safety Authority, discloses no reason to believe that the placing on the market of Zea mays L. line MON 863 will adversely affect human or animal health or the environment.
(9)
A unique identifier should be assigned to the MON 863 maize for the purposes of Regulation (EC) No 1830/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 concerning the traceability and labelling of genetically modified organisms and the traceability of food and feed products produced from genetically modified organisms and amending Directive 2001/18/EC (3) and Commission Regulation (EC) No 65/2004 of 14 January 2004 establishing a system for the development and assignment of unique identifiers for genetically modified organisms (4).
(10)
Adventitious or technically unavoidable traces of genetically modified organisms in products are exempted from labelling and traceability requirements in accordance with thresholds established under Directive 2001/18/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed (5).
(11)
In light of the opinion of the European Food Safety Authority, it is not necessary to establish specific conditions for the intended uses with regard to the handling or packaging of the product and the protection of particular ecosystems, environments or geographical areas.
(12)
Prior to the placing on the market of the product, the necessary measures to ensure its labelling and traceability at all stages of its placing on the market, including verification by appropriate validated detection methodology, should be applicable.
(13)
The measures provided for in this Decision are not in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established under Article 30 of Directive 2001/18/EC and the Commission therefore submitted to the Council a proposal relating to these measures. Since on the expiry of the period laid down in Article 30(2) of Directive 2001/18/EC the Council had neither adopted the proposed measures nor indicated its opposition to them in accordance with Article 5(6) of Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission (6) the measures should be adopted by the Commission,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
Consent
Without prejudice to other Community legislation, in particular Regulation (EC) No 258/97 and Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, written consent shall be granted by the competent authority of Germany to the placing on the market, in accordance with this Decision, of the product identified in Article 2, as notified by Monsanto Europe SA (Reference C/DE/02/9).
The consent shall, in accordance with Article 19(3) of Directive 2001/18/EC, explicitly specify the conditions to which the consent is subject, which are set out in Articles 3 and 4.
Article 2
Product
1. The genetically modified organisms to be placed on the market as or in products, hereinafter ‘the product’, are grains of maize (Zea mays L.), with resistance to the corn rootworm (Diabrotica spp.), derived from the Zea mays cell culture line AT824 (initiated from immature embryos of an inbred maize line AT), which has been transformed using particle acceleration technology with a MluI DNA restriction fragment isolated from plasmid PV-ZMIR13.
The product contains the following DNA in two cassettes:
(a)
Cassette 1:
A modified cry3Bb1 gene derived from Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. kumamotoensis, which confers resistance to the corn rootworm Diabrotica spp., under the regulation of the 4AS1 promoter derived from Cauliflower Mosaic Virus, the wtCAB translation enhancer from wheat (Triticum aestivum), the transcription enhancer ract1 intron from the actin 1 gene of rice (Oryza sativa) and terminator sequences tahsp 17 3’ from wheat.
(b)
Cassette 2:
The nptII gene from E. coli, which confers resistance to aminoglycosides comprising kanamycin and neomycin, under the regulation of the 35S Cauliflower Mosaic Virus promoter, and the NOS 3’ terminator sequences from Agrobacterium tumefaciens as well as the non-functional, truncated ble gene from E. coli.
2. The consent shall cover grains from progeny derived from crosses of maize line MON 863 with any traditionally bred maize as or in products.
Article 3
Conditions for placing on the market
The product may be put to the same uses as any other maize, with the exception of cultivation and uses as or in food, and may be placed on the market subject to the following conditions:
(a)
the period of validity of the consent shall be 10 years starting from the date on which the consent is issued;
(b)
the unique identifier of the product shall be MON-ØØ863-5;
(c)
without prejudice to Article 25 of Directive 2001/18/EC, the consent holder shall, whenever requested to do so, make positive and negative control samples of the product, or its genetic material, or reference materials available to the competent authorities and inspection services of Member States as well as to the Community control laboratories;
(d)
without prejudice to specific labelling requirements provided by Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 the words ‘This product contains genetically modified organisms’ or ‘This product contains genetically modified MON 863 maize’ shall appear either on a label or in a document accompanying the product, except where other Community legislation sets a threshold below which such information is not required;
(e)
as long as the product has not been authorised for the placing on the market for the purpose of cultivation, the words ‘not for cultivation’ shall appear either on a label or in a document accompanying the product.
Article 4
Monitoring
1. Throughout the period of validity of the consent, the consent holder shall ensure that the monitoring plan, contained in the notification, to check for any adverse effects on human and animal health or the environment arising from handling or use of the product, is put in place and implemented.
2. The consent holder shall directly inform the operators and users concerning the safety and general characteristics of the product and of the conditions as to monitoring, including the appropriate management measures to be taken in case of accidental grain spillage.
3. The consent holder shall submit to the Commission and to the competent authorities of the Member States annual reports on the results of the monitoring activities.
4. Without prejudice to Article 20 of Directive 2001/18/EC the monitoring plan as notified shall, where appropriate and subject to the agreement of the Commission and the competent authority of the Member State which received the original notification, be revised by the consent holder, and/or by the competent authority of the Member State which received the original notification, in the light of the results of the monitoring activities.
5. The consent holder shall be in the position to give evidence to the Commission and the competent authorities of the Member States:
(a)
that the monitoring networks as specified in the monitoring plan contained in the notification collect the information relevant for the monitoring of the product and
(b)
that the members of these networks have agreed to make available that information to the consent holder before the date of the submission of the monitoring reports to the Commission and competent authorities of the Member States in accordance with paragraph 3.
Article 5
Applicability
This Decision shall apply from the date on which a Community Decision authorising the placing on the market of the product referred to in Article 1 for uses as or in food within the meaning of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 and including a method, validated by the Community reference laboratory, for detection of the product is applicable.
Article 6
Addressee
This Decision is addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany.
Done at Brussels, 8 August 2005.
|
[
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 638/2008
of 4 July 2008
establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),
Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules of 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:
(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 5 July 2008.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 4 July 2008.
|
[
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1911/2006
of 19 December 2006
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of solutions of urea and ammonium nitrate originating in Algeria, Belarus, Russia and Ukraine following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (the basic Regulation) and in particular Article 11(2) thereof,
Having regard to the proposal submitted by the Commission after consulting the Advisory Committee,
Whereas:
A. PROCEDURE
1. Measures in force
(1)
On 23 September 2000 the Council imposed, by Regulation (EC) No 1995/2000 (2), definitive anti-dumping measures on imports of solutions of urea and ammonium nitrate (UAN) originating in Algeria, Belarus, Russia, Ukraine and Lithuania. The measures imposed on imports of UAN originating in Lithuania lapsed after enlargement of the European Union on 1 May 2004. The investigation that led to these measures will be referred to as ‘the original investigation’.
(2)
The measures applying to these imports consisted of specific duties, except for imports from one Algerian exporting producer from which an undertaking was accepted.
2. Request for a review
(3)
On 20 June 2005, a request for an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, was lodged following the publication of a notice of impending expiry on 17 December 2004 (3). This request was lodged by the European Fertiliser Manufacturers Association (EFMA) (the applicant) on behalf of producers representing a major proportion, in this case more than 50 % of the total Community production of UAN.
(4)
The applicant alleged and provided sufficient prima facie evidence that there is a likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury to the Community industry with regard to imports of UAN originating in Algeria, Belarus, Russia and Ukraine (the countries concerned).
(5)
Having determined, after consulting the Advisory Committee, that sufficient evidence existed for the initiation of an expiry review, the Commission announced on 22 September 2005, by a notice of initiation published in the Official Journal of the European Union (4), the initiation of an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation.
3. Investigation
3.1. Investigation period
(6)
The investigation of continuation or recurrence of dumping covered the period from 1 July 2004 to 30 June 2005 (review investigation period or RIP). The examination of the trends relevant for the assessment of a likelihood of a continuation or recurrence of injury covered the period from 2002 to the end of the review investigation period (period considered).
3.2. Parties concerned by the investigation
(7)
The Commission officially advised the exporting producers, importers and users known to be concerned and their associations, the representatives of the exporting countries, the complainant and the Community producers of the initiation of the expiry review. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set out in the notice of initiation.
(8)
All interested parties, who so requested and showed that there were particular reasons why they should be heard, were granted a hearing.
(9)
In view of the large number of Community producers and of importers in the Community not related to an exporting producer in one of the countries concerned, it was considered appropriate, in conformity with Article 17 of the basic Regulation, to examine whether sampling should be used. In order to enable the Commission to decide whether sampling would indeed be necessary and, if so, to select a sample, the above parties were requested, pursuant to Article 17(2) of the basic Regulation, to make themselves known within 15 days of the initiation of the investigation and to provide the Commission with the information requested in the notice of initiation.
(10)
After examination of the information submitted, and given the high number of Community producers which indicated their willingness to cooperate, it was decided that sampling was necessary with regard to Community producers. Given the fact that only one importer provided the information requested in the notice of initiation and expressed its willingness to further cooperate with the Commission services, it was decided that sampling was not necessary with regard to importers.
(11)
Questionnaires were sent to the four sampled Community producers and to all known exporting producers.
(12)
Replies to the questionnaires were received from the four sampled Community producers and six exporting producers in the countries concerned, as well as from their related traders.
(13)
One producer in the analogue country provided a complete questionnaire reply.
(14)
The Commission sought and verified all the information it deemed necessary for a determination of the likely continuation or recurrence of dumping and resulting injury and of the Community interest. Verification visits were carried out at the premises of the following companies:
(a)
Exporting producer in Russia
-
JSC Mineral and Chemical Company (Eurochem), Moscow, Russia, and its two related manufacturing companies:
-
PJSC Azot (NAK Azot), Novomoskovsk, Russia, and
-
PJSC Nevinnomyssky Azot (Nevinka Azot), Nevinnomyssk, Russia;
(b)
Related trader to Eurochem
-
Eurochem Trading GmbH, Zug, Switzerland - (Eurochem Trading);
(c)
Related trader to the Ukrainian producer Stirol
-
IBE Trading, New York, New York, USA;
(d)
Producer in the analogue country
-
Terra Industries, Sioux City, Iowa, USA;
(e)
Sampled Community producers
-
Achema AB, Jonava, Lithuania,
-
Grande Paroisse SA, Paris, France,
-
SKW Stickstoffwerke Piesteritz GmbH, Wittenberg, Germany,
-
Yara SA, Brussels, Belgium and its related producer Yara Sluiskil BV, Sluiskil, The Netherlands.
3.3. Sampling
(15)
Ten Community producers properly completed the sampling form within the deadline and formally agreed to cooperate further in the investigation. With regard to those 10 Community producers, the Commission selected, in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation, a sample based on the largest representative volume of production and sales of UAN in the Community which can reasonably be investigated within the time available. The four sampled Community producers accounted for 63 % of the total Community industry production during the RIP, whilst the above 10 Community producers accounted for 75 % of the total Community production during the RIP.
(16)
In accordance with Article 17(2) of the basic Regulation, the parties concerned were consulted on the sample chosen and raised no objection thereto.
B. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT
1. Product concerned
(17)
The product concerned is the same as in the original investigation, i.e. a solution of urea and ammonium nitrate, a liquid fertiliser commonly used in agriculture, originating in the countries concerned. It consists of a mixture of urea, ammonium nitrate and water. The nitrogen (N) content is the most significant ‘feature’ of the product, and it can vary between 28 % and 32 %. Such variation can be obtained by adding more or less water to the solution. Most of the imported UAN was 32 % N, which is more concentrated, and therefore cheaper to ship. However, whatever their nitrogen content, all solutions of urea and ammonium nitrate are considered to have the same basic physical and chemical characteristics and therefore constitute a single product for the purpose of this investigation. The product concerned falls within CN code 3102 80 00.
2. Like product
(18)
As established in the original investigation, this review investigation confirmed that UAN is a pure commodity product, and its quality and basic physical characteristics are identical whatever the country of origin. The product concerned and the products manufactured and sold by the exporting producers on the domestic market in the countries concerned, as well as those manufactured and sold by the Community producers on the Community market and by the producer in the analogue country on the domestic market of the analogue country have thus been found to have the same basic physical and chemical characteristics and essentially the same uses and are therefore considered to be like products within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.
C. LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF DUMPING
1. Dumping of imports during the RIP
(19)
In accordance with Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, it was examined whether the expiry of the measures would be likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping.
(20)
During the RIP, exports to the Community of UAN originating in the countries concerned only took place from Algeria. Thus, a dumping calculation to examine whether there was likelihood of continuation of dumping was carried out for the two cooperating Algerian exporting producers. For the other cooperating exporting producers in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine, the investigation focused on the likelihood of recurrence of dumping.
(21)
The only two Algerian producers of UAN, Fertalge and Fertial, cooperated in the investigation. These two producers represented the totality of exports of UAN originating in Algeria to the Community during the RIP, which corresponded to 177 383 tonnes. Imports into the Community of the product concerned originating in Algeria represented 4,8 % of Community consumption which was 3 694 531 tonnes in the RIP. Imports from Algeria thus went up from 116 461 tonnes by 52 % in comparison to the original investigation period.
(22)
Therefore, the examination of dumping based on the information provided by these two cooperating exporting producers was considered to also be representative for the country as a whole.
(23)
It was first established for each of the two cooperating exporting producers whether its total domestic sales of UAN were representative in accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation, i.e. whether they accounted for 5 % or more of the total sales volume of the product concerned exported to the Community. The investigation showed that both companies only sold one type of UAN to the Community and that this type was not sold in representative quantities on the domestic market.
(24)
Therefore, for both exporting producers normal value could not be based on domestic sales and had to be constructed pursuant to Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation by adding to each exporter's cost of manufacturing of the product exported to the Community a reasonable amount for selling, general and administrative costs (SG&A costs) and a reasonable profit margin.
(25)
Regarding the cost of manufacturing, it should be noted that energy costs, such as electricity and gas, represent a major proportion of the manufacturing cost and a significant proportion of the total cost of production. In accordance with Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation, it was examined whether the costs associated with the production and sales of the product under consideration were reasonably reflected in the records of the parties concerned.
(26)
The investigation showed no indication that the electricity would not be reasonably reflected in the records of the exporting producers. In this context, it is inter alia noted that electricity prices paid by the Algerian producers during the RIP were in line with international market prices, when compared to other countries, such as Canada and Norway. However, the same could not be said with regard to gas prices.
(27)
As concerns gas supplies, in fact, it was established on the basis of data published by internationally recognised sources specialised in energy markets, that the price paid by the Algerian producer was less than one fifth of the export price of natural gas from Algeria. In addition, all available data indicates that domestic gas prices in Algeria were regulated prices, which are far below market prices paid for natural gas, for example in the USA, Canada, Japan and the EU. These four markets account for a total of 46 % of worldwide gas consumption, and the prevailing domestic price levels in these four markets appear to reasonably reflect costs. Moreover, the price of gas paid by the companies concerned was significantly lower than the gas price paid by the Community producers.
(28)
In view of the above, it was considered that the gas prices paid in Algeria during the review investigation period could not reasonably reflect the costs associated with the production and distribution of gas. Therefore, as provided for in Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation, the gas costs borne by one cooperating exporting producer, Fertial, were adjusted on the basis of information from other representative markets. The adjusted price was based on the average price during the RIP of Algerian liquefied natural gas (LNG) when sold for export at the French border, net of sea freight and liquefaction costs, since this was considered to be the most appropriate basis, as this public information refers exclusively to gas of Algerian origin. France, being both the largest market for Algerian gas and having prices reasonably reflecting costs, can be considered a representative market within the meaning of Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation. The other cooperating company, Fertalge, did not use natural gas as a raw material, since it produces UAN from ammonium nitrate (AN), that is produced locally, and urea. Since the cost of AN produced locally reflected Algerian domestic gas price mentioned in recital 27, the costs of AN borne by this company were adjusted accordingly.
(29)
The manufacturing costs provided by the cooperating exporting producers were therefore recalculated in order to take account of the adjusted gas prices, using equally the prices of gas when sold at the French border, net of sea freight and liquefaction costs. To the manufacturing cost so recalculated, a reasonable amount for SG&A and a reasonable profit margin were added, in accordance with Article 2(3) and Article 2(6) of the basic Regulation.
(30)
SG&A costs and profit could not be established on the basis of the chapeau of Article 2(6) of the basic Regulation because the two cooperating companies did not have representative domestic sales of the product concerned in the ordinary course of trade. Article 2(6)(a) of the basic Regulation could not be applied, since the two cooperating producers are the only two producers of UAN in Algeria. Article 2(6)(b) was not applicable either, since the manufacturing cost for products belonging to the same general category of goods would also need to be adjusted in respect of gas costs, for the reasons indicated in recital 28 above. As it was found to be impossible to establish the magnitude of the necessary adjustment for all products belonging to the same general category of goods sold domestically, it was equally impossible to establish the profit margins after such adjustment. Therefore, SG&A costs and profit were established pursuant to Article 2(6)(c) of the basic Regulation.
(31)
In accordance with Article 2(6)(c) of the basic Regulation, the SG&A costs and profit were determined on the basis of a reasonable method. As the Algerian domestic market of products of the same general category is extremely small, information had to be obtained from other representative markets. In this respect, consideration was given to publicly available information relating to major companies operating in the nitrogen fertilisers business sector. It was found that the corresponding data from North American (USA and Canada) producers would be the most appropriate for the purpose of the investigation, given the large availability of reliable and complete public financial information from listed companies in this region of the world. Moreover, the North American market showed a significant volume of domestic sales and a considerable level of competition from both domestic and foreign companies. Therefore, SG&A costs and profit were established on the basis of the weighted average SG&A costs and profit from three North American producers, which were found to be amongst the largest companies in the fertilisers’ sector, with regard to their north American sales of the same general category of products (nitrogen fertilisers). These three producers were considered to be representative of the nitrogen fertilisers’ business (on average over 80 % of the turnover of the company/business segment) and their SG&A costs and profit as representative of the same type of costs normally incurred by companies operating successfully in that business segment. The percentage for SG&A costs was 6,9 % of turnover. The calculated average profit margin was 9,1 % of turnover. Furthermore, there is no indication suggesting that the amount for profit so established exceeds the profit normally realised by Algerian producers on sales of products of the same general category in the Algerian market.
(32)
In accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation, the export price was established on the basis of the price actually paid or payable for the product concerned when sold for export to the Community.
(33)
The normal value and export price were compared on an ex-works basis. For the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison between the normal value and the export price, due allowance in the form of adjustments was made for differences affecting price and price comparability in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation. Accordingly, adjustments were made for differences in transport, handling, loading and ancillary costs, where applicable and supported by verified evidence.
(34)
The dumping margin for each exporting producer was established on the basis of a comparison of a weighted average normal value with a weighted average export price, in accordance with Article 2(11) and (12) of the basic Regulation.
(35)
The investigation showed that dumping took place during the RIP even at a higher level than in the original investigation. The dumping margins expressed as a percentage of the cif Community frontier price, are in the range of 50 % to 60 %.
2. Development of imports should measures be repealed
2.1. Algeria
(36)
The two Algerian cooperating exporting producers represent the totality of imports of the product concerned from this country into the Community. Therefore, the examination of whether it would be likely that dumping continues should measures for Algeria be repealed was based on the information provided by these two cooperating exporting producers.
(37)
Algerian cooperating producers managed to double their production capacity while they increased their production by around 20 % during the period considered. Therefore, their spare capacity has significantly increased from less than 100 000 tonnes to 300 000 to 350 000 tonnes.
(38)
Since the Algerian domestic market is insignificant and this is not likely to change in the future, any increase in production will be export-oriented. By activating their spare capacity, the two cooperating exporting producers could supply 10 % to 20 % of the Community consumption.
(39)
Given that dumping continued during the RIP and on the basis of the spare capacity that the Algerian cooperating producers have built up, it is likely that the volume of Algerian exports into the Community will increase at dumped prices should measures lapse.
(40)
In the light of the above, there is likelihood of continuation of dumped exports to the Community should measures be repealed.
(41)
The normal value established for both companies significantly exceeded EU market prices during the RIP. It cannot be excluded that Algerian exporting producers would continue to sell to the Community at dumped prices, whether they have to pay duties or not.
2.2. Relationship between the constructed normal value in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine and export prices to third countries
2.2.1. Belarus and Ukraine: domestic sales prices based on the analogue country
(42)
A comparison of domestic sales prices of UAN in Belarus and Ukraine and export prices to third countries was carried out. In this respect it should be noted that since Belarus is considered a non-market economy country and Ukraine was not yet considered a market economy country at the time of the lodging of the request for the expiry review (5), the normal value for these two countries had to be determined on the basis of data obtained from producers in a market economy third country, in accordance with Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation. In the notice of initiation, the USA was envisaged as an appropriate analogue country, being an open competitive market, where producers face a considerable level of competition from foreign imports.
(43)
All interested parties were given the opportunity to comment on the choice of the analogue country.
(44)
The European Fertilisers Importers Association, EFIA, proposed Algeria or Russia as better options, given their privileged access to the main raw material, namely gas, and since they were market economy countries subject to the same investigation. In this respect, it should be pointed out that Article 2(7)(a) requires, before any further considerations, an ‘appropriate’ market economy third country. While access to raw materials is an important factor as regards the choice of the analogue country, it should also be noted that the existence of dual pricing in relation to gas in these two countries made in fact these two countries an inappropriate choice. Indeed, the gas prices charged in these two countries to their domestic customers do not reflect the market value.
(45)
Some interested parties alleged, although without substantiating their claim, that Russian and Algerian production processes are more similar to the ones in Belarus and Ukraine. Algeria was also suggested as having a more similar level of production to Ukraine. In this respect, it must be stressed that Belarus, Ukraine and the USA have all fully vertically integrated producers, which is definitely not the case for Algeria.
(46)
A Ukrainian cooperating producer proposed Bulgaria or Romania rather than the USA. However, its proposal was not substantiated. In addition, an important factor against Bulgaria or Romania is that their domestic markets are small with a limited number of manufacturers, contrary to the USA.
(47)
Therefore, the investigation confirmed that the USA was an appropriate analogue country. Various producers and producers’ associations in the USA were contacted and invited to cooperate through the completion of a questionnaire. One producer in the USA fully cooperated in the investigation. Consequently, calculations were based on the verified information from the sole USA cooperating producer, which provided a complete questionnaire reply.
2.2.2. Belarus
(48)
The sole cooperating producer in Belarus was the only exporting producer from that country, but it had no export sales to the Community in the RIP.
(49)
Since there were no exports to the Community for a representative dumping finding in the RIP, and in order to establish whether dumping would be likely to recur should measures be repealed, the pricing behaviour of the cooperating exporting producer to the USA, its sole export market, and its production capacity and stocks were examined. The analysis was based on the information provided by the cooperating exporting producer mentioned in recital 48.
(50)
Data from the cooperating exporting producer showed that export prices to third countries (USA) were lower than the constructed normal value for Belarus. In fact, the investigation established that overall this price difference ranged in the RIP between 10 % and 15 %. This may indicate a likelihood of recurrence of dumping on exports to the Community should measures be repealed. Stocks and production capacity, as well as a comparison of these export prices with the prevailing price level in the Community, are examined below.
2.2.3. Ukraine
(51)
Two exporting producers cooperated in the investigation, but none of them had export sales to the Community in the RIP. There are no indications that there were more exporting producers in Ukraine.
(52)
Since there were no exports to the Community for a representative dumping finding in the RIP, and in order to establish whether dumping would be likely to recur should measures be repealed, the pricing behaviour of the cooperating exporting producer to the USA, its sole export market, and its production capacity and stocks were examined. The analysis was based on the information provided by the two cooperating exporting producer mentioned in recital 51.
(53)
The two cooperating exporting producers represented 48 % of imports into the USA of the product concerned originating in Ukraine during the RIP. The remainder of the imports in the USA originating in Ukraine were also produced by one of the cooperating producers, but exported by an unrelated Ukrainian company, which does not produce UAN.
(54)
Data from the cooperating exporting producers showed that export prices to third countries were lower than the constructed normal value for Ukraine. In fact, the investigation established that overall this price difference ranged in the RIP between 20 % and 30 %. This may indicate a likelihood of recurrence of dumping on exports to the Community should measures be repealed. Stocks and production capacity, as well as a comparison of these export prices with the prevailing price level in the Community, are examined below.
2.2.4. Russia
(55)
Two exporting producers belonging to the same group of companies cooperated in the investigation, but no exporting producer had export sales to the Community in the RIP.
(56)
It is known that there was one producer in Russia in the RIP which did not cooperate in the investigation. For those non-cooperating exporting producer(s), the information available from Eurostat and other sources was analysed. On that basis it was found that exports of UAN to the Community from other than the cooperating producers were also non-existent. However, no reliable information as to the production capacity and production volumes, stocks and sales was available for the non-cooperating company. In this respect, and in the absence of any indication of the contrary, it was considered that findings for the non-cooperating company would be in line with those established for cooperating companies.
(57)
Since there were no exports to the Community for a representative dumping finding in the RIP, and in order to establish whether dumping would be likely to recur should the measures be repealed, the pricing behaviour of the cooperating exporting producers to other export markets and their production capacity and stocks were examined. The analysis was based on the information provided by the cooperating exporting producers mentioned in recital 55.
(58)
It was examined whether the costs associated with the production and sales of the product under consideration were reasonably reflected in the records of the parties concerned. As regards gas costs, it was found that the domestic gas price paid by the Russian producers was around one fifth of the export price of natural gas from Russia. In this regard, all available data indicates that domestic gas prices in Russia were regulated prices, which are far below market prices paid in unregulated markets for natural gas. Therefore, as provided for in Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation, the gas costs borne by the Russian producers were adjusted on the basis of information from other representative markets. The adjusted price was based on the average price of Russian gas when sold for export at the German/Czech border (Waidhaus), net of transport costs. Waidhaus, being the main hub for Russian gas sales to the EU, which is both the largest market for Russian gas and has prices reasonably reflecting costs, can be considered a representative market within the meaning of Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation.
(59)
The construction of the normal value was done on the basis of the manufacturing costs of the product type exported, after the adjustment for the gas cost mentioned in recital 58, plus a reasonable amount SG&A costs and for profits, in accordance with Article 2(3) and Article 2(6) of the basic Regulation.
(60)
As for Algeria, SG&A costs and profit could not be established on the basis of the chapeau of Article 2(6), first sentence, of the basic Regulation because the related manufacturers did not have representative domestic sales of the product concerned in the ordinary course of trade. Article 2(6)(a) of the basic Regulation could not be applied, since there are only these two producers subject to the investigation. Article 2(6)(b) was not applicable either, since the manufacturing costs for products belonging to the same general category of goods would also need to be adjusted in respect of gas costs, for the reasons indicated in recital 58 above. As it was found to be impossible to establish the magnitude of the necessary adjustment for all products belonging to the same general category of goods sold domestically, it is equally impossible to establish the profit margins after such adjustment. Therefore, SG&A costs and profit were established pursuant to Article 2(6)(c) of the basic Regulation.
(61)
As in the case of Algeria and for the same reasons as explained in recital 31, SG&A costs and profit were established on the basis of the weighted average SG&A costs and profit from the same three North American producers. It should be noted that the amount for profit so established did not exceed the profit realised by the Russian producers on sales of products of the same general category on their domestic market.
(62)
It was found that the export sales of the two cooperating producers were made on the basis of an agent agreement through two related traders, one located in Switzerland and the other one on the British Virgin Islands. The latter ceased to operate at the beginning of 2005. The export price was established on the basis of export prices actually paid or payable to the first independent customer in the USA, their major export market.
(63)
Data from the two related traders showed that export prices to third countries were lower than the constructed normal value in Russia. In fact, the investigation established that overall this price difference ranged in the RIP between 2 % and 6 %. This may indicate a likelihood of recurrence of dumping on exports to the Community should measures be repealed.
2.3. Spare capacity in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine
(64)
The possible effects of existing spare capacity were also examined. Neither Russia nor Ukraine has a relevant domestic market for UAN. On the contrary, Belarus is considered to have a considerable domestic market for this product.
(65)
The Belarusian sole producer managed to increase its production by 14 % during the period considered, and was producing close to full capacity during the RIP. Its production capacity during the same period remained stable. It sold around 60 % of its production domestically, the remainder being exported to the USA. It therefore appears that this producer does not have any spare production capacity readily available.
(66)
The Russian sole cooperating producer increased its production by 78 % during the period considered. Its production capacity during the same period remained stable. However, according to the information submitted, this producer still has significant available capacity of around 600 000 to 700 000 tonnes to increase its production of UAN, and could, should measures be repealed, use this spare capacity to increase exports to the Community market. Investment made by the company during the period considered suggests a potential further increase in production capacity. It is estimated that Russian overall spare capacity is at least the known 600 000 to 700 000 tonnes, which constitutes around 20 % of Community consumption. Exports to third countries grew by 79 % during the period considered.
(67)
At the same time, the domestic sales of the sole cooperating Russian producer remained at a low level, representing on average less than 5 % of total sales. Since the domestic market cannot absorb the increase in production, any increase in production is likely to be exported.
(68)
As to Ukraine, the two cooperating producers managed to increase production twelvefold during the period considered. Production capacity during the same period increased almost fivefold. In addition, they have considerable spare capacity to increase exports to the Community market in significant volumes should measures be repealed. It is estimated that Ukrainian overall spare capacity amounts to 700 000 to 800 000 tonnes, which constitutes around 20 % of Community consumption. Exports to third countries increased by eightfold during the period considered.
(69)
Ukrainian domestic sales remained at a low level during the period considered, representing on average less than 2 % of total sales. It should be noted that growth of the domestic market cannot absorb the increase in production and therefore any increase in production is likely to be exported.
(70)
On the basis of the above, it can be concluded that the cooperating producers, with the exception of Belarus, have substantial spare capacity to increase their exports to the Community market should measures be repealed.
2.4. Relationship between export prices to third countries and the prevailing price level in the Community
(71)
It should be noted that the generally prevailing price level of the Community producers in the Community was lower than the average export price level of the exporting producers to third countries during the RIP, especially to the USA. This is explained by the fact that gas prices, which constitute more than 50 % of the manufacturing costs, and thus UAN prices, were higher in the USA than in Europe, and that accordingly UAN traded at a higher price in the USA.
(72)
It should be noted that the export prices from the countries concerned to the USA were on average lower than the respective normal values, even though the prevailing price level in the USA was higher than prices in the Community. It can therefore be concluded that any sales to the EC market would most probably be at dumped prices.
2.5. Incentive to shift sales from other markets to the Community
(73)
With regard to Belarus, there is a rapidly growing domestic market on which the sole producer sells two thirds of its production. Given that the domestic price is less than a half of the prevailing price in the Community during the RIP, there is likelihood that a rational economic decision leads the Belarusian producer to redirect significant quantities currently sold on the domestic market to the Community market at dumped prices.
(74)
In this respect, it should also be noted that the Belarusian producer who is currently exporting the remaining third to other markets would have considerable transport cost advantages when exporting to the Community instead, given its proximity to the Community border compared to other potential export markets for the Belarusian producer such as the USA, Argentina or Australia.
(75)
In the light of the above, there is likelihood that the Belarusian producer would redirect significant parts of its sales to the Community at dumped prices, should measures be repealed, as there are strong economic incentives.
(76)
As already explained in recital 20, in the absence of exports to the Community during the RIP by Belarus, Russia and Ukraine, dumping from these countries could not be established in respect of exports to the Community. However, as explained in section 2, the investigation has shown that on the basis of calculations carried out by using data relating to actual exports from these countries to their major export market, the USA, that there was a likelihood of recurrence of dumping.
3. Conclusion on the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping
(77)
On the basis of the analysis carried out in sections 1 to 5, it is concluded that should measures be repealed, there is likelihood that additional production would be exported to the Community, or sales currently exported to countries outside the Community or sold on the domestic markets would be redirected towards the Community market in significant quantities. It is likely that these exports to the Community will be made at dumped prices, in particular to regain lost market shares in the Community. It can therefore be concluded that, should measures be repealed, future exports to the Community would be made in increased quantities at dumped prices. Moreover, it should be noted that overseas markets are subject to higher transportation costs than the Community market, namely when considering sales from neighbouring countries, such as Belarus and Ukraine to Eastern Europe or Algeria to Southern Europe.
(78)
As regards imports into the Community originating in Algeria, since they are still made at dumped prices, and also on the above analysis of spare capacities and the comparison of price levels, dumping from Algeria is likely to continue in the future. Given that the Community was the only export market for Algeria during the RIP, it is highly likely that Algerian exporters would direct their increased export volumes mainly to this market.
(79)
In the light of the above, it is concluded that there is likelihood of continuation (from Algeria) and recurrence (from Russia, Belarus and Ukraine) of dumping should measures be repealed.
D. INJURY
1. Definition of the Community industry
(80)
Within the Community, the product concerned is manufactured by 12 producers whose output constitutes the total Community production within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the basic Regulation.
(81)
It should be noted that as compared to the original investigation, the ‘Hydro Agri’ companies have been renamed ‘Yara’. Five companies have become part of the Community industry due to the enlargement of the European Union in 2004.
(82)
Out of the 12 Community producers, 10 companies cooperated with the investigation out of which nine were mentioned in the review request. The remaining two producers (other Community producers) remained silent. Accordingly, the following 10 producers agreed to cooperate:
-
Achema AB (Lithuania),
-
AMI Agrolinz Melamine International GmbH (Austria),
-
DSM Agro (The Netherlands),
-
Duslo AS (Slovakia),
-
Fertiberia SA (Spain),
-
Grande Paroisse SA (France),
-
Lovochemie AS (Czech Republic),
-
Nitrogénművek Rt (Hungary),
-
SKW Stickstoffwerke Piesteritz GmbH (Germany),
-
Yara (The Netherlands, Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom).
(83)
As these 10 Community producers accounted for 75 % of the total Community production during the RIP, it is therefore considered that the above 10 Community producers account for a major proportion of the total Community production of the like product. They are therefore deemed to constitute the Community industry within the meaning of Article 4(1) and Article 5(4) of the basic Regulation and will hereinafter be referred to as the ‘Community industry’.
(84)
As indicated under recitals 10, 15 and 16, a sample consisting of four companies was selected. All sampled Community producers cooperated and sent questionnaire replies within the deadlines. In addition, the remaining complainant producers and producers supporting the investigation duly provided certain general data for the injury analysis.
2. Situation on the Community market
2.1. Consumption in the Community market
(85)
The apparent Community consumption was established on the basis of the sales volumes of the Community industry on the Community market, the sales volumes of the other Community producers on the Community market, and Eurostat data for all EU imports. Given the enlargement of the European Union in 2004, for the sake of clarity and consistency of the analysis, the consumption was established on the basis of the EU-25 market throughout the period considered.
(86)
Between 2002 and the RIP, Community consumption increased moderately by 8 %. The increase recorded in 2004 is mainly attributed to the implementation of the common agricultural policy in the new Members States after their accession to the European Union. From 2004, farmers in the new Member States had additional funding available to them which led to increased usage of fertilisers.
2002
2003
2004
RIP
Total EC consumption in tonnes
3 425 381
3 579 487
3 740 087
3 694 532
Index (2002 = 100)
100
104
109
108
2.2. Imports from the countries concerned
2.2.1. Cumulation
(87)
In the original investigation imports of the product concerned originating in Algeria, Belarus, Russia and Ukraine were assessed cumulatively in accordance with Article 3(4) of the basic Regulation. It was examined whether a cumulative assessment was also appropriate in the current investigation.
(88)
In this respect, it was found that there were no imports of the product concerned from Ukraine throughout the period considered and no imports from Belarus and Russia in 2004 and the RIP. Therefore, the conditions set out in Article 3(4) of the basic Regulation to assess cumulatively imports of the product concerned from these countries with imports of the product concerned from Algeria were not fulfilled.
(89)
In the light of the above, it was considered that all four countries should be examined separately.
2.2.2. Volume, market share and prices of imports from each of the countries concerned
(90)
With respect to the three countries concerned with exports to the Community during the period considered, the volumes, market shares and average prices per country developed as set out below. The following quantity and price trends are based on Eurostat.
2002
2003
2004
RIP
Volume of imports from Algeria (tonnes)
97 378
239 348
219 680
177 383
Market share
2,8 %
6,7 %
5,9 %
4,8 %
Prices of imports from Algeria (EUR/tonne)
96
99
117
131
Volume of imports from Belarus (tonnes)
101 479
44 438
-
-
Market share
3,0 %
1,2 %
-
-
Prices of imports from Belarus (EUR/tonne)
74
64
-
-
Volume of imports from Russia (tonnes)
81 901
81 809
-
-
Market share
2,4 %
2,3 %
-
-
Prices of imports from Russia (EUR/tonne)
64
70
-
-
(91)
The volume of imports from Algeria, although decreasing slightly as from 2003 onwards, gained a further 2 percentage points of market share during the period considered, whereas the prices evolved positively from 96 to 131 EUR/tonne. Regarding Belarus and Russia, their respective import volumes decreased substantially and completely ceased from 2004 onwards.
(92)
The investigation showed that imports from Algeria were not undercutting the Community industry prices during the RIP. As for the remaining countries, in the absence of imports during the RIP, a comparison of their export prices to third countries during the RIP with the Community industry prices on the Community market has equally shown no undercutting.
2.3. Imports from other countries
(93)
The volume of imports from other third countries during the period considered are shown in the table below. The following quantity and price trends are also based on Eurostat.
2002
2003
2004
RIP
Volume of imports from Romania (tonnes)
69 733
79 137
257 113
142 288
Market share
2 %
2,2 %
6,9 %
3,9 %
Prices of imports from Romania (EUR/tonne)
94
102
112
123
Volume of imports from USA (tonnes)
26 024
57
20
6
Market share
0,7 %
0,0 %
0,0 %
0,0 %
Prices of imports from USA (EUR/tonne)
86
289 (6)
1 101 (6)
1 664 (6)
(94)
In the case of Romania, a substantial increase of imports was recorded in 2004 gaining a market share of 6,9 %, which nevertheless dropped down to 3,9 % during the RIP in spite of favourable Community market conditions. This development should be seen against the background of the sharp increase of Romanian exports to the USA market, which, in terms of volume, represented more than three times the volumes of Romanian exports to the Community during the RIP. As regards the prices, they have increased steadily throughout the period considered and were consistently higher than the sampled Community industry’s prices in 2004 and the RIP. On this basis, it is not considered that Romanian exporting producers can constitute a threat of material injury to the Community industry. Import from the USA, which only had a market share of 0,7 % in 2002, decreased dramatically to 6 tonnes in the RIP. This trend reflects the fact that sales prices in the USA were higher than sales prices to the EC until the end of the RIP so that there was no incentive for USA producers to export to the EC.
(95)
The European Fertiliser Import Association (EFIA) argued that since the Romanian exports to the Community market do not constitute a threat of material injury although their increase in volume is higher than that of Algerian exports and their prices lower than those charged by Algerian exporters, equally the Algerian exports should not constitute a threat of material injury. In this respect, it should be noted that indeed for Algeria, as indicated in recital 92, no undercutting was found and Algeria was not found to have caused material injury to the Community industry during the period considered. However, the analysis for that country developed in section 4 showed that there is a likelihood of recurrence of injury. In contrast, as anti-dumping duties were not applicable to imports of UAN originating in Romania, this country was not subject to an injury recurrence test pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation. On this basis, the argument was rejected.
3. Economic situation of the Community industry
(96)
Pursuant to Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation, the Commission examined all relevant economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the Community industry.
3.1. Preliminary remarks
(97)
In view of the fact that sampling had been used with regard to the Community industry, the injury has been assessed both on the basis of information collected at the level of the entire Community industry (C.I. in the enclosed tables) and on the basis of information collected at the level of the sampled Community producers (S.P. in the enclosed tables).
(98)
Where recourse is made to sampling, in accordance with established practice, certain injury indicators (production, production capacity, stocks, sales, market share, growth and employment) are analysed for the Community industry as a whole, while those injury indicators relating to the performances of individual companies, i.e. prices, costs of production, profitability, wages, investments, return on investment, cash flow and ability to raise capital are examined on the basis of information collected at the level of the sampled Community producers.
3.2. Data relating to the Community industry as a whole
(a) Production
(99)
The Community industry’s production increased by 5 % between 2002 and the RIP, i.e. from a level of around 2,8 million tonnes in 2002 to a level of around 3 million tonnes in the RIP. Specifically, production decreased by 3 % in 2003, before increasing by 2 percentage points in 2004 and by a further 7 percentage points in the RIP.
2002
2003
2004
RIP
C.I. production (tonnes)
2 843 529
2 768 258
2 823 972
3 003 918
Index (2002 = 100)
100
97
99
106
Source: Complainants, sampling questionnaire replies and verified questionnaire replies.
(b) Capacity and capacity utilisation rates
(100)
Production capacity remained practically stable throughout the period considered. In view of the growth in production, the resulting capacity utilisation increased, from a level of 57 % in 2002 to a level of 60 % in the RIP. As already noted in the original investigation, capacity utilisation for this type of production and industry can be affected by the production of other products which can be produced on the same production equipment.
2002
2003
2004
RIP
C.I. production capacity (tonnes)
4 984 375
4 944 575
4 941 975
4 955 075
Index (2002 = 100)
100
99
99
99
C.I. capacity utilisation
57 %
56 %
57 %
61 %
Index (2002 = 100)
100
98
100
106
(c) Stocks
(101)
The level of closing stocks of the Community industry increased progressively throughout the period considered. At the end of the RIP (30 June 2005), the stock level was relatively low but this is due to the fact that for this type of product, always, the stock levels are much lower in summer than in winter as the sales’ peak is in spring and early summer. By the end of 2004, the level of stocks was 13 % higher than by the end of 2002.
2002
2003
2004
RIP
C.I. closing stocks (tonnes)
276 689
291 085
313 770
159 926
Index (2002 = 100)
100
105
113
58
(d) Sales volume
(102)
The sales by the Community industry on the Community market decreased by 3 % between 2002 and the RIP. This development is opposite to the evolution of consumption on the Community market, which increased by 8 % during the same period (see recital 86). The overall increase in production volumes is explained by the strong export performance of the Community industry during the same period. The table below shows the export volumes of the sampled Community producers whose main destination was the USA market.
2002
2003
2004
RIP
C.I. EC sales volume (tonnes)
2 800 226
2 641 000
2 604 215
2 722 174
Index (2002 = 100)
100
94
93
97
S.P. sales volume to third countries (tonnes)
176 269
194 543
228 937
328 796
Index (2002 = 100)
100
110
130
187
(e) Market share
(103)
The market share held by the Community industry decreased substantially between 2002 and the RIP. Specifically, the Community industry lost 8 percentage points of market share during the period considered, while the Algerian producers increased their market share from 2,8 % to 4,8 % during the same period.
2002
2003
2004
RIP
Market share of Community industry
81,7 %
73,8 %
69,6 %
73,7 %
Index (2002 = 100)
100
90
85
90
(f) Growth
(104)
The Community industry lost a significant part of its market share, to the benefit of the Algerian, Romanian and other Community producers who gained market share during the same period.
(105)
The loss of market share can also be attributed to the rational decision made by the Community industry to increase its exports to the USA market in order to benefit from the much higher UAN prices prevailing on that market. However, in view of its large spare production capacity, the Community industry could not benefit from the growth of the Community market which was observed during the period considered.
(g) Employment
(106)
The level of employment of the Community industry increased by 5 % between 2002 and the RIP. This relatively small increase should be mainly attributed to the improved export performance of the Community industry.
2002
2003
2004
RIP
C.I. employment product concerned
827
819
790
867
Index (2002 = 100)
100
99
96
105
(h) Productivity
(107)
Productivity of the Community industry’s workforce, measured as output per person employed per year, remained fairly stable between 2002 and the RIP.
2002
2003
2004
RIP
C.I. productivity (tonnes per employee)
3 437
3 380
3 573
3 463
Index (2002 = 100)
100
98
104
101
(i) Magnitude of dumping margin
(108)
As concerns the impact on the Community industry of the magnitude of the actual margin of dumping, given the volume of the imports from Algeria (accounting for up to 6,7 % of the Community market during the period considered), this impact cannot be considered to be negligible, especially in a highly volatile market in terms of prices like the one of the product concerned. No conclusion can be drawn with regard to Belarus, Russia and Ukraine as imports from these countries ceased in 2003.
3.3. Data relating to the sampled Community producers
(a) Sales prices and factors affecting domestic prices
(109)
The sampled Community industry producers’ average net sales price increased substantially in 2004 and the RIP reflecting thus the prevailing favourable international market conditions of the product concerned during the same period. This growing trend should be seen in conjunction with the similar evolution of the cost of the principal raw material, i.e. gas, as the below table illustrates.
2002
2003
2004
RIP
S.P. unit price EC market (EUR/tonne)
85
89
109
114
Index (2002 = 100)
100
105
128
134
S.P. gas price/MBTU (indexed)
100
107
111
126
(b) Wages
(110)
Between 2002 and the RIP, the average wage per employee increased by 9 %, as the table below shows.
2002
2003
2004
RIP
S.P. annual labour cost per employee (000 EUR)
23,4
25,4
27,0
25,6
Index (2002 = 100)
100
108
115
109
(c) Investments
(111)
The annual flow of investments in the product concerned made by the four sampled producers developed positively during the period considered. These investments referred mainly to replacement of old machines. This shows the efforts of the Community industry to continuously improve its productivity and competitiveness. However, the results are not apparent in the evolution of productivity which remained rather stable (see recital 107) during the same period reflecting thus the difficulties of the Community industry to boost its production output.
2002
2003
2004
RIP
S.P. net investments (000 EUR)
12 512
20 087
12 611
17 047
Index (2002 = 100)
100
161
101
136
(d) Profitability and return on investments
(112)
Profitability of the sampled producers shows a gradual improvement notably since 2003 and reached the level of 13,8 % during the RIP. At the end of the period considered the profitability reached its peak on this price-cyclical market. Indeed, numerous factors, including external ones, can affect world markets prices for UAN and other nitrogenous fertilisers. Such factors can result in either additional supply or reduced demand for these products, thereby influencing product pricing. During the period considered, due to tight supply the world market prices moved upwards. In 2002 and 2003, the profit levels found were, however, moderate and below the levels considered reasonable by the Community industry in view of the fact that this industry is highly capital-intensive. The return on investments (ROI), expressed as the profit in percent of the net book value of investments, broadly followed the above profitability trend over the whole period considered.
2002
2003
2004
RIP
S.P. profitability of EC sales to unrelated customers (% of net sales)
8,1 %
6,0 %
12,3 %
13,8 %
Index (2002 = 100)
100
74
151
170
S.P. ROI (profit in % of net book value of investment)
22 %
24 %
50 %
58 %
Index (2002 = 100)
100
111
229
265
(e) Cash flow and ability to raise capital
(113)
Cash flow has increased significantly during the period considered. This development is in line with the development of the overall profitability during the period considered.
2002
2003
2004
RIP
S.P. cash flow (000 EUR)
23 532
19 625
39 767
50 823
Index (2002 = 100)
100
83
169
216
(114)
The investigation did not reveal any difficulties encountered by the sampled Community producers in raising capital. In this respect, it should be noted that as several of these companies are part of large groups, they finance their activities within the group to which they belong either through cash-pooling schemes or through intra-group loans granted by the mother companies.
3.4. Conclusion
(115)
Between 2002 and the RIP, the following indicators developed positively: production volume of the Community industry increased, unit sales prices of the Community industry increased and profitability improved substantially in line with the prices. Exports to third countries increased and return on investment and cash flow evolved positively as well. Wages developed moderately and the Community industry continued to invest.
(116)
Conversely, the following indicators developed negatively: sales volumes on the Community market decreased by 3 % as opposed to a growing market. Accordingly, the market share of the Community industry decreased substantially by 8 percentage points during the period considered. The productivity remained rather stable despite the efforts of the Community industry to improve it through investments.
(117)
Overall, the situation of the Community industry has improved significantly as compared to its situation prior to the imposition of the anti-dumping measures on imports of UAN from the countries concerned in 2000. It is therefore clear that these measures had a positive impact on the economic situation of the Community industry. Nevertheless, it should be stressed that the positive development of certain indicators can also be partly attributed to the market of the like product, which was, due to the tight worldwide supply, very favourable during the two last years of the period considered. Furthermore, the positive development of the Community industry’s export performance has also contributed to the overall positive evolution of the Community industry counterbalancing to a certain extent the shrinking market share within the Community.
(118)
It is therefore concluded that the situation of the Community industry has improved, as compared to the period preceding the imposition of measures, but is still fragile.
4. Likelihood of recurrence of injury
4.1. General
(119)
Since there is no continuation of material injury caused by imports from the four countries concerned, the analysis focused on the likelihood of recurrence of injury. In this respect, two main parameters were analysed: (i) the gas cost in the countries concerned and its impact on the UAN production cost, and (ii) the effect of the projected export volumes from the countries concerned to the Community on the Community industry, taking into account the conditions of competition.
4.2. Likely evolution of sales prices: Gas prices and cost of production in the countries concerned
(120)
The likelihood of the recurrence of injury will depend strongly on the likely price evolution of UAN. As gas is by far the most important cost element representing more than 50 % of the UAN cost of production when purchased at world market prices, and is therefore a determining factor in the selling price of UAN. The gas cost in the UAN production depends on the gas efficiency use and the unit price. An analysis of these two parameters in the production cost of UAN for the Community industry, on one side, and for Russia and Algeria, on the other side, has been conducted.
(121)
From this analysis it was firstly shown that gas efficiency is an important factor in establishing the cost of gas per tonne of UAN produced. In this respect, it was found that the gas efficiency of the Community industry was relatively high, reaching up to 15 % lower consumption of gas per tonne of UAN produced than that of the producers in Russia and Algeria. This is the result of the Community industry’s efforts to continuously improve its productivity and competitiveness through appropriate investments requiring a yearly capital inflow approximating in average one third of its total net book-value assets. This comparative advantage should benefit the Community industry and result in a lower cost of production of UAN.
(122)
Despite this efficiency, the Community industry ends with a gas cost per tonne of UAN produced around threefold higher than that of Russia and Algeria because of the gas price difference. The artificially low gas prices in these two countries fully explain the difference. The consequent price difference of UAN in these two countries as compared to producers purchasing gas at world market prices, like those in the Community, is unlikely to be reduced in the near future. On the contrary, should the current pattern in the development of the world market gas prices in the forthcoming years be maintained, this gap may be further broadened. On this basis, it is considered that producers in Russia and Algeria will continue to have this artificial cost advantage, which overcomes largely the high transport costs due to the weight of UAN. This renders the Community market attractive to producers even located in remote areas in these countries bearing transport costs higher than 20 % of the price.
(123)
In the light of those low gas prices, the exporting producers in Russia and Algeria will thus very likely have the possibility to export the product concerned to the Community at lower prices than the Community industry’s cost of production. Therefore, it is very likely that those imports would undercut the C.I.'s prices substantially.
(124)
As for Belarus and Ukraine, they are not included in this analysis since for the purpose of this investigation both were considered to be non-market economy countries and therefore their data on cost of production were not requested. However, specific data concerning gas prices in these two countries were acquired and the investigation has shown that the producers in these countries were being supplied with gas in the RIP at substantially lower prices than the prices charged to the Community industry. It is therefore considered that both countries will equally have the possibility to export the product concerned at lower prices than the Community industry’s cost of production and it can also be concluded that there is likelihood that those prices would undercut the C.I.'s prices.
(125)
Should measures lapse, the fact that the Belarusian, Russian and Ukrainian exporters would need to re-establish themselves on the Community market and the Algerian exporters would need to strengthen their market position may also support the view that there is a likelihood that those producers would charge lower prices than the C.I. in order to regain lost market share or broaden their customer base.
(126)
EFIA and certain exporting producers argued that lower costs of production could not be considered as a valid reason to justify the likelihood of recurrence of injury. It was further submitted that the possibility to undercut is not the legal standard to establish whether injury is likely to recur. Moreover, Algeria charged prices above the Community industry’s prices and Belarus, Russia and Ukraine did not export to the Community at all in 2004 and the RIP and their prices to third countries were above the Community industry’s prices, which are considered to be non-injurious. This evidence would demonstrate, according to EFIA, that the exporting producers are not relying on their lower gas cost by setting lower prices, but on the contrary charge higher prices and rather aim to maximise their profit margin.
(127)
The rationale behind the establishment of likelihood of recurrence of injury is indeed whether the expiry of the measures would create conditions that would encourage the recurrence of injury. In this respect, it should be firstly noted that, as the parties acknowledge, the exporting producers in the countries concerned benefit from low gas prices, which offer them the discretion to undercut the Community industry’s prices. On the other side, the investigation showed that their exports during the RIP were dumped. This pricing behaviour was seen in the light of (i) the exporters’ significant spare export capacity, and (ii) their substantially lower cost of production. The first indicates their strong incentive to find the markets for selling their production. The second shows their capability to undercut severely the Community industry prices, in order to meet their sales requirements in volume.
(128)
With regard to the prices, it should be recalled that during the last two years of the period considered, favourable market conditions kept the prices at a very high level irrespective of the applicable anti-dumping measures. Indeed, during that period, a tight worldwide supply demand balance resulted in high prices for all nitrogen fertilisers. UAN is like the other nitrogen fertilisers a commodity whose pricing is influenced by numerous factors, going from the volatile gas price having a considerable impact on the supply as being the most important costing element to the weather conditions, crops and grain stock levels resulting in reduced or increased demand. With particular regard to the Community market, the demand for nitrogen fertilisers is expected to slightly decrease in the forthcoming years (7). The maintenance of such high prices depends therefore on a tight supply, which is nevertheless very unlikely, as the investigation showed, given the spare export capacity of the countries concerned and the likelihood of redirection of part of their exports to third countries during the RIP, should the measures be lapsed. This scenario will very likely lead the exporting producers to lower their prices undercutting the prices of the Community industry, in order to gain market share and meet their requirements in export volumes. Under such circumstances, the Community industry would be forced either to lower its prices to a level close to or below the cost of production given the maintained high cost of gas or to lose significant market share and thus revenue, or both. An increase of exports to the USA market is highly unlikely due to the reasons set out in recital 135. Therefore, a deterioration of the Community industry’s overall performance would be the inevitable consequence of the repeal of the measures.
(129)
With regard to the profit-maximising argument, it should be noted that this is based on the positive price differential observed during the period considered between the USA and the Community market, which nevertheless cannot be considered as an appreciation element for the future prices of a highly volatile commodity such as UAN. On the basis of the above, it was established that there is a high risk of recurrence of injury, should the measures be repealed, and therefore the argument was rejected.
4.3. Impact on the Community industry of the projected export volumes and price effects in case of repeal of measures
4.3.1. Preliminary remarks - Conditions of competition
(130)
UAN is a liquid fertiliser supplying nitrogen to crops. It is mainly used as a pre-planting fertiliser for arable crops, which require UAN usually in the spring time. UAN has a limited interchangeability with the other nitrogen fertilisers as farmers use different equipment for applying UAN and it can be mixed with other solutions, such as pesticides, for a single application. Demand is therefore characterised by seasonal peaks and is relatively inelastic.
(131)
Although UAN is generally consumed seasonally, it is produced throughout the year as this is more efficient than ceasing production. As a result, Community producers are found with peak inventories during autumn and winter. Massive imports of the product concerned at depressed prices during spring and summer will very likely have a significant adverse effect on the Community industry’s prices for such a highly volatile commodity as the product concerned, for which prices are set on a weekly basis.
4.3.2. Exports from the countries concerned
(132)
Given the absence of exports from the countries concerned except Algeria during the RIP, the analysis is focused on the likelihood of redirection of exports made to other countries during the RIP towards the Community market in the imminent future. In addition, the likely evolution of sales prices of UAN has to be analysed.
(133)
Regarding the likely evolution of exports to the Community market, it should be noted that imports of UAN into the USA market originating in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine were subject to anti-dumping measures until their repeal in April 2003. The table below shows the export development of these three countries to the USA market as of 2003:
Exports to the USA market from:
2003 (8)
2004
RIP (9)
Belarus in tonnes
156 596
244 526
227 772
Russia in tonnes
179 993
614 395
699 100
Ukraine in tonnes
111 321
103 440
145 828
Total in tonnes
447 910
962 361
1 072 700
Source: ‘Foreign Trade Statistics’, published by the US Census Bureau.
(134)
On this basis, it is shown that these countries increased significantly their exported volume from 2003 to 2004. In the case of Russia, in particular, the export volume rose from 180 000 tonnes in 2003 to about 600 000 tonnes in 2004, representing a more than threefold increase. The above trade statistics also show that the sharp and sudden increase in export volumes from these countries to the USA came to a halt during the RIP, where the increase in comparison to 2004 was less profound (11 %). The stabilisation of their collective exports volumes to the USA market to around 1 million tonnes was confirmed by these countries’ post-RIP export performance to the USA.
(135)
In the final report of the USA anti-dumping investigation on UAN imports from Belarus, Russia and Ukraine, the reason for this stabilisation is described in detail (10). In this report, it is specifically stated that the high ratio of inland transportation costs means that the market for imports is virtually limited to the coastal areas and that these costs make final sales of imported UAN to many areas of the USA, including the important UAN consumption States in the so-called ‘farm belt’ area, far too expensive as compared to locally produced UAN. In other words, there is a limit on the size of the USA market with regard to imports, and the most significant areas in terms of consumption remain shielded from imports due to their location. In view of the observed stabilisation of imports from Belarus, Russia and Ukraine, as described in recital 134 above, it is therefore concluded that the USA market cannot absorb import volumes significantly higher than those registered in the RIP.
(136)
In the above context, and in view of the relative proximity of the Community market, it can be concluded that significant sales or spare capacity in the countries concerned, will be very likely directed toward the Community market, should the measures be allowed to lapse. Given the lower level of transport costs as compared to exports to the USA market, their export prices can be substantially lower than those prevailing in the USA market. Furthermore, as shown in recitals 50, 54 and 63, it was found that the sales of the cooperating exporting producers on the USA market were made at prices lower than the respective normal values.
4.3.3. Impact of spare capacities
(137)
It is recalled that the domestic market of the product concerned in Algeria is insignificant and that virtually all production capacity is export oriented. Furthermore, the investigation showed that the current spare capacity of the Algerian producers represent 10 % to 20 % of the consumption on the Community market The total current spare capacity is estimated to be around 300 000 to 350 000 tonnes.
(138)
In particular in view of the proximity of the Community market, it is very likely that, if the measures were allowed to lapse, this spare production capacity would be used for production of the product concerned for export to the Community (Algeria only has 4,8 % market share). The expected high volumes would likely be at dumped prices and likely cause injury to the Community producers.
(139)
It was found that there is a rapidly growing domestic market, on which the sole producer sold two thirds of its production during the RIP. Moreover, there were no exports to the Community in 2004 and the RIP and the exports to USA market have decreased despite the absence of anti-dumping measures and favourable market conditions.
(140)
If the measures were allowed to lapse, the situation with regard to Belarus would most likely change dramatically. In view of the fact that the domestic price was less than half of the prevailing market price in the Community during the RIP, a rational economic decision would lead the Belarusian producer to redirect significant quantities currently sold on the domestic market to the Community market at dumped prices. A recurrence of injury caused by high volumes of low prices imports from Belarus would likely be the result.
(141)
The Russian domestic market is relatively small as compared to the spare capacity which, as already mentioned in recital 66, amounts to 600 000 to 700 000 tonnes and which may be substantially increased if the capacities of the non-cooperators or capacities utilised currently in producing and exporting urea and ammonium nitrate, the two other nitrogen fertilisers, are added.
(142)
In this respect, it is also worth noting that there are currently trade defence measures imposed by the Community on imports of upstream products, namely solid urea and ammonium nitrate, from Russia (11). Regarding the measures on urea, an expiry review investigation is currently being carried out (12). Moreover, an interim review investigation limited to one major Russian exporting producer is currently being carried out with regard to the measures on ammonium nitrate (13). Therefore, depending on the final outcome of these review investigations, there is a risk of shifting of production from those products to UAN, which could then result in an additional substantial increase of the estimated spare capacity of the Russian producers.
(143)
In view of the above there is a strong likelihood that exports to the Community will resume if measures were allowed to lapse. The volumes of such imports can conservatively be estimated to represent close to 20 % of the Community market, considering the consumption on that market (see recital 86) and the actual spare capacities in Russia. In view of the extremely low gas prices being paid by the Russian producers and the consequent pricing advantage for the product concerned, such imports would likely cause severe injury to the Community industry.
(144)
Among the countries concerned, Ukraine is at this moment the country with the largest spare capacity which is estimated in the range of 700 000 to 800 000 tonnes. The current spare capacity alone accounts for around 20 % of the Community consumption.
(145)
In the absence of a significant domestic market and in view of the proximity of the Community market, it is likely that, should the measures lapse, massive exports will be directed to the Community market. These exports will as shown above probably be at dumped levels and thereby cause major injury to the Community industry.
4.4. Conclusion on likelihood of recurrence of injury
(146)
In view of the artificially low prices the producers in the countries concerned pay for the basic raw material gas, and the impact this has on the production cost of UAN, it is likely that, if the measures were allowed to lapse, the producers in the countries concerned will have the possibility to export the product concerned at lower prices than the Community industry's production cost.
(147)
All countries concerned but Belarus have a surplus capacity which could be turned towards the Community market, should the measures lapse. As concerns Belarus, given the high sales volumes on the domestic market at much lower prices than those prevailing on the Community market during the RIP, it is very likely that at least part of them would be redirected to the Community market, should the measures lapse. The lower transport costs for sales to the Community as compared to the USA could also stimulate a redirection of sales to the Community market. In addition, for all four countries a redirection of part of their current exports from other countries to the Community is likely if the current measures were repealed as was demonstrated in recitals 132 to 136.
(148)
EFIA and certain exporting producers submitted that the assumption of shifting from urea and ammonium nitrate production to UAN ignores the basic economic fact that producers can not simply switch production without additional investments. Furthermore, they claimed that producers will not give up more profitable products just because anti-dumping measures on a less profitable product are removed.
(149)
With regard to the additional investments required, it should be noted that most of the major producing exporters of nitrogen fertilisers are integrated producers and therefore the decision on producing/exporting one or the other product depends mainly on the market conditions. As for the profitable products, the producers will indeed look for the most profitable products. In this respect, the anti-dumping measures play a major role in their decision, as this is demonstrated by the significant increase in dumped exports of UAN to the USA market during 2004 and the RIP, once the USA anti-dumping measures were repealed in 2003. Therefore, sound economic decisions made by the exporting producers will in all likelihood lead them to switch from one product to the other for maintaining or increasing their overall sales of nitrogen fertilisers and profits thereof. On this basis, the above arguments were rejected.
(150)
The above leads to the conclusion that should measures lapse, exports from the countries concerned would very likely occur in significant volumes and at prices that undercut the Community industry’s prices in view of their distorted and artificially low cost of production. This would in all likelihood have the effect of reinforcing the price-depressive trend on the market, with an expected negative impact on the economic situation of the Community industry. This would, in particular, impede the financial recovery that was achieved in 2004 and the RIP, leading to a likely recurrence of injury. In other words, the more the market conditions turn bearish, the sharper the price depression that can be expected from the countries concerned, account being taken of their significant difference in cost of production and their spare capacity.
E. COMMUNITY INTEREST
1. Introduction
(151)
According to Article 21 of the basic Regulation, it was examined whether maintenance of the existing anti-dumping measures would be against the interest of the Community as a whole. The determination of the Community interest was based on an appreciation of all the various interests involved.
(152)
It should be recalled that, in the original investigation, the adoption of measures was considered not to be against the interest of the Community. Furthermore, the fact that the present investigation is a review, thus analysing a situation in which anti-dumping measures have already been in place, allows the assessment of any undue negative impact on the parties concerned by the current anti-dumping measures.
(153)
On this basis, it was examined whether, despite the conclusions on the likelihood of recurrence of injurious dumping, compelling reasons existed which would lead to the conclusion that it is not in the Community interest to maintain measures in this particular case.
2. Interest of the Community industry
(154)
The Community industry has proven to be a structurally viable industry. This was confirmed by the positive development of its economic situation observed after the imposition of anti-dumping measures in 2000. In particular, the Community industry improved its profit situation between 2002 and the RIP.
(155)
It can reasonably be expected that the Community industry will continue to benefit from the measures currently imposed and further recover by reversing the downward trend in market share and improving further its profitability. Should the measures not be maintained, it is likely that increased imports at dumped prices from the countries concerned will occur thereby causing injury to the Community industry by exerting a downward pressure on the sales prices which will endanger its currently positive but still fragile financial situation.
3. Interest of importers
(156)
As mentioned in recital 10, only one importer indicated its willingness to be included in the sample and provided the basic information required in the sampling form. However, after sending the full questionnaire to the said importer, it informed the Commission that it did not wish to further cooperate with the investigation.
(157)
It is recalled that in the original investigation it was found that the impact of the imposition of measures would not be significant to the extent that the imports would continue to take place albeit at non-injurious prices and that as a rule, importers do not only deal in UAN but also, to a significant extent, in other fertilisers. Regarding the presumption that imports would continue to take place, this was only confirmed by imports from Algeria where an undertaking is in place for one exporting producer. This leads to the conclusion that some importers may indeed have had negative consequences from the imposition of measures, as indicated in recital 66 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 617/2000 (14). However, the investigation did not show that some of the importers completely ceased their activities, but rather appeared to have focused on different fertilisers as projected. Thus, the imposition of measures appears to have had an overall limited impact on the majority of importers/traders.
(158)
In the absence of cooperation from importers, there is no reliable information available indicating that the maintenance of the measures will have a significant negative effect on importers or traders.
(159)
EFIA submitted that the non-cooperation of importers should not be considered as a lack of interest from their side but as a reflection of the unfair situation given the significant resources required by an anti-dumping investigation as opposed to their limited resources due to their small or medium size enterprises. Furthermore, they claimed that the investigation ignored the cumulative effect of the numerous anti-dumping measures on fertilisers on importers, and thus failed to apply a fair analysis of the effects on importers and farmers.
(160)
In this respect, it should be noted that for importers dealing with a wide range of fertilisers, UAN being one of them, there is the possibility of supplying with the different nitrogen fertilisers from other sources not presently subject to anti-dumping measures. On this basis, it was concluded that any negative impact from the continuation of measures on importers would not be a compelling reason against the continuation of measures.
4. Interest of users
(161)
Users of UAN are farmers in the Community. Demand for nitrogen fertilisers appears to be relatively inelastic and farmers tend to buy from the cheapest source. In examining the possible effect of the imposition of measures on users, it was concluded in the original investigation that given the small incidence of the cost of UAN on the farmers, any increase in these costs was unlikely to have a significant adverse effect on them. The fact that no users or user association provided any information contradicting the above finding in the framework of the current review investigation seems to confirm that: (i) UAN represents a very small part of total production costs for these farmers; (ii) the measures currently in force did not have any substantial negative effect on their economic situation; and (iii) the continuation of measures would not adversely affect the financial interests of the users.
5. Conclusion on Community interest
(162)
Given the above, it is concluded that there are no compelling reasons against the maintenance of the current anti-dumping measures.
F. ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES
(163)
All parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it is intended to recommend that the existing measures be maintained. They were also granted a period to make representations subsequent to this disclosure.
(164)
It follows from the above that, as provided for by Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of UAN, originating in Algeria, Belarus, Russia and Ukraine should be maintained. It is recalled that these measures consist of specific duties, with the exception of the imports of the product concerned which are manufactured and sold for export to the Community by one Algerian company from which an undertaking has been accepted,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
1. A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of mixtures of urea and ammonium nitrate in aqueous or ammoniacal solution falling within CN code 3102 80 00 and originating in Algeria, Belarus, Russia and Ukraine.
2. The amount of duty in euro per tonne shall be as follows:
Country
Manufacturer
Amount of duty (per tonne)
TARIC additional code
Algeria
All companies
EUR 6,88
A999
Belarus
All companies
EUR 17,86
-
Russia
JSC Nevinnomyssky Azot
357030 Russian Federation
Stavropol region
Nevinnomyssk, Nizyaev st. 1
EUR 17,80
A176
All other companies
EUR 20,11
A999
Ukraine
All companies
EUR 26,17
-
3. In cases where goods have been damaged before entry into free circulation and, therefore, the price actually paid or payable is apportioned for the determination of the customs value pursuant to Article 145 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 (15), the amount of anti-dumping duty, calculated on the amounts set above, shall be reduced by a percentage which corresponds to the apportioning of the price actually paid or payable.
4. Notwithstanding paragraph 1, the definitive anti-dumping duty shall not apply to imports released into free circulation in accordance with Article 2.
5. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.
Article 2
1. Imports declared for release into free circulation under the following TARIC additional codes which are produced and directly exported (i.e. shipped and invoiced) by the company named below to a company in the Community acting as an importer shall be exempt from the anti-dumping duty imposed by Article 1 provided that such imports are imported in conformity with paragraph 2 of this Article.
Country
Company
TARIC additional code
Algeria
Fertalge Industries spa
12, Chemin AEK Gadouche
Hydra, Alger
A107
2. The exemption shall be conditional upon presentation to the relevant Member State’s customs services of a valid undertaking invoice issued by the exporting company containing the essential elements listed in the Annex to this Regulation.
Article 3
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 19 December 2006.
|
[
0,
1,
0,
1,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 957/2004
of 10 May 2004
on the issue of import licences for high-quality fresh, chilled or frozen beef and veal
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal (1),
Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 936/97 of 27 May 1997 opening and providing for the administration of tariff quotas for high-quality fresh, chilled and frozen beef and for frozen buffalo meat (2),
Whereas:
(1)
Regulation (EC) No 936/97 provides in Articles 4 and 5 the conditions for applications and for the issue of import licences for meat referred to in Article 2(f).
(2)
Article 2(f) of Regulation (EC) No 936/97 fixes the amount of high-quality fresh, chilled or frozen beef and veal originating in and imported from the United States of America and Canada which may be imported on special terms for the period 1 July 2003 to 30 June 2004 at 11 500 t.
(3)
It should be recalled that licences issued pursuant to this Regulation will, throughout the period of validity, be open for use only in so far as provisions on health protection in force permit,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
1. All applications for import licences from 1 to 5 May 2004 for high-quality fresh, chilled or frozen beef and veal as referred to in Article 2(f) of Regulation (EC) No 936/97 shall be granted in full.
2. Applications for licences may be submitted, in accordance with Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 936/97, during the first five days of June 2004 for 10 468,811 t.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 11 May 2004.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 10 May 2004.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 2337/95 of 2 October 1995 establishing a system of compensation for the additional costs incurred in the marketing of certain fishery products from the Azores, Madeira, the Canary Islands and the French department of Guiana as a result of their very remote location
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 43 thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission (1),
Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (2),
Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee (3),
Having regard to the Declaration annexed to the Treaty on European Union on the outermost regions of the Community,
Having regard to the current difficulties of the European Union's fisheries sector, which are particularly aggravated by the cost of transporting fisheries products to markets on account of the remoteness and isolation of the outermost regions of the Community,
Whereas, by Decisions 89/687/EEC (4), 91/314/EEC (5) and 91/315/EEC (6), the Council established, as part of the Community's policy in favour of its outermost regions, programmes of options specific to the remote and insular nature of the French overseas departments (Poseidom), the Canary Islands (Poseican) and Madeira and the Azores (Poseima) respectively, laying down the general outlines of measures to be applied taking account of the special characteristics of and constraints on those regions;
Having regard to the success of similar initiatives which have already been undertaken,
Whereas those regions are suffering from specific development problems, in particular the additional costs incurred in the marketing of certain products as a result of their remoteness; whereas, in order to maintain the competitiveness of certain fishery products in relation to similar products from other Community regions, Community measures have been applied in the fisheries sector in 1992 and 1993 to compensate for the additional costs incurred in the processing of tuna in the Azores and Madeira and the production and freezing of tuna and the freezing and processing of sardines in the Canary Islands; whereas these measures were followed up in 1994 by the adoption by the Council of Regulation (EC) No 1503/94 (7); whereas the continuation of the system of compensation for the additional costs incurred in the processing and marketing of those products should be provided for at Community level from 1995 and measures should therefore be adopted providing for the continuation of the existing measures;
Having regard to the social and economic importance of coastal and small-scale fishing in the outermost regions of the European Union,
Whereas it is necessary to rationalize the fishing effort with a view to sound management of stocks, and taking particular account of the research carried out to this end to a high technical standard by various scientific institutions in the outermost regions,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
A system of compensation for the additional costs incurred in the marketing of certain fishery products from the Azores, Madeira, the Canary Islands and the French department of Guiana as a result of their remoteness is hereby established.
Article 2
1. For the Azores and Madeira, the system referred to in Article 1 shall consist of the payment of ECU 187 per tonne up to a maximum of 15 000 tonnes of tuna per year delivered to local industry (10 000 tonnes for the Azores and 5 000 tonnes for Madeira).
2. For the Canary Islands, the system referred to in Article 1 shall consist of the payment of ECU 151 per tonne, up to a maximum of 10 400 tonnes per year, of tuna for marketing fresh, ECU 54 per tonne, up to a maximum of 3 500 tonnes per year of frozen tuna, ECU 103 per tonne, up to a maximum of 10 500 tonnes per year, of sardines and mackerel for canning and ECU 54 per tonne, up to a maximum of 7 000 tonnes per year, of sardines and mackerel for freezing.
3. For the French department of Guiana, the system referred to in Article 1 shall consist of the payment of ECU 1 044 per tonne of prawns, up to a maximum of 3 500 tonnes per year, for industrial fishing and ECU 1 123 per tonne of prawns, up to a maximum of 500 tonnes per year, for non-industrial fishing.
Article 3
The detailed rules for the application of this Regulation shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 32 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3759/92 of 17 December 1992 on the common organization of the market in fishery and aquaculture products (8).
Article 4
The measures provided for in this Regulation shall be intended for producers, owners of vessels registered in the ports of the regions referred to in Article 1 and carrying out their activities on those regions, or associations of such producers or owners, as well as operators in the processing sector who bear additional costs in the marketing of the products referred to in herein as a result of their very remote location.
Article 5
The measures provided for in this Regulation are measures intended to stabilize the agricultural markets within the meaning of Article 3 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 of 21 April 1970 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (9). They are to be financed by the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, Guarantee Section.
Article 6
Not later than 30 June 1997, the Commission shall present the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions with a report on the application of the measures provided for in this Regulation accompanied by appropriate proposals if necessary.
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 from 1 January 1995 to 31 December 1997.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Luxembourg, 2 October 1995.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 1475/80 of 12 June 1980 amending various common agricultural policy regulations following the consolidation of the provisions relating to the advance payment of export refunds for agricultural products
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to the provisions mentioned in the citations of Commission Regulations: - (EEC) No 193/75 of 17 January 1975 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of import and export licences and advance-fixing certificates for agricultural products (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 2971/79 (2),
- (EEC) No 645/75 of 13 March 1975 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the export levies and charges on agricultural products (3), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 609/78 (4),
- (EEC) No 413/76 of 25 February 1976 on the reduction of the time limits during which certain cereal products may remain under customs control while awaiting advance payment of refunds (5),
- (EEC) No 776/78 of 18 April 1978 on the application of the lowest rate of refund on exports of dairy products and repealing and amending certain Regulations (6),
- (EEC) No 1998/78 of 18 August 1978 laying down detailed rules for the offsetting of storage costs for sugar (7), as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 2377/78 (8),
- (EEC) No 2730/79 of 29 November 1979 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products (9),
- (EEC) No 109/80 of 18 January 1980 on the application of the lowest rate of export refund for certain products in the eggs and the poultrymeat sectors (10);
Whereas the adoption of Council Regulation (EEC) No 565/80 of 4 March 1980 on the advance payment of export refunds in respect of agricultural products (11), and of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 798/80 of 31 March 1980 laying down general rules on the advance payment of export refunds and positive monetary compensatory amounts in respect of agricultural products (12), makes it desirable to replace the references to the legal instruments repealed on that occasion by references to those now applicable;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of all the relevant Management Committees,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
1. In the following provisions, the words "Regulation (EEC) No 441/69" are replaced by the words, "Regulation (EEC) No 565/80": - Regulation (EEC) No 413/76, second paragraph of Article 3,
- Regulation (EEC) No 2730/79, Article 2.
2. In the following provisions, the words "in Articles 2 and 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 441/69" are replaced by the words "in Articles 4 and 5 of Regulation (EEC) No 565/80": - Regulation (EEC) No 193/75, fourth indent of Article 9 (3) (b) and third sub-indent of the first indent of Article 17 (8) (b),
- Regulation (EEC) No 645/75, Article 3 (2) (e),
- Regulation (EEC) No 1998/78, Article 12 (1) (h) Article 17.
3. In the following provisions, the words "the last subparagraph of Articles 2 (4) and 3 (1) of Regulation (1)OJ No L 25, 31.1.1975, p. 10. (2)OJ No L 336, 29.12.1979, p. 34. (3)OJ No L 67, 14.3.1975, p. 16. (4)OJ No L 83, 30.3.1978, p. 19. (5)OJ No L 50, 26.2.1976, p. 18. (6)OJ No L 105, 18.4.1978, p. 5. (7)OJ No L 231, 23.8.1978, p. 5. (8)OJ No L 287, 13.10.1978, p. 9. (9)OJ No L 317, 12.12.1979, p. 1. (10)OJ No L 14, 18.1.1980, p. 30. (11)OJ No L 62, 7.3.1980, p. 5. (12)OJ No L 87, 1.4.1980, p. 42. (EEC) No 441/69" are replaced by the words "Articles 4 (7) and 5 (3) of Regulation (EEC) No 565/80": - Regulation (EEC) No 776/78 second indent of Article 2,
- Regulation (EEC) No 109/80 second indent of Article 1.
Article 2
In Regulation (EEC) No 413/76: - in the first paragraph of Article 1, the words "the first indent of the last subparagraph of Article 3 (3) of Regulation (EEC) No 1957/69" are replaced by the words "the first indent of Article 11 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 798/80",
- in the second paragraph of Article 1, the words "of Article 3 (3) (a)" are replaced by the words "of the second subparagraph of Article 11 (1)",
- the words "Article 4 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1957/69" appearing in Article 2 (1) are replaced by the words "Article 11 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 798/80".
Article 3
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities. It shall apply with effect from 1 April 1980.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 12 June 1980.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2364/2002
of 27 December 2002
opening tariff quotas for the year 2003 for imports into the European Community of products originating in the Republic of Poland
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 3448/93 of 6 December 1993 laying down the trade arrangements applicable to certain goods resulting from the processing of agricultural products(1), as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2580/2000(2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,
Having regard to Council Decision 2002/63/EC of 23 October 2001 relating to the conclusion of a Protocol for the adaptation of the trade aspects of the Europe Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Poland, of the other part, to take into account the accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden to the European Union and the results of the agricultural negotiations of the Uruguay Round, including the improvements of the existing preferential regime(3), and in particular its Article 2,
Whereas:
(1) Protocol 3 on trade in processed agricultural products, as amended by the Protocol adjusting the Europe Agreement with the Republic of Poland, provides for the granting of annual tariff quotas for imports of products originating in the Republic of Poland.
(2) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code(4), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 444/2002(5), consolidated the arrangements for managing the tariff quotas to be used in chronological order of the dates of acceptance of the declarations for release for free circulation.
(3) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for horizontal questions concerning trade in processed agricultural products not listed in Annex I,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION
Article 1
The annual quotas for products originating in the Republic of Poland, set out in the Annex to this Regulation, are hereby opened from 1 January 2003 to 31 December 2003 under the conditions set out in the said Annex.
Article 2
The Community tariff quotas referred to in Article 1 shall be managed by the Commission in accordance with the provisions of Articles 308a to 308c of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93.
Article 3
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day on the day of 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, 27 December 2002.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Decision
of 31 October 2000
concerning the support given by the Netherlands to NS Cargo for a shuttle link between Rotterdam and Prague
(notified under document number C(2000) 3270)
(Only the Dutch text is authentic)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2001/103/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 88(2)(1) thereof,
Having regard to the Agreement concerning the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,
Whereas, in accordance with said Articles, those concerned have been called upon to comment(1),
Whereas:
(1) In its letter of 28 April 1995 the Netherlands informed the Commission of a single payment of investment support to NS Cargo for combined transport equipment amounting to NLG 500000 that were to be used for a shuttle link involving combined transport between Rotterdam and Prague. That notification received the registration N 484/95.
(2) In its decision of 20 September 1995(2), the Commission decided to raise no objection to the action of which it had been notified and which it considered to comply with Article 3(1)(e) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1107/70(3). The support was paid to NS Cargo on 8 November 1995. In their letter of 13 May 1996 the Hamburg-based terminal operated HHLA, and others, appealed to the Court of First Instance against the Commission's decision (Case T 69/96). That Court has so far not delivered any final ruling on this matter.
(3) As part of preparations for its defence in this case before the Court of First Instance, the Dutch Government provided the Commission with information which raised doubts concerning the type of support. The new information, indeed, seemed to indicate that the support to NS Cargo was intended not for investment purposes, but in order to cover the operating costs of the shuttle link. As a rule operating support is not permitted under Community law. On 21 April 1999 the Commission then decided to initiate the procedure provided for by Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty (Case C 30/99). The Dutch Government was informed of that decision by letter SG(99)/D 3169 of 4 May 1999, which requested the Netherlands to comment within one month of the letter's being posted.
(4) In its letter of 29 June 1999 the Dutch Government stated that it would ask the recipient of the support provided, NS Cargo, to repay the amount involved and ask the Commission to terminate the procedure.
(5) The Commission's letter of 4 May 1999 was published in the Official Journal of the European Communities, for comment, on 24 July 1999(4). Two terminal operators, a port authority, a chamber of commerce and a national government had reacted within the deadline mentioned in the announcement.
(6) The Commission's Directorate-General for Transport passed on its comments to the Dutch Government in its letter of 6 September 1999. It was also stated in the Commission's letter that terminating the procedure could only be contemplated if the Dutch Government furnished proof that the amount involved in the support had, in fact, been reimbursed.
(7) In its letter of 20 July 2000 the Dutch Government confirmed that NS Cargo had repaid that amount on 22 May 2000, and also furnished proof that the subsidy, including the interest due, together totalling NLG 636536,50 had been transferred to the account of the Dutch Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management,
HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Article 1
The Commission shall terminate the procedure introduced on 21 April 1999 since there is no longer any reason to continue this.
Article 2
This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
Done at Brussels, 31 October 2000.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 220/91 of 30 January 1991 laying down detailed rules for the application of Regulation (EEC) No 1360/78 on producer groups and associations thereof
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1360/78 of 19 June 1978 on producer groups and associations thereof (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3808/89 (2), and in particular Article 6 (3) thereof,
Whereas Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2083/80 of 31 July 1980 laying down detailed rules of application concerning the economic activity of producer groups and associations thereof (3), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 2238/89 (4), has been substantially amended on a number of occasions; whereas it is appropriate, for reasons of clarity and rationality, to consolidate the said Regulation;
Whereas, in accordance with the provision referred to above, it is for the Commission to determine the detailed implementing rules on the minimum cultivated area, turnover, or volume of production coming from members which these groups or associations must represent and, if necessary, the minimum number of members they shall have;
Whereas, even those sectors where cultivated area could be used, volume of production constitutes a more reliable criterion of the efficiency of groups and associations; whereas volume of production also provides a better basis for long-term reference than turnover, which is subject to rapid variations in monetary values; whereas, however, turnover constitutes an appropriate criterion for certain sectors, in particular those less important sectors where, in view of the difficulty in determining a full list of specific limits, a single reference basis should be used;
Whereas, in view of the structure of agriculture in the regions and sectors covered by Regulation (EEC) No 1360/78, supply cannot be concentrated efficiently unless the information on volume of production or turnover of the producer groups is accompanied by an indication of the minimum number of members such as to facilitate participation by producers who, although they are geared towards the market in accordance with the provisions of Regulation (EEC) No 1360/78, are only small-scale producers;
Whereas the detailed rules relating to the economic activity of groups, while taking account of the situation in the regions referred to in Regulation (EEC) No 1360/78, should enable production and supply to be effectively adjusted to the concentration and growing requirements of demand; whereas, therefore, while encouraging a multiplicity of groups and associations; they should avoid excessive fragmentation in these regions;
Whereas certain differences in the volume and structure of demand in the various regions referred to in Regulation (EEC) No 1360/78 make it appropriate to modulate the limits envisaged;
Whereas, in particular, the major differences in total production between the various regions of the Italian Republic justify the minimum volume of production controlled by groups in that country being proportional, subject to certain conditions, to the level of regional production; whereas, moreover, it is justified in the case of Italy for the number of members and the minimum volume of production to be set fairly high, as it is likely that the initiative to form groups will be taken mainly by the trade organizations, which are capable of mobilizing a large number of producers and of involving a fairly large amount of production; whereas, however, account should be taken of the far-reaching structural deficiencies in the supply of agricultural products in the Mezzogiorno and in the upland areas of the remainder of Italy;
Whereas in Portugal, since the fact that 'alentejanos de montado' pigs are reared extensively makes estimating national production difficult, the minimum share of national production volume required of associations in this sector should not be set;
Whereas for holdings in the Greek, Balearic and Canary Islands the far-reaching structural deficiencies in the supply of agricultural products justify a reduction of the minimum volumes of production;
Whereas requirements to guarantee the economic scale of the associations should also be laid down;
Whereas the sugar sector is characterized by a system of production quotas accompanied by specific provisions concerning inter-trade agreements; whereas for that reason Council Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 of 30 June 1981 on the common organization of the markets in the sugar sector (5), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 2787/90 (6), lays down that Regulation (EEC) No 1360/78 is not applicable to the sugar-beet sector as long as a quota system exists; whereas the limits in question should not therefore be set for that sector;
Whereas in the olive-oil sector account must be taken of the special provisions on the composition of groups of associations as laid down in Council Regulation (EEC) No 136/66/EEC of 22 September 1966 on the establishment of the common organization of the market in oils and fats (7), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3577/90 (8);
Whereas this Regulation does not cover the fishery and aquaculture products sector, which are subject to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3796/81 of 29 December 1981 on the common organization of the market in fishery products (9), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 2886/89 (10);
Whereas Council Regulation (EEC) No 789/89 (11) included locust beans in the common organization market in fruit and vegetables and, consequently, Regulation (EEC) No 1360/78 no longer applies in the locust bean sector;
Whereas Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (12), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 53/91 (13), instituted a combined goods nomenclature based on the Harmonized Community Description and Coding System;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Agricultural Structures and Rural Development,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: Article 1
1. The minimum volume of annual production of turnover and the minimum number of members which the producer groups should represent, within the meaning of Article 6 (1) (e) of Regulation (EEC) No 1360/78, shall be as laid down in the Annex.
In the Italian administrative regions in which the average production is lower than the minimum annual volume of production or minimum turnover provided for in the Annex, the minimum volume of production and number of members required of a producer group shall be reduced by 50 %.
Where they request recognition of products other than those listed in the Annex, the producer groups must have at least:
- an annual turnover of ECU 1 million or, in the case of Greece, ECU 500 000,
- 50 members.
The third subparagraph shall not apply to the sugarbeet sector.
2. The volume of production or the turnover referred to in paragraph 1 shall be in respect of products actually marketed or, in the case of the oliveoil sector, actually produced by the producers who are members of the producer group and shall be calculated as an average over three years prior to the application for recognition. Article 2
1. Notwithstanding Article 1, in those administrative districts of Italy where average production over the three years prior to 3 August 1980 exceeds 20 times the minimum volume of production for each sector, the groups must represent a minimum of 5 % of regional production, except in the sectors of oil seeds, live trees and other plants, bulbs, roots and the like, cut flowers and ornamental foliage, and honey.
Calculation of production in the various regions as provided for in the preceding subparagraph:
- shall be made on the basis of the official statistics of the Member State for the three years prior to 3 August 1980;
- shall be updated every five years.
For the purposes of these calculations, the figures may be rounded off to the nearest 1 000 or 100 depending on the orders of magnitude involved.
2. The minimum volume of production provided for in Article 1 and in paragraph 1 of this Article shall be reduced by:
- 30 % for producer groups made up mainly of farmers with farms situated in the Mezzogiorno and in areas covered by Article 3 (3) of Council Directive 75/268/EEC (14),
- 50 % for producers groups made up mainly of farmers with farms situated in the Balearic Islands or the Canary Islands. Article 3
1. For the purposes of Article 6 (1) (e) of Regulation (EEC) No 1360/78, and without prejudice to paragraph 2, associations must account for a combined volume of production or turnover which:
(a) is at last three times the minimum size laid down for groups in the region in which they are registered;
(b) is no lower than 5 % of national production or, in the case of France, no lower than 5 % of:
- either the production of the metropolitan regions covered by Regulation (EEC) No 1360/78,
- or the production of a given overseas department.
2. Notwithstanding paragraph 1:
(a) in the case of Italy, associations must be composed of at least five recognized producer groups operating in five different administrative regions, this threshold being changed to:
- 10 recognized producer groups active in five administrative regions for olive oil producers,
- four recognized producer groups active in two administrative regions for producers of tropical fruit, medicinal plants and rice,
- three recognized producer groups active in two administrative regions for producers of buffalo meat;
(b) in the case of France, associations must consist of at least five recognized producer groups operating in two departments. In the olive oil sector, associations must number at least 5 000 producers and produce at least 1 000 tonnes of oil; in the table wine and musts sector associations must consist of at least three recognized groups and number at least 600 members;
(c) in the case of Belgium, associations must comply with the minimum requirements as regards area cultivated, turnover, share of national production and number of recognized producer groups laid down in point III of the Annex, and must cover at least one province;
(d) in the case of Greece, associations must comply with the minimum requirements as regards area cultivated (or equivalent), turnover, share of national production and number of recognized producer groups laid down in point IV of the Annex. For products not listed in the Annex, associations must consist of at least three recognized groups. The minimum area covered by the associations must be at least ten communes situated within a homogeneous area;
(e) in the case of Spain, associations must comply within the minimum requirements as regards area cultivated, turnover and share of national production laid down in point V of the Annex. Both for products listed in the Annex and for other products, associations must consist of at least five recognized groups and cover at least the area of one autonomous community;
(f) in the case of Portugal, associations must comply with the minimum requirements as regards area cultivated, turnover, share of national production and number of recognized producer groups laid down in point VI of the Annex. For products not listed in the Annex, associations must consist of at least three recognized groups and cover at least the area of one district;
(g) in the case of Ireland, associations must comply with the minimum requirements as regards area cultivated, turnover, share of national production and number of recognized producer groups laid down in point VII of the Annex. Irish associations must cover at least the area of one province. Article 4
1. Regulation (EEC) No 2083/80 is hereby repealed.
2. All references to the repealed Regulation shall be construed as references to this Regulation. 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, 30 January 1991.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 45/91 of 8 January 1991 laying down detailed rules for applying the supplementary trade mechanism to imports of rice into Portugal
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to the Act of Accession of Spain and Portugal, and in particular Article 251 thereof,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 569/86 of 25 February 1986 laying down general rules for the application of the supplementary mechanism applicable to trade (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3296/88 (2), and in particular Article 7 (1) thereof,
Whereas Council Regulation (EEC) No 3659/90 of 11 December 1990 on products subject to the supplementary trade mechanism during the second stage of Portuguese accession (3) provides that the STM is to apply during the second stage on the terms set out in Articles 250, 251 and 252 of the Act of Accession; whereas in the case of rice falling within CN code 1006, but not including codes 1006 10 10 and 1006 40 00, the STM is to apply during periods which are critical to the marketing of rice produced in Portugal;
Whereas Article 251 (1) of the Act of Accession provides for the fixing of a target import ceiling taking into account Portugal's traditional import flows and the gradual opening up of the Portuguese market; whereas, during the period starting with the entry into force of this Regulation and ending on 28 February 1991, a pro rata target ceiling of 10 000 tonnes of husked-rice equivalent should be fixed; whereas the quantity of rice falling within CN code 1006 30 should be fixed as a subtotal of this;
Whereas the target ceiling is to be fixed in tonnes of husked-rice equivalent; whereas it should be specified that the conversion rates referred to in Article 1 of Commission Regulation No 467/67/EEC of 21 August 1967 fixing the conversion rates, the processing costs and the value of the by-products for the various stages of rice processing (4), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 2325/88 (5), apply for converting to tonnes of husked-rice equivalent the quantities given in STM licences as issued;
Whereas, to prevent speculative applications for STM licences, the validity of such licences should be fixed at a relatively short duration which is sufficient for the completion of the import operation(s) under normal conditions; whereas, to ensure that licence obligations are properly observed, holders of STM licences should be required to lodge a security;
Whereas the Management Committee for Cereals has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its chairman,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: Article 1
The measures provided for in this Regulation shall apply to the products referred to in point 7 of the Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 3659/90. Article 2
1. The target ceiling referred to in Article 251 of the Act of Accession is hereby fixed at 10 000 tonnes of husked-rice equivalent for the period starting with the entry into force of this Regulation and ending on 28 February 1991.
2. As a subtotal of the quantity referred to in paragraph 1, the target ceiling for products falling within CN code 1006 30 is hereby fixed at 25 %.
3. The conversion rates provided for in Article 1 of Regulation No 467/67/EEC shall apply for converting to husked-rice equivalent the quantities covered by STM licences. Article 3
1. STM licences for imports of rice shall be valid from the date of issue until the end of the second month following their issue.
2. Applications for STM licences shall be accompanied by the lodging of a security of 10 Ecus per tonne of rice covered. Article 4
This Regulation shall enter into force on the third 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, 8 January 1991.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION
of 8 October 1985
granting financial support for the implementation of the frontier infrastructure project at Goch-Gennep (Netherlands)
(Only the Dutch text is authentic)
(85/531/EEC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) N° 3620/84 of 19 December 1984 on a specific measure in the field of transport infrastructure (1), and in particular Article 4 (2) thereof,Whereas the Government of the Netherlands has applied to the Commission for financial support towards the cost of the Goch-Gennep frontier infrastructure project;Whereas in granting financial support for projects aimed at facilitating the crossing of frontiers the Commission is seeking, in particular, to further the aims of Council Directive 83/643/EEC of 1 December 1983 on the facilitation of physical inspections and administrative formalities in respect of the carriage of goods between Member States (2) which is designed to improve the flow of traffic at frontiers and reduce waiting times there;Whereas the Transport Infrastructure Committee set up by Decision 78/174/EEC of 20 February 1978 (3) has been consulted,HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
Financial support totalling a maximum of 30 000 ECU is hereby granted to finance the work involved in implementing the frontier infrastructure project at Goch-Gennep (Netherlands).
Article 2
The features of the project referred to in Article 1 are as follows:
1Location:Goch-Gennep, on the RW 77 trunk road to the south of Nijmegen.2Description:Construction of an extra lane for TIR-traffic and installation of signs warning of queues.3Timetable:1985 1986.4Estimated total cost of the project in national currency:Fl 382 000.
Article 3
Financing, implementation and control procedures are set out in the Annex to this Decision.
Article 4
The authorities responsible for the implementation of this Decision are:for the Commission, the Head of the Infrastructure Planning and Development Division in the Directorate-General for Transport;for the Netherlands, the Ministry of Transport and Construction.
Article 5
This Decision is addressed to the Netherlands.
Done at Brussels, 8 October 1985.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION
of 20 August 2007
amending Decision 2007/31/EC laying down transitional measures as regards the dispatch of certain products of the meat and milk sectors covered by Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council from Bulgaria to other Member States
(notified under document number C(2007) 3894)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2007/586/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to the Treaty of Accession of Bulgaria and Romania,
Having regard to the Act of Accession of Bulgaria and Romania, and in particular Article 42 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 (1), and in particular Article 9(4) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
Commission Decision 2007/31/EC (2) lays down transitional measures as regards the dispatch from Bulgaria to other Member States of certain products of the meat and milk sectors, covered by Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (3). Those products should be dispatched from Bulgaria only if obtained in a processing establishment listed in the Annex to that Decision.
(2)
Bulgaria has requested that certain establishments should be added to the list in the Annex to Decision 2007/31/EC. The competent authorities have given guarantees that those establishments now fully comply with Community requirements. Therefore, the list in that Annex should be updated accordingly. For the sake of clarity, it is appropriate to replace it by the Annex to this Decision.
(3)
Decision 2007/31/EC should therefore 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
The Annex to Decision 2007/31/EC is replaced by the text in the Annex to this Decision.
Article 2
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 20 August 2007.
|
[
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 276/2003
of 13 February 2003
fixing the export refunds on rice and broken rice and suspending the issue of export licences
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 the second subparagraph of Article 13(3) and (15) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 3072/95 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 within the Community may be covered by an export refund.
(2) Article 13(4) of Regulation (EC) No 3072/95, provides that when refunds are being fixed account must be taken of the existing situation and the future trend with regard to prices and availabilities of rice and broken rice on the Community market on the one hand and prices for rice and broken rice on the world market on the other. The same Article provides that it is also important to ensure equilibrium and the natural development of prices and trade on the rice market and, furthermore, to take into account the economic aspect of the proposed exports and the need to avoid disturbances of the Community market with limits resulting from agreements concluded in accordance with Article 300 of the Treaty.
(3) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1361/76(3) lays down the maximum percentage of broken rice allowed in rice for which an export refund is fixed and specifies the percentage by which that refund is to be reduced where the proportion of broken rice in the rice exported exceeds that maximum.
(4) Export possibilities exist for a quantity of 3809 tonnes of rice to certain destinations. The procedure laid down in Article 7(4) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1162/95(4), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2305/2002(5), should be used. Account should be taken of this when the refunds are fixed.
(5) Article 13(5) of Regulation (EC) No 3072/95 defines the specific criteria to be taken into account when the export refund on rice and broken rice is being calculated.
(6) 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.
(7) A separate refund should be fixed for packaged long grain rice to accommodate current demand for the product on certain markets.
(8) The refund must be fixed at least once a month; whereas it may be altered in the intervening period.
(9) It follows from applying these rules and criteria to the present situation on the market in rice and in particular to quotations or prices for rice and broken rice within the Community and on the world market, that the refund should be fixed as set out in the Annex hereto.
(10) For the purposes of administering the volume restrictions resulting from Community commitments in the context of the WTO, the issue of export licences with advance fixing of the refund should be restricted.
(11) 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 of Regulation (EC) No 3072/95 with the exception of those listed in paragraph 1(c) of that Article, exported in the natural state, shall be as set out in the Annex hereto.
Article 2
With the exception of the quantity of 3809 tonnes provided for in the Annex, the issue of export licences with advance fixing of the refund is suspended.
Article 3
This Regulation shall enter into force on 14 February 2003.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 13 February 2003.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 476/2007
of 27 April 2007
fixing the corrective amount applicable to the refund on malt
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 of 29 September 2003 on the common organization of the market in cereals (1), and in particular Article 15(2),
Whereas:
(1)
Article 14(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 provides that the export refund applicable to cereals on the day on which application for an export licence is made must be applied on request to exports to be effected during the period of validity of the export licence. In this case, a corrective amount may be applied to the refund.
(2)
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) allows for the fixing of a corrective amount for the malt referred to in Article 1(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003. That corrective amount must be calculated taking account of the factors referred to in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95.
(3)
It follows from applying the provisions set out above that the corrective amount must be as set out in the Annex hereto.
(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 corrective amount referred to in Article 15(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 which is applicable to export refunds fixed in advance in respect of malt shall be as set out in the Annex hereto.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 May 2007.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 27 April 2007.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Council Decision
of 22 December 2000
on the application of principles of a framework agreement on project finance in the field of officially supported export credits
(2001/77/EC)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 133(2) thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,
Whereas:
(1) The Community is party to the Arrangement on guidelines for officially supported export credits (hereinafter referred to as the "Arrangement") concluded within the framework of the OECD;
(2) The Arrangement is the subject of a Council Decision of 4 April 1978, which was extended by Decision 93/112/EEC(1) and last amended by Decision 97/530/EC(2); the Participants in the Arrangement have drawn up a new consolidated text which comprises all the amendments approved by them since the revision of the Arrangement, which was made applicable by Decision 93/112/EEC;
(3) The Participants in the Arrangement have decided that there is a need to supplement the Arrangement guidelines with principles affording the flexibility to accommodate the special characteristics of project finance transactions;
(4) The Participants in the Arrangement do not wish any flexibility to weaken the disciplines provided by the Arrangement guidelines which have been highly successful in regulating government intervention in the field of export credits;
(5) The Participants in the Arrangement have agreed on new principles for the provision of official support for project finance transactions;
(6) The new principles for project finance transactions should operate during a trial period of three years;
(7) The Arrangement continues to apply except where the new principles state that flexibility is permitted for project finance transactions;
(8) The Participants in the Arrangement should decide at the end of the trial period whether to continue to apply the new principles for project finance transactions,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
The principles contained in the framework agreement set out in the Annex shall apply in the Community.
Article 2
The principles referred to in Article 1 shall apply to project finance transactions during a trial period.
Article 3
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 22 December 2000.
|
[
0,
0,
1,
1,
1,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION of 8 October 1997 concerning a request for exemption submitted by Luxembourg pursuant to Article 8 (2) (c) of Council Directive 70/156/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the type-approval of motor vehicles and their trailers (Only the French text is authentic) (97/672/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Directive 70/156/EEC of 6 February 1970 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the type-approval of motor vehicles and their trailers (1), as last amended by European Parliament and Council Directive 96/79/EC (2), and in particular Article 8 (2) (c) thereof,
Whereas the request submitted by Luxembourg on 18 December 1996, which reached the Commission on 6 January 1997, contains the information required by Article 8 (2) (c); whereas the request concerns the fitting of one type of vehicle with one type of third stop lamp falling within category ECE S3 by virtue of ECE (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe) Regulation No 7 carried out in accordance with ECE Regulation No 48;
Whereas the reasons given in the request, according to which the fitting of the stop lamps and the stop lamps themselves do not meet the requirements of Council Directive 76/758/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to end-outline marker lamps, front position (side) lamps, rear position (side) lamps and stop lamps for motor vehicles and their trailers (3), as last amended by Commission Directive 97/30/EC (4), and of Council Directive 76/756/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the installation of lighting and light-signalling devices on motor vehicles and their trailers (5), as last amended by Commission Directive 97/28/EC (6), are well founded; whereas the descriptions of the tests, the results thereof and their compliance with ECE Regulations No 7 and No 48 ensure a satisfactory level of safety;
Whereas the Community directives concerned will be amended in order to permit the production and fitting of such stop lamps;
Whereas the measure provided for by this Decision is in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on Adaptation to Technical Progress set up by Directive 70/156/EEC,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
The request submitted by Luxembourg for an exemption concerning the production and fitting of one type of third stop lamp falling within category ECE S3 by virtue of ECE Regulation No 7 and the fitting thereof in accordance with ECE Regulation No 48 on the type of vehicle for which it is intended is hereby approved.
Article 2
This Decision is addressed to the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
Done at Brussels, 8 October 1997.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 98/2002
of 18 January 2002
on the issue of import licences for rice originating in the ACP States and the overseas countries and territories against applications submitted in the first five working days of January 2002 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 2603/97
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2603/97 of 16 December 1997 laying down the detailed rules of application for the import of rice from the ACP States and for the import of rice from the overseas countries and territories (OCT)(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2731/1999(2), and in particular Article 9(2) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Pursuant to Article 9(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2603/97, the Commission must decide within 10 days of the final date for notification by the Member States the extent to which applications can be granted and must fix the available quantities for the following tranche.
(2) Examination of the quantities for which applications have been submitted shows that licences for the January 2002 tranche should be issued for the quantities applied for reduced, where appropriate, by the percentages set out in the Annex hereto,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
1. Import licences for rice against applications submitted during the first five working days of January 2002 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 2603/97 and notified to the Commission shall be issued for the quantities applied for reduced, where appropriate, by the percentages set out in the Annex hereto.
2. The available quantities for the subsequent tranche are set out in the Annex hereto.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 19 January 2002.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 18 January 2002.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1928/2005
of 24 November 2005
fixing the rates of refunds applicable to certain products from the sugar sector exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the market in the sugar sector (1), and in particular Article 27(5)(a) and (15) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
Article 27(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 provides that the differences between the prices in international trade for the products listed in Article 1(1)(a), (c), (d), (f), (g) and (h) of that Regulation and prices within the Community may be covered by an export refund where these products are exported in the form of goods listed in Annex V to that Regulation.
(2)
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1043/2005 of 30 June 2005 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 3448/93 as regards the system of granting export refunds on certain agricultural products exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty, and the criteria for fixing the amount of such refunds, and the criteria for fixing the amount of such refunds (2), specifies the products for which a rate of refund is to be fixed, to be applied where these products are exported in the form of goods listed in Annex V to Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001.
(3)
In accordance with the first paragraph of Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 1043/2005, the rate of the refund per 100 kilograms for each of the basic products in question is to be fixed each month.
(4)
Article 27(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 lays down that the export refund for a product contained in goods may not exceed the refund applicable to that product when exported without further processing.
(5)
The refunds fixed under this Regulation may be fixed in advance as the market situation over the next few months cannot be established at the moment.
(6)
The commitments entered into with regard to refunds which may be granted for the export of agricultural products contained in goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty may be jeopardised by the fixing in advance of high refund rates. It is therefore necessary to take precautionary measures in such situations without, however, preventing the conclusion of long-term contracts. The fixing of a specific refund rate for the advance fixing of refunds is a measure which enables these various objectives to be met.
(7)
The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sugar,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The rates of the refunds applicable to the basic products listed in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1043/2005 and in Article 1(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001, and exported in the form of goods listed in Annex V to Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001, shall be fixed as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 25 November 2005.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 24 November 2005.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1772/2001
of 6 September 2001
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), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1666/2000(2), 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(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 602/2001(4).
(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 7 September 2001.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 6 September 2001.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1172/2005
of 19 July 2005
fixing the A1 and B export refunds for fruit and vegetables (tomatoes, oranges, lemons, table grapes and apples)
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 the third subparagraph of Article 35(3),
Whereas:
(1)
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1961/2001 (2) lays down the detailed rules of application for export refunds on fruit and vegetables.
(2)
Article 35(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 provides that, to the extent necessary for economically significant exports, the products exported by the Community may be covered by export refunds, within the limits resulting from agreements concluded in accordance with Article 300 of the Treaty.
(3)
Under Article 35(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2200/96, care must be taken to ensure that the trade flows previously brought about by the refund scheme are not disrupted. For this reason and because exports of fruit and vegetables are seasonal in nature, the quantities scheduled for each product should be fixed, based on the agricultural product nomenclature for export refunds established by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3846/87 (3). These quantities must be allocated taking account of the perishability of the products concerned.
(4)
Article 35(4) of Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 provides that refunds must be fixed in the light of the existing situation or outlook for fruit and vegetable prices on the Community market and supplies available on the one hand, and prices on the international market on the other hand. Account must also be taken of the transport and marketing costs and of the economic aspect of the exports planned.
(5)
In accordance with Article 35(5) of Regulation (EC) No 2200/96, prices on the Community market are to be established in the light of the most favourable prices from the export standpoint.
(6)
The international trade situation or the special requirements of certain markets may call for the refund on a given product to vary according to its destination.
(7)
Tomatoes, oranges, lemons, table grapes and apples of classes Extra, I and II of the common quality standards can currently be exported in economically significant quantities.
(8)
In order to ensure the best use of available resources and in view of the structure of Community exports, it is appropriate to fix the A1 and B export refunds.
(9)
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
1. For system A1, the refund rates, the refund application period and the scheduled quantities for the products concerned are fixed in the Annex hereto. For system B, the indicative refund rates, the licence application period and the scheduled quantities for the products concerned are fixed in the Annex hereto.
2. The licences issued in respect of food aid as referred to in Article 16 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1291/2000 (4) shall not count against the eligible quantities in the Annex hereto.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 9 September 2005.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 19 July 2005.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 758/2004
of 22 April 2004
providing for the rejection of applications for export licences for certain milk products
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products(1),
Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 174/1999 of 26 January 1999 laying down special detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 as regards export licences and export refunds in the case of milk and milk products(2), and in particular Article 10(3) thereof,
Whereas:
Uncertainty is a feature of the market in certain milk products. It is necessary to prevent speculative applications that may lead to a distortion in competition between traders. Applications for export licences for the products concerned should be rejected,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Applications for export licences for milk products falling within CN codes 0402 21, 0402 29, 0403 9013 9300, 0404 9023 9130, 0404 9083 9130, made between 16 and 21 April 2004 inclusive, shall be rejected.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 23 April 2004.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 22 April 2004.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION of 16 April 1996 amending Decision 95/473/EC establishing the list of approved fish farms in France (Text with EEA relevance) (96/289/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Directive 91/67/EEC of 28 January 1991 concerning the animal health conditions governing the placing on the market of aquaculture animals and products (1), as last amended by Directive 95/22/EC (2), and in particular Article 6 thereof,
Whereas France, by letter of 29 November 1995, has submitted to the Commission the justifications for obtaining the status of approved farm in a non-approved zone in respect of infectious haematopoietic necrosis (IHN) and viral haemorrhagic septicaemia (VHS) for certain fish farms situated in Brittany, as well as the national rules ensuring compliance with the rules on maintenance of approval;
Whereas the Commission has examined the justifications notified by France for each farm;
Whereas the result of this examination is that certain farms meet all the requirements of Article 6 of Council Directive 91/67/EEC; whereas one farm does not meet these requirements, and in particular those concerning the water supply and the sampling conditions to be respected;
Whereas the list of approved farms as laid down in the Annex to Commission Decision 95/473/EC (3) must be completed;
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 following points are added to the Annex of Decision 95/473/EC:
'3. SCEA "Truites du lac de Cartravers"
Bois Boscher
F-22460 Merleac
Côtes d'Armor
4. Pisciculture du Thélohier
F-35190 Cardroc
Ille-et-Vilaine`.
Article 2
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 16 April 1996.
|
[
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0,
0
] |
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT DECISION of 31 March 1998 giving discharge to the Management Board of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training in respect of the implementation of its budget for the 1996 financial year (98/332/EC)
THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,
- Having regard to the EC Treaty and in particular Article 206 thereof,
- Having regard to the statement of accounts of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training and the report of the Court of Auditors on this subject (C4-0051/98) (1),
- Having regard to the Council Recommendation of 9 March 1998 (C4-0164/98),
- Having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control and the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (A4-0092/98),
A. Whereas the Court of Auditors finds that the financial statements for the financial year ended 31 December 1996 are reliable and the underlying transactions are, as a whole, legal and regular,
1. Notes the following figures for the accounts of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training:
TABLE
2. Asks the Commission's Financial Controller to re-examine the contracting practices of the Centre in the light of the Court of Auditors' comments in order to clarify when it is necessary for it to launch formal specific calls for tender;
3. Emphasises that the Centre must obtain compensation from the owner of its temporary premises for improvements carried out at the Centre's expense; asks the director to report to the budgetary authority and to the Court of Auditors on this subject upon expiry of the current rental agreement;
4. Reiterates its belief that the mechanism employed for the purchase of the Centre's new premises lacks transparency and guarantees of value for money and is thus unsuitable for a public sector property purchase; asks the Court of Auditors to monitor the progress of this agreement and to report to Parliament in its next annual report on the Centre;
5. Takes note of the fact that the decommitment of ECU 1,1 million in the Centre's 1996 budget was due to the fact that during that year it employed only 70 people out of the 81 initially budgeted; notes that the move to Thessaloniki has finally been completed and that working conditions, at least in terms of staffing, are now back to normal;
6. Expects the Centre now to be in a position to submit an accurate forecast of its financial needs, so that the budgetary appropriations decided by the authority are fully utilised;
7. Reiterates its belief that the Centre can make a valid contribution to the development of a European vocational training policy; would like the Centre in this context to become more involved in the activities of the European Parliament by making its expertise available to its relevant committees;
8. Gives discharge to the Management Board of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training in respect of the implementation of its budget for the 1996 financial year;
9. Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Management Board of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training, the Council, the Commission and the Court of Auditors and to have it published in the Official Journal of the European Communities (L series).
The Secretary-General
Julian PRIESTLEY
The President
José María GIL-ROBLES
(1) OJ C 393, 29. 12. 1997, p. 1.
|
[
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 3068/95
of 21 December 1995
amending Regulation (EEC) No 189/92 adopting provisions for the application of certain control measures adopted by the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 43 thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission (1),
Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (2),
Whereas Regulation (EEC) No 189/92 (3) adopted provisions for the application of certain control measures adopted by the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO);
Whereas the European Community and Canada have agreed in the Agreement on Fisheries of 20 April 1995 to introduce additional control measures which shall apply to fishing vessels operating in the NAFO Regulatory Area;
Whereas the NAFO Fisheries Commission adopted a proposal on 15 September 1995 to amend the hail system;
Whereas, pursuant to Article XI of the NAFO Convention, the proposal will, in the absence of objection, become a measure binding upon the Contracting Parties as from 15 November 1995;
Whereas the modified scheme is acceptable to the Community;
Whereas it is necessary to amend Regulation (EEC) No 189/92, in order to oblige Community fishing vessels to comply with those new measures,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 189/92 is hereby amended as follows:
1. The following indent shall be added to points 1.1 and 1.4:
'- Species (3 Alpha code) in kilograms (rounded to the nearest 100 kilograms). The total quantity of species for which the total round weight by species is less than one tonne may be reported by the 3 Alpha code "MZZ" (Marine fish unspecified).'
2. The following text shall replace the corresponding sentence in the introduction to point 1.4:
'These reports shall be made at least six hours in advance of the vessel's exit from the Regulatory Area and shall contain the following particulars in the following order.'
3. The following points shall be added:
'1.5 Transshipment in the Regulatory Area. This report shall be made 24 hours in advance and shall contain the following particulars in the following order:
- Name of vessel,
- Call sign,
- Extend identification letters and numbers,
- The date, time and geographical position,
- Indication of the message code: "TRANS",
- The total round weight by species (3 Alpha code) to be transshipped in kilograms (rounded to the nearest 100 kilograms),
- The name of the Master.
1.6 Vessels equipped with devices which enable the automatic transmission of their position are exempt from the hail requirements set out in 1.2 and 1.3.'
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh 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, 21 December 1995.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION
of 1 July 2004
establishing a transitional measure for the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 on the animal health requirements applicable to the non-commercial movement of pet animals
(notified under document number C(2004) 2365)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2004/539/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to the Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 on the animal health requirements applicable to the non-commercial movement of pet animals and amending Council Directive 92/65/EEC (1), and in particular Article 21 thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 establishing veterinary conditions applicable to the non-commercial movements of pet animals, is to apply from 3 July 2004.
(2)
Despite measures which have been adopted to ease the transition from the existing conditions to those established by Regulation (EC) No 998/2003, its implementation requires in particular the availability of the passport document in all the veterinary offices, the issuing of new models of import certificates for entry from third countries, and post-vaccination testing for animals from third countries not listed in Part C of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 998/2003.
(3)
It appears that in spite of the efforts undertaken by Member States some uncertainties remain with regard to those conditions, in particular taking into account the considerable number of people about to travel with their pet at this period of the year for summer holidays. Consequently, the annual peak in pet movements could result in numerous administrative difficulties.
(4)
It is therefore advisable to maintain as necessary the application of the national conditions currently in force for a sufficient period of time. As a consequence, during this period movements shall be allowed in conformity either with Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 or with national rules which were in force before 3 July 2004. Accordingly, the derogation from Commission Decisions 2003/803/EC (2) and 2004/203/EC (3), provided for in Commission Decision 2004/301/EC, as regards the format for certificates and passports to be used for the non-commercial movement of dogs, cats and ferrets should be postponed.
(5)
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
Without prejudice to the second paragraph of Article 25 of Regulation (EC) No 998/2003, Member States shall allow entry into their territory until 1 October 2004 of pet animals of the species listed in Annex I to that Regulation in conformity with national rules which were in force before 3 July 2004.
Article 2
In Article 1, first paragraph, point (a), of Decision 2004/301/EC, the date ‘3 July 2004’ is replaced by the date ‘1 October 2004’.
Article 3
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 1 July 2004.
|
[
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0
] |
COUNCIL DECISION of 23 October 1995 authorizing the Federal Republic of Germany to conclude an agreement with the Republic of Poland containing measures derogating from Articles 2 and 3 of the Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes (95/435/EC)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes - Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (1), and in particular Article 30 thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,
Whereas, under Article 30 of the Sixth VAT Directive, the Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission, may authorize any Member State to conclude with a non-member country or an international organization an agreement which may contain derogations from the said Directive;
Whereas, by letter officially received by the Secretariat-General of the Commission on 20 January 1995, the German Government requested authorization to conclude an agreement with Poland concerning the link-up of the German road B97 and the Polish road 274, and the construction of a frontier bridge across the Neisse in the Guben and Gubinek area, which contains derogations from Articles 2 and 3 of the Sixth Directive as regards the construction of the frontier bridge;
Whereas the other Member States were informed on 20 February 1995 of the German request;
Whereas, in the absence of derogations, the construction work carried out on German territory would be subject to VAT in Germany while that carried out on Polish territory would be outside the scope of the Sixth Directive and whereas, in addition, each importation from Poland into Germany of goods used for the construction of the frontier bridge would be subject to VAT in Germany;
Whereas the purpose of these derogations is to simplify the rules of taxation for the contractors carrying out the construction work on the frontier bridge in question;
Whereas the derogations will have only a negligible effect on the own resources of the European Communities accruing from value added tax,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
The Federal Republic of Germany is authorized to conclude an agreement with the Republic of Poland concerning the link-up of the German road B97 and the Polish road 274 and the construction of a frontier bridge across the Neisse in the Guben and Gubinek area and containing measures derogating from the Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC. These derogations are defined in Articles 2 and 3 of this Decision.
Article 2
By way of derogation from Article 3 of the Sixth Directive, that part of the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany in the region of Guben in which work to construct a frontier bridge across the Neisse linking German road B97 and Polish national road 274 is carried out shall be deemed to be part of the territory of the Republic of Poland for the purposes of supplies of goods and services intended for use in the construction of that bridge.
Article 3
By way of derogation from point 2 of Article 2 of the Sixth Directive, the importation of goods into Germany from Poland shall not be subject to value added tax insofar as those goods are used for the construction of a frontier bridge across the Neisse in the Guben and Gubinek area linking German road B97 and Polish road 274. However, this derogation shall not apply to importations of goods effected by a public authority.
Article 4
This Decision is addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany.
Done at Luxembourg, 23 October 1995.
|
[
0,
1,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
*****
COMMISSION DECISION
of 7 April 1983
establishing that the apparatus described as 'Rigaku - Rotaflex, 12 kW Rotating Anode X-Ray Generator, model RU-200H' may be imported free of Common Customs Tariff duties
(83/164/EEC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN
COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1798/75 of 10 July 1975 on the importation free of Common Customs Tariff duties of educational, scientific and cultural materials (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 608/82 (2),
Having regard to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2784/79 of 12 December 1979 laying down provisions for the implementation of Regulation (EEC) No 1798/75 (3), and in particular Article 7 thereof,
Whereas, by letter dated 8 September 1982, the Federal Republic of Germany requested the Commission to invoke the procedure provided for in Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 2784/79 in order to determine whether or not the apparatus described as 'Rigaku - Rotaflex, 12 kW Rotating Anode X-Ray Generator, model RU-200H', ordered on 8 August 1979 and intended to be used for the elucidation of the structure of defects in metals and semiconductors and the monitoring of dynamic phenomena in alloys, should be considered to be a scientific apparatus and, where the reply is in the affirmative, whether apparatus of equivalent scientific value is currently being manufactured in the Community;
Whereas, in accordance with the provisions of Article 7 (5) of Regulation (EEC) No 2784/79, a group of experts composed of representatives of all the Member States met on 2 February 1983, within the framework of the Committee on Duty-Free Arrangements, to examine the matter;
Whereas this examination showed that the apparatus in question is a generator;
Whereas its objective technical characteristics, such as the intensity of the source, and the use to which it is put make it specially suited to scientific research; whereas, moreover, apparatus of the same kind are principally used for scientific activities; whereas it must therefore be considered to be a scientific apparatus;
Whereas, on the basis of information received from Member States, apparatus of equivalent scientific value capable of use for the same purpose is not currently manufactured in the Community; whereas, therefore, duty-free admission of this apparatus is justified,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
The apparatus described as 'Rigaku - Rotaflex, 12 kW Rotating Anode X-Ray Generator, model RU-200H', which is the subject of an application by the Federal Republic of Germany of 8 September 1982, may be imported free of Common Customs Tariff duties.
Article 2
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 7 April 1983.
|
[
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION of 1 February 1999 amending Decision 87/257/EEC on the list of establishments in the United States of America approved for the purpose of importing fresh meat into the Community (notified under document number C(1999) 233) (Text with EEA relevance) (1999/85/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 on importation of bovine, ovine and caprine animals and swine, fresh meat or meat products from third countries (1), as last amended by Directive 97/79/EC (2), and in particular Articles 4(1) and 18(1) thereof,
Whereas a list of establishments in the United States of America, approved for the purpose of importing fresh meat into the Community, was drawn up initially by Commission Decision 87/257/EEC (3) as last amended by Decision 98/473/EC (4); whereas that list may be amended at any time in the light of the results of Community inspections carried out in the United States of America;
Whereas negotiations are under way to conclude an agreement with the United States on health measures to protect public health and animal health in the context of trade in livestock and products of animal origin;
Whereas this situation, progress already achieved, and the need to avoid distortion of trade justify the postponement of the deadline established for the landing of certain fresh meat, from 31 January 1999 to 30 April 1999; whereas the fixing of this date is without prejudice either to the date of conclusion or to the content of the abovementioned agreement;
Whereas the list of establishments must 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 Decision 87/257/EEC is hereby replaced by the Annex hereto.
Article 2
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 1 February 1999.
|
[
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Decision
of 11 May 1981
establishing that the apparatus described as "Hewlett Packard computing calculator, model HP 9815 A" may not be imported free of Common Customs Tariff duties
(81/355/EEC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1798/75 of 10 July 1975 on the importation free of Common Customs Tariff duties of educational, scientific and cultural materials [1], as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1027/79 [2],
Having regard to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2784/79 of 12 December 1979 laying down provisions for the implementation of Regulation (EEC) No 1798/75 [3], and in particular Article 7 thereof,
Whereas, by letter dated 22 October 1980, the Government of the United Kingdom has requested the Commission to invoke the procedure provided for in Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 2784/79 in order to determine whether or not the apparatus described as "Hewlett Packard computing calculator, model HP 9815 A", to be used for the following researches :
- effect of the continuous or pulsed light quality and quantity on the growth of plants,
- determination of action spectra for flower initiation and other biological phenomena using narrow band width radiation sources from UV to near IR spectra regions,
- determination of variation of light quality as a function of time of day/night,
- location of photosensitive pigments within plants,
should be considered as a scientific apparatus and, where the reply is in the affirmative, whether apparatus of equivalent scientific value is currently being manufactured in the Community ;
Whereas, in accordance with the provisions of Article 7 (5) of Regulation (EEC) No 2784/75, a group of experts composed of representatives of all the Member States met on 5 March 1981 within the framework of the Committee on Duty-Free Arrangements to examine the matter ;
Whereas this examination showed that the apparatus in question is a computer ;
Whereas it does not have the requisite objective characteristics making it specifically suited to scientific research ; whereas, moreover, apparatus of the same kind are principally used for non-scientific activities ; whereas its use in the case in question could not alone confer upon it the character of a scientific apparatus ; whereas it therefore cannot be regarded as a scientific apparatus ; whereas the duty-free admission of the apparatus in question is therefore not justified,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION :
Article 1
The apparatus described as "Hewlett Packard computing calculator, model HP 9815 A" which is the subject of an application by the Government of the United Kingdom of 22 October 1980 may not be imported free of Common Customs Tariff duties.
Article 2
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 11 May 1981.
|
[
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 265/2008
of 19 March 2008
fixing the export refunds on eggs
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2771/75 of 29 October 1975 on the common organisation of the market in eggs (1), and in particular the third subparagraph of Article 8(3) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
Article 8 of Regulation (EEC) No 2771/75 provides that the difference between prices on the world market for the products listed in Article 1(1) of that regulation and prices for those products on the Community market may be covered by an export refund.
(2)
Given the present situation on the market in eggs, export refunds should therefore be fixed in accordance with the rules and certain criteria provided for in Article 8 of Regulation (EEC) No 2771/75.
(3)
Article 8(3), second subparagraph of Regulation (EEC) No 2771/75 provides that the world market situation or the specific requirements of certain markets may make it necessary to vary the refund according to destination.
(4)
Refunds should be granted only on products that are allowed to move freely in the Community and that comply with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs (2) and of Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (3) as well as marking requirements of Council Regulation (EC) No 1028/2006 of 19 June 2006 on certain marketing standards for eggs (4).
(5)
The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Poultrymeat and Eggs,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
1. Export refunds as provided for in Article 8 of Regulation (EEC) No 2771/75 shall be granted on the products and for the amounts set out in the Annex to this Regulation subject to the conditions provided for in paragraph 2 of this Article.
2. The products eligible for a refund under paragraph 1 must meet the relevant requirements of Regulations (EC) No 852/2004 and (EC) No 853/2004, notably preparation in an approved establishment and compliance with the marking requirements laid down in Annex II, Section I to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 and those laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1028/2006.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 20 March 2008.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 19 March 2008.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COUNCIL REGULATION (EC, ECSC, EURATOM) No 620/1999 of 22 March 1999 adjusting the daily subsistence allowance rates for officials on mission within the European territory of the Member States laid down in Article 13 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing a single Council and a single Commission of the European Communities,
Having regard to the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities laid down by Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC, ECSC, Euratom) No 2762/98 (2), and in particular Article 13 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations and Articles 22 and 67 of the Conditions of Employment,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,
Whereas the rates of daily subsistence allowance for officials on mission should be adjusted in order to take account of the changes in prices and exchange rates recorded since 1991 in the different mission locations within the European territory of the Member States,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Article 13 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations shall be amended as follows:
1. The scale in paragraph 1(a) shall be replaced by the following:
TABLE
2. The first sentence in paragraph 2 shall be replaced by the following:
'2. In addition to the rates set out in column I of the foregoing scale, the hotel bill covering room, service and taxes, but excluding breakfast, shall be reimbursed up to a maximum of:
- EUR 117,08 for Belgium,
- EUR 148,07 for Denmark,
- EUR 97,03 for Germany,
- EUR 99,63 for Greece,
- EUR 126,57 for Spain,
- EUR 97,27 for France,
- EUR 139,32 for Ireland,
- EUR 114,33 for Italy,
- EUR 106,92 for Luxembourg,
- EUR 131,76 for Netherlands,
- EUR 124,89 for Portugal,
- EUR 149,03 for United Kingdom.`
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, 22 March 1999.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
1
] |
Commission Decision
of 13 June 2000
on the procedure for attesting the conformity of construction products pursuant to Article 20(2) of Council Directive 89/106/EEC as regards prefabricated wood-based load-bearing stressed skin panels and self-supporting composite lightweight panels
(notified under document number C(2000) 804)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2000/447/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Directive 89/106/EEC of 21 December 1988 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to construction products(1), as amended by Directive 93/68/EEC(2), and in particular Article 13(4) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) The Commission is required to select, between the two procedures under Article 13(3) of Directive 89/106/EEC for attesting the conformity of a product, the "least onerous possible procedure consistent with safety", This means that it is necessary to decide whether, for a given product or family of products, the existence of a factory production control system under the responsability of the manufacturer is a necessary and sufficient condition for an attestation of conformity, or whether, for reasons related to compliance with the criteria mentioned in Article 13(4), the intervention of an approved certification body is required.
(2) Article 13(4) requires that the procedure thus determined be indicated in the mandates and in the technical specifications. Therefore, it is desirable to define the concept of products or family of products as used in the mandates and in the technical specifications.
(3) The two procedures provided for in Article 13(3) are described in detail in Annex III to Directive 89/106/EEC. It is necessary therefore to specify clearly the methods by which the two procedures should be implemented, by reference to Annex III, for each product or family of products, since Annex III gives preference to certain systems.
(4) The procedure referred to in point (a) of Article 13(3) corresponds to the systems set out in the first possibility, without continuous surveillance, and the second and third possibilities of point (ii) of Section 2 of Annex III. The procedure referred to in point (b) of Article 13(3) corresponds to the systems set out in point (i) of Annex III, and in the first possibility, with continuous surveillance, of point (ii) of Section 2 of Annexes III.
(5) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Construction,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
The products and families of products set out in Annex I shall have their conformity attested by a procedure whereby the manufacturer has under its sole responsibility a factory production system ensuring that the product is in conformity with the relevant technical specifications.
Article 2
The products and families of products set out in Annex II shall have their conformity attested by a procedure whereby, in addition to a factory production control system operated by the manufacturer, an approved certification body is involved in assessment and surveillance of the production control or of the product itself.
Article 3
The procedure for attesting conformity as set out in Annex III shall be indicated in the mandates for guidelines for European technical approval.
Article 4
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 13 June 2000.
|
[
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 543/2005
of 8 April 2005
establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 of 21 December 1994 on detailed rules for the application of the import arrangements for fruit and vegetables (1), and in particular Article 4(1) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations, the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products and periods stipulated in the Annex thereto.
(2)
In compliance with the above criteria, the standard import values must be fixed at the levels set out in the Annex to this Regulation,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The standard import values referred to in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 shall be fixed as indicated in the Annex hereto.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 9 April 2005.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 8 April 2005.
|
[
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1435/2001
of 13 July 2001
fixing for the 2000/2001 marketing year the specific exchange rate applicable to the minimum sugarbeet prices and the production levy and additional levy in the sugar sector for the currencies of those Member States which have not adopted the single currency
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1713/93 of 30 June 1993 establishing special detailed rules for applying the agricultural conversion rate in the sugar sector(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1642/1999(2), and in particular Article 1(3) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Article 1(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1713/93 specifies that the minimum sugarbeet prices referred to in Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the market in the sugar sector(3) and the production levy and additional levy referred to Articles 15 and 16 respectively of that Regulation are to be converted into national currency using a specific exchange rate equal to the average, calculated pro rata temporis, of the exchange rates applicable during the marketing year in question. That specific exchange rate must be fixed during the month following the end of the marketing year in question.
(2) The system of specific agricultural conversion rates was amended from 1 January 1999 by Council Regulation (EC) No 2799/98 of 15 December 1998 establishing agrimonetary arrangements for the euro(4). As a result, the fixing of conversion rates should be restricted to the specific exchange rates between the euro and the national currencies of those Member States which have not adopted the single currency.
(3) The application of these provisions results in the fixing, for the 2000/2001 marketing year, of the specific exchange rate for the minimum sugarbeet prices and the production levy and, where appropriate, the additional levy in the various national currencies, as set out in the Annex to this Regulation,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The specific exchange rate to be used for the conversion of the minimum sugarbeet prices as referred to in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 and the production levy and, where appropriate, the additional levy referred to in Articles 15 and 16 respectively of that Regulation, into each of the national currencies of the Member States which have not adopted the single currency, shall be fixed, for the 2000/2001 marketing year, as set out in the Annex hereto.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 14 July 2001.
It shall apply from 1 July 2000.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 13 July 2001.
|
[
0,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 761/1999
of 12 April 1999
amending Regulation (EEC) No 2676/90 determining Community methods for the analysis of wines
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 organisation of the market in wine(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1627/98(2), and in particular Article 74 thereof,
Whereas the Annex to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2676/90(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 822/97(4), describes methods of analysis; whereas the method of analysis for D-malic acid described in Chapter 20 has proved to be somewhat imprecise, and a new more accurate method has been developed; whereas a new method has been developed for the analysis of cyanide derivatives which is more sensitive and easier to apply; whereas a new method for determination of ethyl carbamate in wine has been developed at international level; whereas these three methods have been validated in accordance with internationally recognised criteria; whereas the use of these methods can ensure better control of wine quality and authenticity and prevent disputes due to the application of outdated and somewhat unreliable methods of analysis; whereas the descriptions of the new methods have been approved by the International Vine and Wine Office; whereas they should be incorporated into the Regulation;
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 2676/90 is hereby amended as follows:
1. Chapter 20 (D-malic acid) is replaced by Annex I to this Regulation;
2. Chapter 38 (Cyanide derivatives) is replaced by Annex II to this Regulation;
3. Annex III to this Regulation is added as Chapter 44.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 12 April 1999.
|
[
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1902/94 of 27 July 1994 on the sale at a price fixed in advance of unprocessed dried figs from the 1993 harvest to distillation industries
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) no 1206/90 of 7 May 1990 laying down general rules for the system of production aid for processed fruit and vegetables (1), as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 2202/90 (2), and in particular Article 6 (2) thereof,
Having regard to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1707/85 of 21 June 1985 on the sale of unprocessed dried figs by storage agencies for the manufacture of alcohol (3), and in particular Article 5 thereof,
Whereas Article 6 (2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 626/85 of 12 March 1985 on the purchasing, selling and storage or uprocessed dried grapes and figs by storage agencies (4), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1416/94 (5), provides that products intended for specific uses shall be sold at prices fixed in advance or determined by an invitation to tender;
Whereas the aforementioned Regulation (EEC) No 1707/85 provides that unprocessed dried figs may be sold at a price fixed in advance to distillation industries;
Whereas the Greek storage agency is holding roughly 319 tonnes of unprocessed dried figs from the 1993 harvest; whereas the products should be offered to the distillation industries;
Whereas the selling price should be fixed in such a way that disturbance of the Community market in alcohol and spirituous beverages is avoided;
Whereas the amount of the processing security provided for in Article 2 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1707/85 should be fixed, taking into consideration the difference between the normal market price for dried figs and the selling price fixed by this Regulation;
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:
Article 1
1. The Greek storage agency shall undertake the sale of unprocessed dried figs from the 1993 harvest to the distillation industries in accordance with the provisions of Regulation (EEC) No 626/85 and (EEC) No 1707/85 at a price fixed at ECU 3,33 per 100 kilograms net.
2. The processing security referred to in Article 2 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1707/85 is fixed at ECU 12,4 per 100 kilograms net.
Article 2
1. Purchase applications shall be submitted to the Greek storage agency Sykiki, at the head office of IDAGEP, Acharnon Street 241, Athens, Greece, for products held by that agency.
2. Information on the quantities and places where the products are stored may be obtained from the Greek storage agency Sykiki, Kritis Street 13, Kalamata, Greece.
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, 27 July 1994.
|
[
0,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION
of 7 August 2007
on a Community financial contribution towards expenditure incurred by Member States in implementing the monitoring and control systems applicable to the common fisheries policy for 2007
(notified under document number C(2007) 3747)
(2007/567/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 861/2006 of 22 May 2006 establishing Community financial measures for the implementation of the common fisheries policy and in the area of the Law of the Sea (1), and in particular Article 21 thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
Member States have forwarded to the Commission their fisheries control programme for 2007 together with the applications for a Community financial contribution towards the expenditure to be incurred in carrying out the projects contained in such programme.
(2)
Applications concerning actions listed in Article 8(a) of Regulation (EC) No 861/2006 may qualify for Community funding.
(3)
Applications for Community funding must comply with Commission Regulation (EC) No 391/2007 of 11 April 2007 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 861/2006 as regards the expenditure incurred by Member States in implementing the monitoring and control systems applicable to the common fisheries policy (2).
(4)
It is appropriate to fix the maximum amounts and the rate of the Community financial contribution in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 861/2006 and to lay down the conditions under which such contribution may be granted.
(5)
In order to qualify for the Community contribution, automatic localisation devices should satisfy the requirements fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2244/2003 of 18 December 2003 laying down detailed provisions regarding satellite-based Vessel Monitoring Systems (3).
(6)
The amount of the financial contribution to be granted to each Member State for expenditure related to the purchase and modernisation of vessels and aircraft should be calculated on the basis of the ratio between the inspection and control activity carried out by such vessels and aircraft and their total yearly activity, as declared by the Member States.
(7)
Pursuant to Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 391/2007, the projects listed in the fisheries control programme are to be implemented in accordance with the schedule laid down in that programme.
(8)
Claims for reimbursement of expenditure relating to those projects are to be submitted to the Commission in accordance with Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 391/2007.
(9)
The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
Subject matter
This Decision provides for a Community financial contribution for 2007 towards expenditure incurred by Member States for 2007 in implementing the monitoring and control systems applicable to the common fisheries policy, as referred to in Article 8(a) of Regulation (EC) No 861/2006. It establishes the amount of the Community financial contribution for each Member State, the rate of the Community financial contribution and the conditions on which such contribution may be granted.
Article 2
New technologies and IT networks
Expenditure incurred on the purchase of, installation and technical assistance for, computer technology and setting up of IT networks in order to allow efficient and secure data exchange in connection with monitoring, control and surveillance of fisheries activities, shall qualify for a financial contribution of 50 % of the eligible expenditure within the limits laid down in Annex I.
Article 3
Automatic localisation devices
1. Expenditure incurred in the purchase and fitting on board of fishing vessels of automatic localisation devices enabling vessels to be monitored at a distance by a fisheries monitoring centre through a vessel monitoring system (VMS) shall qualify for a maximum financial contribution of EUR 4 500 per vessel within the limits established in Annex II.
2. Within the EUR 4 500 limit provided for in paragraph 1, the financial contribution for the first EUR 1 500 of eligible expenditure shall be at a rate of 100 %.
3. The financial contribution for eligible expenditure comprised between EUR 1 500 and EUR 4 500 per vessel shall amount to a maximum of 50 % of such expenditure.
4. In order to qualify, automatic localisation devices shall satisfy the requirements fixed by Regulation (EC) No 2244/2003.
Article 4
Pilot projects
Expenditure incurred in pilot projects on new control technologies shall qualify for a financial contribution of 50 % of the eligible expenditure within the limits laid down in Annex III.
Article 5
Training
Expenditure incurred on training and exchange programmes of civil servants responsible for monitoring control and surveillance tasks in the fisheries area shall qualify for a financial contribution of 50 % of the eligible expenditure within the limits laid down in Annex IV.
Article 6
Assessment of expenditure
Expenditure incurred in implementing a system to assess expenditure incurred in controlling the common fisheries policy shall qualify for a financial contribution of 50 % of the eligible expenditure within the limits laid down in Annex V.
Article 7
Seminars and media tools
Expenditure incurred in initiatives including seminar and media tools aimed at enhancing awareness among fishermen and other players such as inspectors, public prosecutors and judges, as well as among the general public on the need to fight irresponsible and illegal fishing and on the implementation of common fisheries policy rules, shall qualify for a financial contribution of 75 % of the eligible expenditure within the limits laid down in Annex VI.
Article 8
Fisheries patrol vessels and aircraft
Expenditure related to the purchase and modernisation of vessels and aircraft used for inspection and surveillance of fishing activities by the competent authorities of the Member States shall qualify, within the limits laid down in Annex VII, for a financial contribution not exceeding 50 % of the eligible expenditure incurred by Member States.
Article 9
Addressees
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 7 August 2007.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2360/96 of 11 December 1996 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 amended by Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 (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, as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2153/96 (3), and in particular Article 173 (1) thereof,
Whereas Articles 173 to 177 of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 provide that the Commission shall periodically establish unit values for the products referred to in the classification in Annex 26 to that Regulation;
Whereas the result of applying the rules and criteria laid down in the abovementioned Articles to the elements communicated to the Commission in accordance with Article 173 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 is that unit values set out in the Annex to this Regulation should be established in regard to the products in question,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The unit values provided for in Article 173 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 are hereby established as set out in the table in the Annex hereto.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 13 December 1996.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 11 December 1996.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 135/2008
of 15 February 2008
fixing the import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 16 February 2008
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 of 29 September 2003 on the common organisation of the market in cereals (1),
Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1249/96 of 28 June 1996 on rules of application (cereal sector import duties) for Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 (2), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
Article 10(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 states that the import duty on products falling within CN codes 1001 10 00, 1001 90 91, ex 1001 90 99 (high quality common wheat), 1002, ex 1005 other than hybrid seed, and ex 1007 other than hybrids for sowing, is to be equal to the intervention price valid for such products on importation and increased by 55 %, minus the cif import price applicable to the consignment in question. However, that duty may not exceed the rate of duty in the Common Customs Tariff.
(2)
Article 10(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 lays down that, for the purposes of calculating the import duty referred to in paragraph 2 of that Article, representative cif import prices are to be established on a regular basis for the products in question.
(3)
Under Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1249/96, the price to be used for the calculation of the import duty on products of CN codes 1001 10 00, 1001 90 91, ex 1001 90 99 (high quality common wheat), 1002 00, 1005 10 90, 1005 90 00 and 1007 00 90 is the daily cif representative import price determined as specified in Article 4 of that Regulation.
(4)
Import duties should be fixed for the period from 16 February 2008, and should apply until new import duties are fixed and enter into force.
(5)
However, in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2008 of 20 December 2007 temporarily suspending customs duties on imports of certain cereals for the 2007/08 marketing year (3), the application of certain duties set by this Regulation is suspended,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
From 16 February 2008, the import duties in the cereals sector referred to in Article 10(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 shall be those fixed in Annex I to this Regulation on the basis of the information contained in Annex II.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 16 February 2008.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 15 February 2008.
|
[
0,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION of 29 July 1991 approving measures to set up pilot projects for the control of rabies with a view to its eradication or prevention presented by the Federal Republic of Germany (Only the German text is authentic) (91/429/EEC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Decision 89/455/EEC of 24 July 1989 introducing Community measures to set up pilot projects for the control of rabies with a view to its eradication or prevention (1), and in particular Article 4 thereof,
Whereas, conforming to Article 1 of Decision 89/455/EEC the Federal Republic of Germany shall set up large-scale pilot projects in accordance with Article 3 for the eradication or prevention of rabies in the wild life of the Community using vaccines for the oral immunization of foxes;
Whereas the pilot projects as presented by the Federal Republic of Germany include the adjacent border areas of Czechoslovakia, Austria and the Netherlands;
Whereas the pilot project is part of a cross border cooperation with Czechoslovakia, Austria and the Netherlands;
Whereas by letter dated 22 March 1991 the Federal Republic of Germany notified the Commission of pilot projects for the control of rabies with a view to its eradication or prevention;
Whereas, after examination the pilot project was found to comply with Decision 89/455/EEC whereas the conditions for financial participation by the Community are therefore met;
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 pilot projects for the eradication and prevention of rabies, presented by the Federal Republic of Germany are hereby approved.
Article 2
The Federal Republic of Germany shall bring into force by 1 April 1991 the laws, regulations and administrative provisions for implementing the pilot projects referred to in Article 1.
Article 3
This Decision is addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany. Done at Brussels, 29 July 1991.
|
[
1,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION
of 21 May 2008
amending Decision 2005/622/EC accepting undertakings offered in connection with the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of grain oriented flat-rolled products of silicon-electrical steel originating in the United States of America and Russia
(2008/384/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (the basic Regulation), and in particular Articles 8 and 9 thereof,
After consulting the Advisory Committee,
Whereas:
A. PREVIOUS PROCEDURE
(1)
By Regulation (EC) No 1371/2005 (2), the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of grain oriented flat-rolled products of silicon-electrical steel (GOES) originating in the United States of America (USA) and Russia.
(2)
By Decision 2005/622/EC (3), the Commission accepted price undertakings offered by two co-operating exporting producers whose exports to the Community of GOES are subject to company-specific duties, namely AK Steel Corporation, USA, and Novolipetsk Iron & Steel Corporation (NLMK), Russia.
B. REPEAL OF DECISION 2005/622/EC
(3)
On 23 February 2007, the Commission initiated (4) a partial interim review limited to the examination of the level of dumping for two Russian exporting producers, NLMK and Viz Stal.
(4)
The findings of the review, which are set out in Council Regulation (EC) No 435/2008 (5), were that the measures in force on imports of GOES from Russia should be repealed and that the proceeding concerning those imports should be terminated.
(5)
In view of the above, Commission Decision 2005/622/EC, by which the Commission accepted an undertaking from NLMK, should be amended and the undertaking accepted from NLMK should be repealed,
HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Article 1
The undertaking accepted by Commission Decision 2005/622/EC from Novolipetsk Iron & Steel Corporation (NLMK), is hereby repealed.
Article 2
Article 1 of Commission Decision 2005/622/EC shall be replaced by the following:
‘Article 1
The undertaking offered by the producer mentioned in the accompanying table, in connection with the present anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of grain oriented flat-rolled products of silicon-electrical steel originating in the United States of America is hereby accepted.
Country
Company
TARIC additional code
USA
Produced by AK Steel Corporation 703, Curtis Street, Middletown, Ohio,
or,
Produced by AK Steel Corporation, 703, Curtis Street, Middletown, Ohio, and sold by AK Steel BV, Oosterhout, the Netherlands, to the first independent customer in the Community acting as an importer.
A673’
Article 3
This Decision shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Done at Brussels, 21 May 2008.
|
[
0,
1,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0
] |
*****
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 163/86
of 27 January 1986
amending Regulation (EEC) No 2182/77 laying down detailed rules for the sale of frozen beef from intervention stocks for processing in the Community
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 3768/85 (2) and in particular Article 7 (3) thereof,
Whereas Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2182/77 (3), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3210/85 (4), specifies the processed products to be produced from intervention beef when sold for processing in the Community; whereas, Commission Regulation (EEC) No 597/77 (5) referred to in that Article has been repealed and replaced by certain provisions laid down in Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1136/79 (6), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 2036/84 (7); whereas it is thus appropriate to amend the said Article accordingly;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Beef and Veal,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Article 1 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2182/77 is hereby replaced by the following:
'1. Meat sold under this Regulation shall be used for the manufacture within the Community, at the purchaser's choice, of either
(a) preserved food as defined in Article 2 (5) of Regulation (EEC) No 1136/79, or
(b) other products as defined in Article 2 (6) of that Regulation, or products falling within Common Customs Tariff subheading 02.06 C I a) 2.'
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, 27 January 1986.
|
[
0,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 2240/97 of 10 November 1997 amending Regulation (EC) No 1628/96 relating to aid for Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1628/96 of 25 July 1996 relating to aid for Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (1), and in particular Article 11,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,
Whereas the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1628/96 contains rules governing the award of contracts by tendering, in particular restricted tendering, for projects in the field referred to in the second, sixth and seventh indents of Article 4 (2);
Whereas Article 11 of the Regulation requires the Commission to follow those rules as of 1 January 1998;
Whereas taking into account the specific situation in the area concerned, the time limits laid down in point 9 of the Annex to the said Regulation should be adjusted,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Point 9 of the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1628/96 is hereby amended as follows:
- in the first subparagraph, the terms '60 calendar days` shall be replaced by '30 calendar days`,
- in the second subparagraph, first sentence, the terms '60 calendar days` shall be replaced by '30 calendar days`,
- in the second subparagraph, second sentence, the terms '40 calendar days` shall be replaced by '20 calendar days`.
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 until 31 December 1999.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 10 November 1997.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
****
( 1 ) OJ NO L 148 , 28 . 6 . 1968 , P . 13 .
( 2 ) OJ NO L 191 , 14 . 7 . 1981 , P . 6 .
COMMISSION REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 2814/81
OF 29 SEPTEMBER 1981
AMENDING REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 1932/81 IN RESPECT OF THE FREE FATTY ACID CONTENT OF CONCENTRATED BUTTER ELIGIBLE FOR AID
THE COMMISSION 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 THE ACT OF ACCESSION OF GREECE , AND IN PARTICULAR ARTICLE 12 ( 3 ) THEREOF ,
WHEREAS ARTICLE 1 ( 2 ) ( B ) AND ANNEX I OF COMMISSION REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 1932/81 OF 13 JULY 1981 ON THE GRANTING OF AID FOR BUTTER AND CONCENTRATED BUTTER FOR USE IN THE MANUFACTURE OF PASTRY PRODUCTS , ICE-CREAM AND OTHER FOODSTUFFS ( 2 ) LAY DOWN THAT CONCENTRATED BUTTER IS ELIGIBLE FOR AID ONLY IF ITS FREE FATTY ACID CONTENT DOES NOT EXCEED 0.3 % EXPRESSED AS OLEIC ACID ; WHEREAS IT HAS BEEN FOUND THAT THIS LIMIT MAY BE INCREASED SLIGHTLY ; WHEREAS , FOR REASONS OF EQUITY AND ADMINISTRATIVE SIMPLICITY , THIS INCREASE SHOULD ALSO APPLY TO CONCENTRATED BUTTER FOR WHICH AN INVITATION TO TENDER HAS BEEN ISSUED SINCE THE ENTRY INTO FORCE OF REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 1932/81 ;
WHEREAS THE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE FOR MILK AND MILK PRODUCTS HAS NOT DELIVERED AN OPINION WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT SET BY ITS CHAIRMAN ,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION :
ARTICLE 1
IN ANNEX I TO REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 1932/81 , IN RESPECT OF THE MAXIMUM FREE FATTY ACID CONTENT , THE PERCENTAGE ' 0.3 ' IS HEREBY REPLACED BY ' 0.35 ' .
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 WITH EFFECT FROM 14 JULY 1981 .
THIS REGULATION SHALL BE BINDING IN ITS ENTIRETY AND DIRECTLY APPLICABLE IN ALL MEMBER STATES .
DONE AT BRUSSELS , 29 SEPTEMBER 1981 .
|
[
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2029/95 of 22 August 1995 concerning the stopping of fishing for common sole 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 3362/94 of 20 December 1994 fixing, for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, the total allowable catches for 1995 and certain conditions under which they may be fished (2), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 746/95 (3), provides for common sole 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 common sole in the waters of ICES divisions II and IV 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 25 July 1995; whereas it is therefore necessary to abide by that date,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Catches of common sole in the waters of ICES divisions II and IV 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 common sole in the waters of ICES divisions II and IV by vessels flying the flag of France or registered in France is prohibited, as well as the retention on board, the transshipment 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 25 July 1995.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 22 August 1995.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION
of 19 May 2004
on State aid which Belgium is planning to implement for Sioen Fibres SA
(notified under document number C(2004) 1622)
(Only the French and Dutch versions are authentic)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2005/467/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 88(2) thereof,
Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,
Having called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the provisions cited above (1) and having regard to their comments,
Whereas:
I. PROCEDURE
(1)
By letter dated 20 December 2002, Belgium notified a proposal to grant aid to the company SIOEN Fibres SA (hereinafter ‘Sioen’) in connection with an investment in polyester industrial filament yarn production facilities. The Commission requested additional information by letter dated 12 February 2002, to which Belgium replied by letter dated 11 March 2003.
(2)
By letter dated 2 May 2003, the Commission informed Belgium that it had decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty in respect of the aid.
(3)
The Commission 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 aid.
(4)
The Commission received comments from Belgium on 8 July 2003. The International Rayon and Synthetic Fibres Committee (CIRFS) submitted comments on 10 July 2003 and the Spanish Association of Chemical Fibres Producers (Profibra) submitted comments on 15 July 2003. These comments from interested parties were sent to Belgium, which provided its observations on 8 October 2003. A meeting with the Belgian authorities and Sioen took place on 7 November 2003. On 27 November 2003 CIRFS agreed that certain information in its submission of 10 July 2003, which was initially classified strictly confidential, could be made available to the Belgian authorities. This information was sent to Belgium on 1 December 2003. Belgium gave its comments on 19 January 2004.
II. DESCRIPTION
(5)
SIOEN is a large company active in the synthetic fibres sector. It is 99,99 %-owned by Sioen Industries SA, which in 2001 had a turnover of EUR 226,02 million and a workforce of some 3 900 employees.
(6)
Sioen has declared eligible investment amounting to EUR 19,46 million during the period from May 2001 to June 2003 and designed to expand its production capacity for high-tenacity polyester industrial filament yarn (3). The yarn is intended for the production of coated fabric for use in the production of final products such as canvas for lorries, tent fabric or airbags. According to Belgium, it is not intended for use in the textile sector (production of clothing or carpets). The investment is expected to create 39 jobs.
(7)
The investment increases the production capacity from 8 500 tonnes in 2002 to 14 850 tonnes per year from 2003 onwards (4). Belgium states that the machinery could not be adapted easily and at low cost to produce other types of fibre. Actual production in 2002 amounted to 7 650 tonnes and increased to 13 543 tonnes per year from 2003 onwards. Given the vertically integrated structure of Sioen Industries, the entire production volume is intended exclusively for internal use within the group.
(8)
The proposed aid of EUR 2,86 million is to be granted under an approved aid scheme (5) which does not, however, cover aid to the synthetic fibres sector. The aid application had been submitted by the Walloon authorities on 18 May 2001 and approved by them on 29 August 2002, subject to authorisation by the Commission. The applicable aid ceiling allowed under Community rules for the Hainaut region (Article 87(3)(c)) is 17,5 % net grant equivalent for large firms.
(9)
In the decision to open the investigation procedure, the Commission, in view of the market situation and the effect of the aided investment on production capacity, expressed doubts as to the conformity of the aid with the criteria set out in the Code on aid to the synthetic fibres industry (6) (the ‘Code’) for compatibility with the common market.
III. COMMENTS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES
(10)
The comments submitted by CIRFS can be summarised as follows:
(11)
CIRFS points out that the synthetic fibres industry is acutely sensitive to distortions of competition from state aid. In this sector, which includes high-tenacity polyester industrial filament yarn, State aid, unless very strictly controlled, would have an inherent tendency to affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest.
(12)
With respect to the question whether there is a structural supply shortage, CIRFS notes that, taking annual averages for the two years preceding that in which notification was given, the Belgian authorities' calculations do not show a structural supply shortage. This assumption would correspond to confidential CIRFS data based on returns from its members and estimates for non members which show that capacity utilisation in the Community amounted to 91,45 % in 2000, 88,06 % in 2001 and 88,23 % in 2002.
(13)
As regards the effect on the market, CIRFS points out that the Sioen investments for which aid is proposed represent a significant increase in capacity, both for Sioen itself and for the sector as a whole. In this respect, it also notes that no producer among its members is currently making a satisfactory return on capital or sales, with the result that the impact of State aid on their competitive position would be particularly negative. CIRFS also explains that one competing producer has only recently re-emerged from receivership and its recovery plan could be seriously affected by the granting of State aid to a competitor. Other Community producers have invested an estimated EUR 59 million over the last five years in this activity without any access to State aid for investment, even investment in assisted regions. Lastly, CIRFS expects the market to remain highly competitive and low-margin for several years, not only because of competition between Community producers but also because of the pressure from dumped imports.
(14)
The comments from Profibra can be summarised as follows:
(15)
Profibra expressed its concerns regarding the aid to Sioen by letter dated 15 July 2003. There would be no circumstances in which Sioen’s aid application would be justified. Profibra points out that the capacity increase sought by Sioen is equivalent to 74,4 % of its current capacity, which accounts for 3,5 % of total European capacity. In the current employment circumstances, in a globalised environment and with no barriers to access to the European market, the aid application would lack any entrepreneurial or economic logic. Profibra also contests the view that there would be a supply shortage, given that the capacity utilisation rate was 86,7 % in 2000 and 89,5 % in 2001. It also refers to a major increase in imports and points out that a company in the sector is most likely to make losses if it is not using at least 85 % to 90 % of its capacity.
IV. COMMENTS FROM BELGIUM
(16)
The comments from Belgium on the doubts raised by the Commission when it opened the investigation procedure and on the third-party comments can be summarised as follows:
(17)
Belgium points out that CIRFS and Profibra are trade associations which represent the main producers of high-tenacity polyester industrial filament yarn and of which Sioen is not a member. It questions the impartiality of these comments, which are considered unfounded, imprecise and ambiguous. The Commission is asked to evaluate the comments carefully, particularly as there are no official statistics available for the relevant market.
(18)
As regards the question whether there is a structural supply shortage, Belgium notes that there are no official statistics available for high-tenacity polyester industrial filament yarn. Sioen gathered information on production capacity and consumption from the main producers present on the market in order to obtain the best possible estimate of the capacity utilisation rate. On the basis of this information, which was provided in tempore non suspecto, Belgium explains that the capacity utilisation rate for high-tenacity polyester industrial filament yarn exceeds 90 %. It concluded that the sector was characterised by a structural supply shortage during the period 2000 to 2002, and it is claimed that this has been confirmed by several experts.
(19)
In this connection, Sioen also explains that the yarn which it produces has a high value added and that the market has been characterised by a relatively high degree of price stability since 1999. It also rejects the allegations made by CIRFS regarding the strong pressure on profit margins in the sector, arguing that its members are active in less profitable markets than the one for high-tenacity polyester filament yarn, while Sioen’s good results are due to extensive R & D activities aimed at continuous quality improvements and to the fact that it is present on very profitable niche markets.
(20)
Belgium considers Sioen’s capacity increase to be in accordance with the Code. In determining whether or not a change in capacity is significant, the Commission should, in line with the Code, consider a number of different elements.
(21)
Firstly, Belgium points out that the additional production resulting from Sioen's capacity increase is used entirely within the group. Sioen's production would not have any impact on the prices or profit margins of the other producers of high-tenacity polyester filament yarn.
(22)
Secondly, the aid concerns a high-technology investment project which will allow Sioen to supply its group with a product that has very specific characteristics. This internally developed and constantly improved polyester industrial filament yarn is not available on the market. Consequently, Sioen's capacity increase is motivated by its vertical integration and the production will be used entirely within the group.
(23)
Thirdly, Belgium underlines the fact that the capacity increase of 3,5 % is not significant in relation to the European market and is below the rate of 5 %, which was not considered as a significant increase by the Commission in its decision with regard to Sioen in 1999 (7). If the Commission were to decide in the present case to assess the capacity increase at company level and not in relation to the European market, this would be in contradiction with its 1999 decision.
(24)
Lastly, Belgium stresses that an assessment of the capacity increase at company level would discriminate against small producers as a given capacity increase would lead to a relatively lower increase in the case of a large company with an already high production capacity.
V. ASSESSMENT OF THE AID
1. Existence of aid
(25)
Article 87(1) of the Treaty lays down the principle that, except where otherwise provided, aid which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods is, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, incompatible with the common market.
(26)
The proposed aid to Sioen consists of a grant to be financed through State resources. It will allow the company to carry out the investment in question without having to bear the full cost. Sioen operates in a sector of activity where trade between Member States is substantial and where the conditions of competitions are difficult, as evidenced by the existence until 31 December 2002 of a specific Code (8). The proposed grant to Sioen therefore constitutes aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
2. Compatibility of the aid
(27)
Article 87(2) of the Treaty lists the types of aid that are compatible with the Treaty. In view of the nature and purpose of the aid and the geographical location of the firm, subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c) are not applicable to the plan in question. Article 87(3) specifies other forms of aid which can be regarded as being compatible with the common market. The Commission notes that the project is located in the area of Blanc Ballot in Mouscron (Hainaut region), which qualifies for assistance under Article 87(3)(c). The maximum aid intensity is 17,5 % net grant equivalent for large firms. Belgium intends to grant an aid intensity equivalent to 50 % of the regional aid ceiling.
(28)
Since 1977 the conditions under which aid may be granted to synthetic fibres producers by way of support for such activities are set out in a Code whose terms and scope have been amended from time to time, most recently in 1996 (9). On 1 January 2003 the Code ceased to apply and no more regional aid is admissible for the synthetic fibres industry (10). However, in accordance with the last sentence of point 39 of the Commission communication on the multisectoral framework on regional aid for large investment projects (11), ‘(…) notifications registered by the Commission before 1 January 2003 for (…) the synthetic fibres sector will be examined in the light of the criteria in force at the time of notification’. As the aid in the present case was notified on 20 December 2002, it has therefore to be assessed under the Code.
(29)
The Code requires the notification of any proposal to grant aid, in whatever form and irrespective of whether or not the Commission has authorised the scheme concerned, where the aid would not satisfy the de minimis criterion, to synthetic fibres producers by way of direct support for:
-
extrusion/texturisation of all generic types of fibre and yarn based on polyester, polyamide, acrylic or polypropylene, irrespective of their end-uses, or
-
polymerisation (including polycondensation) where it is integrated with extrusion in terms of the machinery used, or
-
any ancillary process linked to the contemporaneous installation of extrusion/texturisation capacity by the prospective beneficiary or by another company in the group to which it belongs and which, in the specific business activity concerned, is normally integrated with such capacity in terms of the machinery used.
(30)
In the case in question, the proposed aid would be granted in support of the production of synthetic fibres which fall within the scope of the Code, namely the installation of new capacity for the extrusion of polyester industrial filament yarn. It was, therefore, correctly notified to the Commission.
(31)
The Code sets out the criteria to be applied when the Commission scrutinises proposals coming within the scope of control. It states among other things that, in assessing the compatibility of the proposed aid, the fundamental consideration is the effect of that aid on the markets for the relevant products, namely the fibre/yarn whose production would be supported by the aid. According to the Code, investment aid for larger firms, i.e. firms that are not small or medium-sized enterprises, will be authorised only at up to 50 % of the applicable aid ceiling if the aid would result in a significant reduction in the relevant capacity or if the market for the relevant products was characterised by a structural shortage of supply and the aid would not result in a significant increase in the relevant capacity. Sioen ranks as a large firm since the group to which it belongs has more than 250 employees and an annual turnover exceeding EUR 40 million (12).
(32)
The Commission considers that the capacity increase must be assessed at company level. Consequently, in assessing the capacity changes associated with the aided project, the beneficiary’s capacity before the aid is granted has to be compared with its capacity after the aid is granted (adding the increase in capacity arising from the aid and deducting the capacity that will be scrapped).
(33)
In its comments, Belgium referred to the Commission decision of 28 July 1999 (13), in which no objections were raised to aid for Sioen. It points out that, in that case, Sioen’s capacity increase was assessed in relation to the total market capacity and the resulting 5 % capacity increase was not considered significant. However, the Commission considers that the situation then was quite exceptional and differed from the present case in that, at the time, the company did not have any extrusion capacity at all before the investment. The assessment of the new capacity in relation to total market capacity was justified in that particular case because Sioen was a new market entrant without any production capacity for the relevant product. If the Commission had assessed the capacity at company level, any new capacity of the new market entrant would, by definition, have resulted in a ‘significant’ increase. Such an approach would have discriminated against new market entrants. Sioen is now an established producer with pre-existing production capacity and there is, therefore, no longer any justification for deviating from the Commission's standard practice of assessing capacity at company level.
(34)
As regards Belgium's argument that, in case of a structural supply shortage, the capacity increase should be assessed in relation to total market capacity, the Commission notes that the Code does not provide for different capacity measurements depending on whether or not there is a structural supply shortage. The Code already sets less strict conditions if there is a structural supply shortage in that, in the case of large firms, it does not require that the aid result in a ‘significant capacity reduction’ but only that it does ‘not result in a significant capacity increase’. It does not provide, as an additional advantage, that the capacity increase is measured, in the case of a structural supply shortage, not at company level but in relation to total market capacity. Accordingly, irrespective of whether the market is characterised by a structural supply shortage, the aid may not, in any event, result in a significant capacity increase.
(35)
Following the opening of the procedure, Belgium confirmed and explained to the Commission on the basis of documents provided by the machine manufacturer that tailor-made machines could not easily be adapted to produce different types of fibre. On this basis, the Commission accepts the method used to measure capacity. According to Belgium, the investment raises the production capacity for polyester industrial filament yarn from 8 500 tonnes per year in 2002 to 14 850 tonnes per year from 2003 onwards (based on an average decitex of 1 100 dtex), which represents a significant increase of around 75 % at company level.
(36)
In the Commission's view, the fact that Sioen increases its capacity significantly dispenses with the need to decide whether or not the market is characterised by a structural supply shortage in this particular case.
(37)
The Commission does not accept Sioen’s argument that the production resulting from its capacity increase is used entirely within the Sioen group and would not have any impact on the prices or profit margins of the other producers of polyester industrial filament yarn. Even if the new production is used entirely within the Sioen group on account of its vertical integration, it cannot be ruled out that the yarn could, under other circumstances, be supplied by other producers, a fact underlined in the reactions from the two interested parties.
(38)
In view of the effect on production capacity of the investment for which aid is planned, the Commission considers that the aid does not fulfil the main criteria of the Code determining compatibility with the common market in so far as it would lead to a significant increase in the relevant capacity. There is therefore no need to assess the two other criteria set out in the Code (state of the market for the relevant product, and innovative character of the relevant product). In any case, the Commission notes that it is not clear that the market for the relevant product is characterised by a structural supply shortage, given the information from the third parties (CIRFS and Profibra) on the capacity situation in the Community and given the figures provided by Belgium in the initial notification for the two years prior to the notification (capacity utilisation rate of less than 90 %).
(39)
None of the other derogations provided for in Article 87(3) of the Treaty is applicable in the present case. The investment is not located in an Article 87(3)(a) region. The aid is clearly not designed to promote the execution of an important project of common European interest or to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State, as provided for in Article 87(3)(b). Lastly, the Belgian authorities did not claim and the Commission did not find that the aid could be designed to meet another horizontal or sectoral objective within the meaning of Article 87(3)(c) or (d),
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
The state aid which Belgium is planning to implement for Sioen Fibres SA, amounting to EUR 2,86 million, is incompatible with the common market.
The aid may accordingly not be implemented.
Article 2
Belgium shall inform the Commission, within two months of notification of this Decision, of the measures taken to comply with it.
Article 3
This Decision is addressed to Belgium.
Done at Brussels, 19 May 2004.
|
[
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 81/2007
of 29 January 2007
setting delivery obligations for cane sugar to be imported under the ACP Protocol and the Agreement with India for the 2006/2007 delivery period
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 31 thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 950/2006 of 28 June 2006 laying down detailed rules of application for the 2006/2007, 2007/2008 and 2008/2009 marketing years for the import and refining of sugar products under certain tariff quotas and preferential agreements (2) provides for detailed rules for setting delivery obligations at zero duty for products falling within CN code 1701, expressed in white-sugar equivalent, for imports originating in the countries that are signatories to the ACP Protocol and to the Agreement with India.
(2)
Application of Articles 3 and 7 of the ACP Protocol, Articles 3 and 7 of the Agreement with India and Article 12(3) and Articles 14 and 15 of Regulation (EC) No 950/2006 has resulted in the Commission setting delivery obligations for each exporting country for the 2006/2007 delivery period, on the basis of the information currently available.
(3)
Commission Regulation (EC) No 642/2006 (3) has determined provisionally the delivery obligations for cane sugar to be imported under the ACP Protocol and the Agreement with India for the 2006/2007 delivery period.
(4)
It is therefore necessary to set the delivery obligations for the period 2006/2007 in accordance with point (b) of Article 12(2) of Regulation (EC) No 950/2006.
(5)
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 delivery obligations for imports originating in the countries that are signatories to the ACP Protocol and to the Agreement with India in respect of products falling within CN code 1701, expressed in white-sugar equivalent, in the 2006/2007 delivery period for each exporting country concerned, shall be as set out in the Annex.
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, 29 January 2007.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1729/2001
of 31 August 2001
amending Regulation (EEC) No 391/92 setting the amounts of aid for the supply of cereals products from the Community to the French overseas departments
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3763/91 of 16 December 1991 introducing specific measures in respect of certain agricultural products for the benefit of the French overseas departments(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1448/2001(2), and in particular Article 2(6) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) The amounts of aid for the supply of cereals products to the French overseas departments (FOD) has been settled by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 391/92(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1552/2001(4), as a consequence of the changes of the rates and prices for cereals products in the European part of the Community and on the world market, the aid for supply to the FOD should be set at the amounts given in the Annex.
(2) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The Annex of amended Regulation (EEC) No 391/92 is replaced by the Annex to the present Regulation.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 September 2001.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 31 August 2001.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION of 25 June 1980 setting up an Advisory Committee on the control and reduction of pollution caused by hydrocarbons discharged at sea (80/686/EEC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Whereas, at its meetings in Copenhagen on 7 and 8 April 1978, in Bremen on 6 and 7 July 1978 and in Luxembourg on 27 and 28 April 1980, the European Council took the view that preventing and combating marine pollution, in particular by hydrocarbons, should be one of the major objectives of action by the Community;
Whereas the European Communities' 1973 environment action programme (1), supplemented by that of 1977 (2), stressed that it was of paramount importance to western Europe that effective action be taken against the dangers inherent in the carriage of hydrocarbons, including the threat of serious coastal pollution as a result of accidents on the high seas, and specified that the protection of sea water in order to ensure the maintenance of ecological balances was a priority task;
Whereas on 26 June 1978 the Council adopted a resolution setting up an action programme of the European Communities on the control and reduction of pollution caused by hydrocarbons discharged at sea (3);
Whereas the Commission needs to seek advice from highly qualified experts in the Member States concerning pollution caused by hydrocarbons discharged at sea;
Whereas the Community also needs to have a forum where experts can meet for the purpose of collecting existing information and experience gained in Member States, thus facilitating the coordination of measures taken or planned at national, international or Community level,
HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Article 1
The Commission hereby sets up an Advisory Committee on the control and reduction of pollution caused by hydrocarbons discharged at sea, hereinafter referred to as "the Committee".
Article 2
The terms of reference of the Committee shall be as follows: 1. to advise the Commission, at the request of the latter or on its own initiative, on all problems concerning the implementation of Community measures for the control and reduction of pollution caused by hydrocarbons discharged at sea;
2. to allow the collection of existing information and experience gained in the Member States, on ways of controlling and reducing pollution caused by hydrocarbons discharged at sea, thus facilitating the coordination of measures taken or planned at national, international or Community level.
Article 3
1. The Committee shall consist of government experts with specialist knowledge of the areas referred to in Article 2 (three representatives per Member State).
2. Committee members shall be chosen by the Commission on the basis of nominations by the Member States.
3. Representatives of the departments of the Commission concerned shall take part in the meetings of the Committee.
Article 4
An alternate shall be appointed by each Committee member. Without prejudice to Article 9, an alternate shall attend Committee meetings and take part in the work of the Committee only if the full member in question is prevented from attending. (1)OJ No C 112, 20.12.1973, p. 1. (2)OJ No C 139, 13.6.1977, p. 1. (3)OJ No C 162, 8.7.1978, p. 1.
Article 5
The Commission shall publish the membership list in the Official Journal of the European Communities as a matter of information.
Article 6
The Committee shall be chaired by a Commission representative.
Article 7
The Committee shall elect six vice-chairmen from among its members.
It shall set up a bureau consisting of the chairman and the vice-chairmen.
Article 8
The departments of the Commission shall provide the secretariat of the Committee and of the bureau.
Article 9
The chairman may invite any person with expert knowledge of a subject on the agenda to take part in the work of the Committee.
Experts shall only take part in the discussions on the matter concerning which they have been invited to attend.
Article 10
The Committee shall draw up its rules of procedure.
Article 11
Without prejudice to Article 214 of the Treaty, Committee members shall be required not to disclose any information which has been acquired by them in the course of the work of the Committee or of the bureau where the Commission informs them that the opinion requested or the question raised concerns a confidential matter.
In such cases, only Committee members and Commission representatives shall be present at the meetings in question.
Article 12
This Decision shall enter into force on 25 June 1980.
Done at Brussels, 25 June 1980.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1671/2006
of 10 November 2006
on the issue of import licences for high-quality fresh, chilled or frozen beef and veal
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal (1),
Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 936/97 of 27 May 1997 opening and providing for the administration of tariff quotas for high-quality fresh, chilled and frozen beef and for frozen buffalo meat (2),
Whereas:
(1)
Regulation (EC) No 936/97 provides in Articles 4 and 5 the conditions for applications and for the issue of import licences for meat referred to in Article 2(f).
(2)
Article 2(f) of Regulation (EC) No 936/97 fixes the amount of high-quality fresh, chilled or frozen beef and veal meeting the definition laid down therein which may be imported on special terms for the period 1 July 2006 to 30 June 2007 at 11 500 t.
(3)
It should be recalled that licences issued pursuant to this Regulation will, throughout the period of validity, be open for use only in so far as provisions on health protection in force permit,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
1. All applications for import licences from 1 to 5 November 2006 for high-quality fresh, chilled or frozen beef and veal as referred to in Article 2(f) of Regulation (EC) No 936/97 shall be granted in full.
2. Applications for licences may be submitted, in accordance with Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 936/97, during the first five days of December 2006 for 4 832,45 t.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 11 November 2006.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 10 November 2006.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Decision
of 15 November 2000
on the modernisation, rationalisation and restructuring plan for the United Kingdom coal industry, covering the period from 17 April 2000 to 23 July 2002
(notified under document number C(2000) 3709)
(Only the English text is authentic)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2001/114/ECSC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community,
Having regard to Commission Decision No 3632/93/ECSC of 28 December 1993 establishing Community rules for State aid to the coal industry(1), and in particular Article 2(1) and Article 8 thereof,
Whereas:
I
(1) By letter of 26 July 2000 the United Kingdom sent notification of a modernisation, rationalisation and restructuring plan for the United Kingdom coal industry, together with the "UK Coal Operating Aid Scheme", covering the period from 17 April 2000 to 23 July 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "the restructuring plan").
(2) In accordance with Article 8(3) of Decision No 3632/93/ECSC, the Commission must give an opinion on whether the abovementioned plan is in conformity with the general and specific objectives of the Decision, without prejudging the ability of the measures planned to attain these objectives.
II
(3) The restructuring of the coal industry, which has been under way in the United Kingdom since 1994, has achieved tangible progress in reducing production costs for mining coal. Production costs for deep-mined coal, at constant 1999 prices, have fallen from GBP 49 per tonne in 1992 to under GBP 32 per tonne in 1999, a reduction of 35 % over the period as a whole. In the case of opencast mines, which produced 15 million tonnes of coal in 1999 out of a total production of 36 million tonnes, production costs at constant prices have likewise been reduced by some 35 %, to GBP 26 per tonne in 1999.
(4) Despite these efforts, a series of factors could make mine closures inevitable in the very near future, in particular the sharp fall in world market coal prices in 1999 and the lifting of the moratorium imposed by the United Kingdom authorities on the construction of gas-fired generating stations. The conclusion at the end of 2000 of new contracts to supply power stations with coal, which will replace existing contracts, could also put coal producers in difficulty. In fact, the trend in the price of electricity may in future oblige them to make coal deliveries at less advantageous prices. The value of the pound sterling has also contributed to making the price of coal imported into the United Kingdom more attractive and exports of coal mined in the United Kingdom less competitive.
(5) Consequently, coal mining in the United Kingdom is now in a serious crisis which should, however, be temporary. In particular, the United Kingdom authorities consider that on the one hand world market coal prices have already begun to move upwards noticeably while, on the other hand, the uncertainties created by the conclusion of new supply contracts with power stations and the lifting of the moratorium on the construction of gas-fired generating stations should progressively disappear.
Although these problems are temporary, the danger is, however, that in the very near future they could spell the end for several production units which, although viable in the long term, will not be able to survive the current problems without the introduction of proper restructuring measures.
III
(6) The restructuring plan notified to the Commission proposes granting aid, spread over three tranches, limited to the period from 17 April 2000 to 23 July 2002, that is until the ECSC Treaty expires. More specifically, aid may be granted only to cover operating losses on coal mined during the abovementioned period. The total amount which may be granted by the United Kingdom over the entire period will not exceed GBP 110 million.
(7) The objective of the restructuring plan proposed by the United Kingdom is that the production units which can demonstrate that in the years preceding the application for aid they were capable of improving their economic viability by cutting their production costs, should further significantly reduce such costs by 2002. Moreover, the plan which they submit to the United Kingdom authorities must include data on operating conditions until at least mid-2004. During this period of restructuring, the aid proposed by the British authorities should be used to support production units which are economically and financially viable in the long term. The aid granted shall therefore allow these production units to improve their economic viability in order to attain a situation where they can compete with imported coal. It does not, therefore, apply to production units where mining is not economically viable and which will continue to make a loss even after the problems mentioned in recital 4 have been relieved.
(8) In the light of the foregoing, only operating aid satisfying the conditions laid down in Article 3 of Decision No 3632/93/ECSC in particular may be granted under the restructuring plan.
In particular, the United Kingdom wishes to reserve the aid for production units which will be competitive at world market coal prices when the aid scheme provided for by Decision No 3632/93/ECSC expires on 23 July 2002. After that date, any production units which have received aid will therefore have to be capable of continuing their activities without any financial support from the public authorities. To reach this level of competitiveness, the United Kingdom considers that production costs should normally be between GBP 25 and GBP 28,75 per tonne.
(9) The scale of the reduction in production costs demanded before aid will be granted will depend on the current production cost levels, specifically on the gap between current production costs and the target set, of between GBP 25 and GBP 28,75 per tonne. In other words, the further the production unit concerned is from being fully competitive on the world coal market, the bigger the reductions in production costs will have to be.
(10) The amount of aid is limited to the difference between the cost of producing the coal and the revenue from selling it, without, however, exceeding GBP 75 million per undertaking over the period from 17 April 2000 to 23 July 2002. The restructuring plan notified by the United Kingdom also specifies the methods of calculation to be applied, notably to limit the State aid to the categories of coal eligible. In particular, the aid will be reserved for sales of coal intended exclusively for electricity generation or industrial purposes.
(11) The subsidies will be available for deliveries of coal under existing or new contracts. An independent panel of experts will be set up to examine contracts entered into after 1 January 2000 and eligible for aid from the public authorities. In particular, it will be responsible for calculating the price which would have been paid had the purchaser imported coal instead of taking supplies mined in the United Kingdom, under the terms of the contract examined (import parity price). To perform this task, the experts will take account of the quality of the coal, transport costs, market conditions at the time of conclusion of the contract, and any other factor which they consider necessary in order to render the reference price which they calculate (import parity price) comparable with the price stated in the contract.
Under the restructuring plan notified by the United Kingdom, if the reference price calculated by the panel of experts for imported coal is higher than the price stated in the supply contract, the amount of aid will be limited to the difference between the production costs and the reference price calculated by the experts.
IV
(12) In accordance with Article 3 of Decision No 3632/93/ECSC, Member States which intend to grant operating aid to coal undertakings must submit to the Commission, in advance, a modernisation, rationalisation and restructuring plan designed to improve the economic viability of the undertakings concerned by reducing production costs.
The restructuring plan proposed by the United Kingdom fulfils this condition. As was explained in recitals 7 to 9, the aid is reserved for production units which, in principle, should be viable but, for reasons unconnected with their management or operating conditions, are temporarily incapable of being competitive with imported coal. Production units which wish to receive such aid will be required to make efforts to reduce their production costs, by July 2002, to a level which would enable them to continue their activities with no further intervention by the public authorities.
The objectives of the restructuring plan notitied to the Commission - a coal industry fully competitive with imported coal - go beyond the conditions laid down in Decision No 3632/93/ECSC, which requires only an improvement in economic viability if operating aid is granted(2).
(13) In accordance with the first indent of Article 2(1) of Decision No 3632/93/ECSC, the operating aid must help to achieve further progress towards economic viability with the aim of achieving degression of aids.
The objective of the restructuring plan notified by the United Kingdom, which must remain temporary, is to restore a coal industry which is fully competitive with imported coal and, therefore, free of all State aid, by the end of the aid scheme provided for by Decision No 3632/93/ECSC; this, therefore, meets the condition laid down in the first indent of Article 2(1).
(14) The introduction of a new aid scheme by the United Kingdom, moreover, in no way conflicts with the objective of degression of aid, which is the cornerstone of the scheme defined in Decision No 3632/93/ECSC. The condition as to degression must be examined in the light of the criteria for deciding the grant of operating aid which are indeed met by the restructuring plan proposed by the United Kingdom, namely, improvement of the economic viability of the coal industry through the reduction of production costs. Decision No 3632/93/ECSC cannot be interpreted in such a way as, in effect, to penalise States which have made every effort to restructure their coal industry without State aid but which face an economic situation that they could not have predicted and that endangers their industry, albeit temporarily.
(15) The restructuring plan sets out very precisely the criteria to be taken into account when examining applications for aid. These criteria, the definitions thereof and the procedures for examining applications and monitoring the aid after it is granted confirm the conclusions drawn from examination of the objectives of the plan, namely that the aid planned by the United Kingdom meets all the requirements laid down by Decision No 3632/93/ECSC for granting operating aid. The information required from the undertakings in turn meets the requirements of Commission Decision No 341/94/ECSC of 8 February 1994 implementing Decision No 3632/93/ECSC(3).
(16) In accordance with Article 3(1) of Decision No 3632/93/ECSC, operating aid is intended to cover the difference between production costs and the selling price freely agreed between the contracting parties in the light of the conditions prevailing on the world market.
The third indent of Article 3(1) also states that the amount of operating aid per tonne may not cause delivered prices for Community coal to be lower than those of coal of a similar quality from third countries.
The system proposed in the restructuring plan notified by the United Kingdom, in the form of a panel of experts to examine coal supply contracts, particularly the price agreed in such contracts, constitutes an arrangement which should help to ensure compliance with the abovementioned provisions (see recital 11). However, use of the panel of experts does not preclude the adoption of any other measures which the United Kingdom might need to enact in the interests of bringing future aid allocations fully into line with those provisions.
The restructuring plan states that this panel must work openly and transparently, in so far as that is consistent with observance of the commercial confidentiality of parties not applying for aid under the current restructuring plan. The recommendations of the panel in particular will have to be made public. The Commission considers that the application of those principles guiding the work of the panel of experts is fundamental, notably to avoid risks of distortion of competition both between producers and between coal users.
The United Kingdom will therefore ensure that all interested parties have an opportunity to make comments and observations on the work of the panel. The panel will take account of any observations submitted to it.
(17) In accordance with Article 2(2) of Decision No 3632/93/ECSC, the aid will have to be entered in Member States' national, regional or local public budgets of the United Kingdom or channelled through strictly equivalent mechanisms.
(18) The Commission stresses one of the fundamental aims of the scheme set up by Decision No 3632/93/ECSC, namely that State aid must cause no distortion of competition and must not discriminate between coal producers, purchasers or consumers in the Community.
V
(19) In accordance with Article 9 of Decision No 3632/93/ECSC, the United Kingdom will send notification of all the financial support which it intends to grant to the coal industry in a given year. All the data on these measures, the reasons for them and the extent thereof and their connection with the restructuring plan notified to the Commission on 26 July 2000 will be notified together. In particular, the information submitted will meet all the requirements laid down by Decision No 341/94/ECSC, particularly in form B in Annex 3 to that Decision.
Authorisation of the aid by the Commission, as provided for in Article 9 of Decision No 3632/93/ECSC, therefore means that the coal undertakings submit an application for aid to the competent United Kingdom authorities by a set time so that all the measures proposed over a given period can be notified to the Commission together.
(20) In accordance with Article 9(5) of Decision No 3632/93/ECSC, in the event of refusal any payment made in anticipation of authorisation from the Commission will have to be repaid in full by the undertaking that received it and will invariably be considered an unfair advantage in the form of an unjustified cash advance and, as such, will be liable to charges at the market rate payable by the recipient.
(21) By 30 September of each year at the latest, the United Kingdom must also send notification of the amount of aid actually paid in the preceding coal production year and must declare any corrections made to the amounts originally notified,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
The modernisation, rationalisation and restructuring plan, as well as the "UK Coal Operating Aid Scheme", notified to the Commission by the United Kingdom on 26 July 2000, are in conformity with the objectives and criteria laid down in Decision No 3632/93/ECSC.
Article 2
The United Kingdom shall notify to the Commission, in accordance with the provisions of Article 9 of Decision No 3632/93/ECSC, all the financial support which it intends to grant to the coal industry in a given year.
Article 3
This Decision is addressed to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Done at Brussels, 15 November 2000.
|
[
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 358/2007
of 29 March 2007
fixing the corrective amount applicable to the refund on malt
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 of 29 September 2003 on the common organization of the market in cereals (1), and in particular Article 15(2),
Whereas:
(1)
Article 14(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 provides that the export refund applicable to cereals on the day on which application for an export licence is made must be applied on request to exports to be effected during the period of validity of the export licence. In this case, a corrective amount may be applied to the refund.
(2)
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) allows for the fixing of a corrective amount for the malt referred to in Article 1(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003. That corrective amount must be calculated taking account of the factors referred to in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95.
(3)
It follows from applying the provisions set out above that the corrective amount must be as set out in the Annex hereto.
(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 corrective amount referred to in Article 15(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 which is applicable to export refunds fixed in advance in respect of malt shall be as set out in the Annex hereto.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 April 2007.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 29 March 2007.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1069/1999
of 25 May 1999
adapting to scientific and technical progress Council Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91
(Text with EEA relevance)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 of 16 December 1991 on the harmonisation of technical requirements and adminisrative procedures in the field of civil aviation(1) as last amended by Commission Regulation No 2176/96(2), and in particular Article 11 thereof,
(1) Whereas Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 provides that the Commission shall make the amendments necessitated by scientific and technical progress to the common technical requirements and administrative procedures listed in Annex II thereto and whereas such amendments, particularly to improve safety requirements, are now appropriate;
(2) Whereas JAR 1 - "Definitions" has been amended to introduce further defintioins related to commercial air transportation;
(3) Whereas JAR 22 - "Sailplanes and powered sailplanes" has been amended to introduce the concept of self sustaining powered sailplanes and to update its various sub-parts;
(4) Whereas JAR 25 - "Large aeroplanes" has been modified to incorporate agreed changes to the equivalent American code (FAR 25) and to introduce updated requirements resulting from JAA/FAA harmonisation activities and to improve APU and autopilot requirements;
(5) Whereas JAR AWO - "All Weather Operations" has been updated to introduce requirements, among others those relative to approach and landing with one engine inoperative;
(6) Whereas JAR E - "Engines" has been amended to introduce updated requirements resulting from FAA/JAA harmonisation and to improve consistency with JAR-21 and other JARs;
(7) Whereas JAR P - "Propellers" has been amended to make it consistent with JAR-21;
(8) Whereas JAR APU - "Auxiliary Power Unit" has been amended to make it consistent with JAR-21;
(9) Whereas JAR TSO - "Technical Standard Orders" has been amended to revise existing TSOs and to introduce new TSOs (e.g. cockpit voice recorders);
(10) Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Aviation Safety Regulations Committee(3),
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Annex II to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 is replaced by the Annex to this Regulation.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 25 May 1999.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1891/2002
of 23 October 2002
fixing the import duties in the rice sector
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 3072/95 of 22 December 1995 on the common organisation of the market in rice(1), as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 411/2002(2),
Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1503/96 of 29 July 1996 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 3072/95 as regards import duties in the rice sector(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1298/2002(4), and in particular Article 4(1) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 3072/95 provides that the rates of duty in the Common Customs Tariff are to be charged on import of the products referred to in Article 1 of that Regulation. However, in the case of the products referred to in paragraph 2 of that Article, the import duty is to be equal to the intervention price valid for such products on importation and increased by a certain percentage according to whether it is husked or milled rice, minus the cif import price provided that duty does not exceed the rate of the Common Customs Tariff duties.
(2) Pursuant to Article 12(3) of Regulation (EC) No 3072/95, the cif import prices are calculated on the basis of the representative prices for the product in question on the world market or on the Community import market for the product.
(3) Regulation (EC) No 1503/96 lays down detailed rules for the application of Regulation (EC) No 3072/95 as regards import duties in the rice sector.
(4) The import duties are applicable until new duties are fixed and enter into force. They also remain in force in cases where no quotation is available from the source referred to in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1503/96 during the two weeks preceding the next periodical fixing.
(5) In order to allow the import duty system to function normally, the market rates recorded during a reference period should be used for calculating the duties.
(6) Application of Regulation (EC) No 1503/96 results in import duties being fixed as set out in the Annexes to this Regulation,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The import duties in the rice sector referred to in Article 11(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 3072/95 shall be those fixed in Annex I to this Regulation on the basis of the information given in Annex II.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 24 October 2002.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 23 October 2002.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2664/94 of 31 October 1994 fixing for the 1994/95 marketing year the reference prices for artichokes
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 of 18 May 1972 on the common organization of the market in fruit and vegetables (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 3669/93 (2), and in particular Article 27 (1) thereof,
Whereas, pursuant to Article 23 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72, reference prices valid for the whole Community are to be fixed at the beginning of the marketing year;
Whereas artichokes are produced in such quantities in the Community that reference prices should be fixed for them;
Whereas artichokes harvested during a given crop year are marketed from October to September of the following year; whereas the quantities harvested in the months July to October are so small that there is no need to fix reference prices for these months; whereas reference prices should be fixed only for the period 1 November up to and including 30 June of the following year;
Whereas Article 23 (2) (b) of Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 stipulates that reference prices are to be fixed at the same level as for the preceding marketing year, adjusted, after deducting the standard cost of transporting Community products between production areas and Community consumption centres in the preceding year, by:
- the increase in production costs for fruit and vegetables, less productivity growth, and
- the standard rate of transport costs in the current marketing year;
Whereas the resulting figure may nevertheless not exceed the arithmetic mean of producer prices in each Member State plus transport costs for the current year, after this amount has been increased by the rise in production costs less productivity growth; whereas the reference price may, however, not be lower than in the preceding marketing year;
Whereas, to take seasonal price variations into account, the marketing year should be divided into several periods and a reference price fixed for each of these periods;
Whereas producer prices are to correspond to the average of the prices recorded on the representative market or markets situated in the production areas where prices are lowest, during the three years prior to the date on which the reference price is fixed, for a home-grown product with defined commercial characteristics, being a product or variety representing a substantial proportion of the production marketed over the year or over part thereof and satisfying specified requirements as regards market preparation; whereas, when the average of prices recorded on each representative market is being calculated, prices which could be considered excessively high or excessively low in relation to normal price fluctuations on that market are to be disregarded;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Fruit and Vegetables,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
For the 1994/95 marketing year, the reference prices for artichokes (CN code 0709 10 00), expressed in ecus per 100 kilograms net of packed products of class I, of all sizes, shall be as follows:
- from 1 November to 31 December 1994: 89,99, - from 1 January to 30 April 1995: 79,35, - May 1995: 74,95, - June 1995: 63,95.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 November 1994.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 31 October 1994.
|
[
0,
0,
1,
1,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
*****
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 3560/86
of 21 November 1986
concerning the quantities of sheepmeat and goatmeat products which may be imported from Romania during 1986
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Decision 84/633/EEC of 11 December 1984 authorizing the Commission, within the context of the voluntary restraint agreements on trade in the sheepmeat and goatmeat sector between the Community and 12 non-member States, to convert, for the purposes of the smooth operation of trade and within the limits agreed, live animal quantities into fresh or chilled meat quantities or such latter quantities into the former (1), and in particular Article 1 (1) thereof;
Whereas, under an Agreement concluded with the Community, Romania has undertaken to restrict its exports of sheepmeat and goatmeat to the Community to annual quantities of 475 tonnes of live animals, expressed as carcase weight bone-in, and of 75 tonnes of fresh and chilled meat;
Whereas Romania has asked the Community to convert the 75 tonnes of fresh and chilled meat that may be exported to the Community in 1986 into 75 tonnes of live animals expressed as carcase weight bone-in; whereas the extremely limited quantity covered by the request will not disturb the Community market; whereas the market situation is such that the application can be granted;
Whereas the Management Committee for Sheepmeat and Goatmeat has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its chairman,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The quantity of live sheep and goats other than pure-bred breeding animals falling within subheading 01.04 B of the Common Customs Tariff that may be imported from Romania in 1986, under the Agreement concluded with that country, shall be 550 tonnes expressed as carcase weight bone-in.
The quantity of fresh and chilled sheepmeat and goatmeat falling within subheading 02.01 A IV a) of the Common Customs Tariff that may be imported from Romania in 1986 under the Agreement concluded with that country, shall be nil.
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, 21 November 1986.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION
of 20 December 1994
on the conclusion on behalf of the European Coal and Steel Community and the European Atomic Energy Community of the Agreement on free trade and trade-related matters between the European Community, the European Atomic Energy Community and the European Coal and Steel Community, of the one part, and the Republic of Latvia, of the other
(94/977/ECSC, Euratom)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community, and in particular Article 95 (1) thereof,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 101 (2) thereof,
Having consulted the ECSC Consultative Committee and with the assent of the Council,
Whereas, in order to achieve the objectives of the Community set out in particular in Articles 2 and 3 of the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community it is necessary to conclude the Agreement on free trade and trade-related matters; whereas the Treaty does not make provision for all the cases covered by this Decision,
HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Article 1
The Agreement on free trade and trade-related matters between the European Community, the European Atomic Energy Community and the European Coal and Steel Community, of the one part, and the Republic of Latvia, of the other, together with the Protocols, the exchanges of letters and the declarations, are hereby approved on behalf of the European Coal and Steel Community and the European Atomic Energy Community.
These texts are attached to this Decision (1).
Article 2
The President of the Commission shall give the notification provided for in Article 50 of the Agreement on free trade and trade-related matters on behalf of the European Coal and Steel Community and the European Atomic Energy Community.
Done at Brussels, 20 December 1994.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1481/2001
of 18 July 2001
fixing the import duties in the rice sector
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 3072/95 of 22 December 1995 on the common organisation of the market in rice(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1667/2000(2),
Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1503/96 of 29 July 1996 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 3072/95 as regards import duties in the rice sector(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2831/98(4), and in particular Article 4(1) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 3072/95 provides that the rates of duty in the Common Customs Tariff are to be charged on import of the products referred to in Article 1 of that Regulation. However, in the case of the products referred to in paragraph 2 of that Article, the import duty is to be equal to the intervention price valid for such products on importation and increased by a certain percentage according to whether it is husked or milled rice, minus the cif import price provided that duty does not exceed the rate of the Common Customs Tariff duties.
(2) Pursuant to Article 12(3) of Regulation (EC) No 3072/95, the cif import prices are calculated on the basis of the representative prices for the product in question on the world market or on the Community import market for the product.
(3) Regulation (EC) No 1503/96 lays down detailed rules for the application of Regulation (EC) No 3072/95 as regards import duties in the rice sector.
(4) The import duties are applicable until new duties are fixed and enter into force. They also remain in force in cases where no quotation is available from the source referred to in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1503/96 during the two weeks preceding the next periodical fixing.
(5) In order to allow the import duty system to function normally, the market rates recorded during a reference period should be used for calculating the duties.
(6) Application of Regulation (EC) No 1503/96 results in import duties being fixed as set out in the Annexes to this Regulation,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The import duties in the rice sector referred to in Article 11(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 3072/95 shall be those fixed in Annex I to this Regulation on the basis of the information given in Annex II.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 19 July 2001.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 18 July 2001.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1635/2000
of 25 July 2000
fixing the coefficients applicable to cereals exported in the form of Spanish whisky for the period 2000/2001
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2825/93 of 15 October 1993 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 as regards the fixing and granting of adjusted refunds in respect of cereals exported in the form of certain spirit drinks(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1633/2000(2), and in particular Article 5 thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Article 4(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2825/93 provides that the quantities of cereals eligible for the refund are to be the quantities placed under control and distilled, weighted by a coefficient to be fixed annually for each Member State concerned. That coefficient expresses the ratio between the total quantities exported and the total quantities marketed of the spirituous beverage concerned on the basis of the trend noted in those quantities during the number of years corresponding to the average ageing period of the spirituous beverage in question. In view of the information provided by Spain on the period 1 January to 31 December 1999, the average ageing period in 1999 was four years for Spanish whisky. The coefficients for the period 1 July 2000 to 30 September 2001 should be fixed.
(2) Article 10 of Protocol 3 to the Agreement on the European Economic Area(3) precludes the grant of refunds for exports to Liechtenstein, Iceland and Norway. Therefore, pursuant to Article 7(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2825/93, account should be taken of this in the calculation of the coefficient for 2000/2001.
(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
For the period 1 July 2000 to 30 September 2001, the coefficients provided for in Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 2825/93 applying to cereals used in Spain for manufacturing Spanish whisky shall be as set out in the Annex.
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 2000.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 25 July 2000.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 382/2006
of 3 March 2006
fixing the minimum selling prices for butter for the 4th individual invitation to tender under the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1898/2005
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)
In accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 1898/2005 of 9 November 2005 laying down detailed rules for implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/99 as regards measures for the disposal of cream, butter and concentrated butter on the Community market (2), the intervention agencies may sell by standing invitation to tender certain quantities of butter from intervention stocks that they hold and may grant aid for cream, butter and concentrated butter. Article 25 of that Regulation lays down 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 laid down that the price or aid may vary according to the intended use of the butter, its fat content and the incorporation procedure. The amount of the processing security as referred to in Article 28 of Regulation (EC) No 1898/2005 should 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
For the 4th individual invitation to tender under the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1898/2005 the minimum selling prices for butter from intervention stocks and the amount of the processing security, as referred to in Articles 25 and 28 of that Regulation respectively, are fixed as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 4 March 2006.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 3 March 2006.
|
[
0,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2294/2002
of 20 December 2002
determining the extent to which applications lodged in December 2002 for import licences for certain pigmeat sector products under the regime provided for by Council Regulation (EC) No 774/94 opening and providing for the administration of certain Community tariff quotas for pigmeat and certain other agricultural products can be accepted
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1432/94 of 22 June 1994 laying down detailed rules for the application in the pigmeat sector of the import arrangements provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 774/94 opening and providing for the administration of certain Community tariff quotas for pigmeat and certain other agricultural products(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1006/2001(2), and in particular Article 4(4) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) The applications for import licences lodged for the first quarter of 2003 are for quantities less than the quantities available and can therefore be met in full.
(2) The quantity available for the following period should be determined.
(3) It is appropriate to draw the attention of operators to the fact that licences may only be used for products which comply with all veterinary rules currently in force in the Community,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
1. Applications for import licences for the period 1 January to 31 March 2003 submitted pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1432/94 shall be met as referred to in Annex I.
2. For the period 1 April to 30 June 2003, applications may be lodged pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1432/94 for import licences for a total quantity as referred to in Annex II.
3. Licences may only be used for products which comply with all veterinary rules currently in force in the Community.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 January 2003.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 20 December 2002.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION of 15 December 1997 on Community financial aid towards the eradication of classical swine fever in the Netherlands (Only the Dutch text is authentic) (98/25/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Decision 90/424/EEC of 26 June 1990 on expenditure in the veterinary field (1), as last amended by Commission Decision 94/370/EC (2), and in particular Article 3(3) thereof,
Whereas outbreaks of classical swine fever have occurred in the Netherlands in 1997; whereas the appearance of the disease represents a serious danger to Community livestock and whereas the Community is able to provide compensation for losses suffered with a view to contributing towards the speedy eradication of the disease;
Whereas the Dutch authorities have reported that they took the requisite steps, including the measures listed in Article 3(2) of Decision 90/424/EEC, as soon as the outbreak of classical swine fever was officially confirmed;
Whereas the Netherlands have sent the Commission various technical and financial reports and an application for reimbursement in respect of the first 217 outbreaks occurring in that country;
Whereas the Commission has conducted a check to ensure that all the Community veterinary rules were complied with and that the conditions for financial assistance from the Community were met;
Whereas in the light of the facts which the Commission has observed and reported to the Dutch authorities, an initial advance should be paid, irrespective of the final decision concerning the overall contribution and any reductions therein;
Whereas, moreover, in view of the funds available, a financial contribution can only be paid in respect of the first 195 outbreaks at this stage;
Whereas a financial contribution may subsequently be paid in respect of later outbreaks on the basis of the results of the check referred to above;
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
Funds of up to ECU 31,3 million shall be made available to the Netherlands by way of a financial contribution from the Community towards compensating owners of infected holdings and holdings in contact therewith, in respect of the first 195 outbreaks of classical swine fever occurring in that Member State in 1997.
Article 2
1. The Community financial contribution shall be paid on production of supporting documents.
2. The documents referred to in paragraph 1 shall comprise:
(a) an epidemiological report on each pigfarm where slaughtering has taken place. Such reports shall include details of the following:
(i) infected holdings:
- the location and address,
- the date on which infection with the disease was suspected and date on which infection was confirmed,
- the number of pigs slaughtered and destroyed and the date,
- the method of slaughter and destruction,
- the type and the number of samples collected and examined when infection with the disease was suspected; the results of examinations conducted,
- the type and the number of samples collected and examined when the livestock was removed from the infected holdings; the results of examinations conducted,
- the presumed origin of the infection after completion of the epidemiological examination;
(ii) holdings in contact with infected holdings:
- the particulars specified in the first, third, fourth and sixth indents of point (i),
- the infected holding (outbreak) with which contact is confirmed or suspected to have taken place; the type of contact involved;
(b) a financial report giving a list of recipients and their addresses, the number of animals slaughtered, the date of slaughter and the sum paid, exclusive of VAT.
Article 3
The supporting documents referred to in Article 2 shall be forwarded by the Netherlands by 19 December 1997 at the latest.
Article 4
This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
Done at Brussels, 15 December 1997.
|
[
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1857/2003
of 22 October 2003
on the issue of import licences for rice against applications submitted during the first 10 working days of October 2003 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 327/98
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1095/96 of 18 June 1996 on the implementation of concessions set out in Schedule CXL drawn up in the wake of the conclusion of GATT XXIV.6 negotiations(1),
Having regard to Council Decision 96/317/EC of 13 May 1996 concerning the conclusion of the results of consultations with Thailand under GATT Article XXIII(2),
Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 327/98 of 10 February 1998 opening and providing for the administration of certain tariff quotas for imports of rice and broken rice(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2458/2001(4), and in particular Article 5(2) thereof,
Whereas:
Examination of the quantities for which applications have been submitted under the October 2003 tranche shows that licences should be issued for the quantities applied for,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Import licences for rice against applications submitted during the first 10 working days of October 2003 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 327/98 and notified to the Commission shall be issued for the quantities applied for.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 23 October 2003.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 22 October 2003.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
*****
COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 655/89
of 13 March 1989
opening and providing for the administration of autonomous Community tariff quotas for fish-liver oils and aniline (1989)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community and in particular Article 28 thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,
Whereas Community supplies of fish-liver oils and aniline currently depend on imports from third countries; whereas it is in the Community's interest to suspend partially or totally the customs duties for the products in question, within Community tariff quotas of an appropriate volume; whereas in order not to jeopardize the fishery development prospects in respect of these products in the Community and to ensure an adequate supply to satisfy user industries, it is advisable to open these duty-free quotas for the period until 30 June or until 31 December as appropriate according to the sensitivity of different products on the Community market;
Whereas it is necessary, in particular, to ensure for all Community importers equal and uninterrupted access to the said quotas and to ensure the uninterrupted application of the rates laid down for the quotas to all imports of the products concerned into all Member States until the quotas have been used up; whereas, in the present case, they should not be allocated among the Member States, without prejudice to the drawing against the quota volumes of such quantities as they may need, under the conditions and according to a procedure to be determined; 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, all transactions concerning the administration of shares levied by that economic union may be carried out by any one of its members,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
1. The customs duty applicable to the import of the products listed below shall be suspended at the levels, during the periods and within the limits of the Community tariff quotas indicated for each product:
1.2.3.4.5.6 // // // // // // // Order No // CN code // Description // Quota period // Amount of quota tonnes // Quota duty (%) // // // // // // // 09.2793 // ex 1504 10 10 // Crude fish-liver oils, of a vitamin A content not exceeding 2 500 IU/g intended for the production of medicines (1) // from the date of entry into force of this Regulation until 31 December 1989 // 2 000 // 0 // 09.2795 // ex 2921 41 00 // Aniline // from the date of entry into force of this Regulation until 30 June 1989 // 4 250 // 0 // // // // // //
(1) Checks on their prescribed end-use shall be carried out pursuant to the relevant Community provisions. 2. Within the limits of these tariff quotas, the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic shall apply customs duties calculated in accordance with the relevant provisions in the Act of Accession.
Article 2
The tariff quotas referred to in Article 1 shall be managed by the Commission, which may take all appropriate administrative measures in order to ensure effective administration thereof.
Article 3
If an importer presents in a Member State a declaration of entry into free circulation, including a request for benefit under the preferential arrangements for a product covered by this Regulation and if this declaration is accepted by the customs authorities, the Member States concerned shall inform the Commission and draw an amount corresponding to its requirements from the corresponding 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 are granted by the Commission by reference to the date of acceptance of the declarations of entry into free circulation by the customs authorities of the Member States 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 corresponding 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 requests. Member States shall be informed thereof by the Commission.
Article 4
1. Member States shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that their drawings pursuant to Article 3 enable imports to be charged without interruption against their accumulated shares of the Community quota.
2. Each Member State shall ensure that importers of the products concerned have free access to the quotas for such times as the residual balance of the quota volumes so permits.
3. Member States shall charge imports of the said goods against their drawings as and when the goods are entered with the customs authorities for free circulation.
4. The extent to which the quotas have been used up shall be determined on the basis of the imports charged in accordance with paragraph 3.
Article 5
At the request of the Commission, Member States shall inform it of imports actually charged against the quota.
Article 6
The Member States and the Commission shall cooperate closely to ensure that this Regulation is complied with.
Article 7
This Regulation shall enter into force on the third 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, 13 March 1989.
|
[
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1588/2005
of 29 September 2005
fixing the maximum export refund for butter in the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 581/2004
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products (1), and in particular the third subparagraph of Article 31(3) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
Commission Regulation (EC) No 581/2004 of 26 March 2004 opening a standing invitation to tender for export refunds concerning certain types of butter (2) provides for a permanent tender.
(2)
Pursuant to Article 5 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 580/2004 of 26 March 2004 establishing a tender procedure concerning export refunds for certain milk products (3) and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the invitation to tender, it is appropriate to fix a maximum export refund for the tendering period ending on 27 September 2005.
(3)
The Management Committee for Milk and Milk Products has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its chairman,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
For the permanent tender opened by Regulation (EC) No 581/2004, for the tendering period ending on 27 September 2005, the maximum amount of refund for the products referred to in Article 1(1) of that Regulation shall be as shown in the Annex to this Regulation.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 30 September 2005.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 29 September 2005.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2462/94 of 12 October 1994 amending Regulation (EC) No 1904/94 as regards the countervailing charges to be levied where the minimum import price applicable to dried grapes is not met
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 426/86 of 24 February 1986 on the common organization of the market in products processed from fruit and vegetables (1), as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 549/94 (2), and in particular Article 9 (6) thereof,
Whereas Commission Regulation (EC) No 1904/94 (3), of 27 July 1994, fixes the minimum import price and the countervailing charges to be levied where the minimum import price applicable to dried grapes is not met;
Whereas Article 2 (2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2089/85 of 23 July 1985 establishing general rules relating to the system of minimum import prices for dried grapes (4) provides that the maximum countervailing charge is to be determined on the basis of the most favourable prices applying on the world market for significant quantities by the most representative third countries; whereas, on the basis of the prices applying on the world market, which are now known, the countervailing charges currently in force should be adjusted;
Whereas the Management Committee for Products Processed from Fruit and Vegetables has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its chairman,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Annex II, 'Countervailing charges', to Regulation (EC) No 1904/94 is hereby replaced by the Annex hereto.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 12 October 1994.
|
[
0,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2452/2000
of 7 November 2000
amending Regulation (EC) No 2808/98 laying down detailed rules for the application of the agrimonetary system for the euro in agriculture
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2799/98 of 15 December 1998 establishing agrimonetary arrangements for the euro(1), and in particular Article 9 thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 2799/98 provides for the possibility of granting agrimonetary compensation for measures of a structural or environmental nature in cases where the exchange rate applicable on the date of the operative event is lower than that applicable previously.
(2) The above measures are defined in Article 10 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2808/98 of 22 December 1998 laying down detailed rules for the application of the agrimonetary system for the euro in agriculture(2), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1410/1999(3).
(3) However, Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations(4) introduces new measures of a structural or environmental nature.
(4) The present references must accordingly be supplemented by those resulting from Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999.
(5) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinions of the Management Committees concerned,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The following is hereby added to Article 10(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2808/98:"or those referred to in Chapters II, IV, V, VI or VIII of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999(5)."
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 7 November 2000.
|
[
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Council decision
of 19 May 1981
on the conclusion of the Protocol concerning cooperation in combating pollution of the Mediterranean Sea by oil and other harmful substances in cases of emergency
(81/420/EEC)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Article 235 thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,
Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament [1],
Whereas, at its meeting in Copenhagen on 7 and 8 April 1978, the European Council decided that the Community should make the prevention and control of marine pollution, particularly by hydrocarbons, one of its main objectives, and asked the Council, acting on a proposal from the Commission, and the Member States to introduce appropriate measures without delay within the Community and to adopt a common stand in the international bodies concerned, particularly as regards research and the implementation of effective pollution control measures ;
Whereas the programmes of action of the European Communities on the environment [2] 2) emphasize how important it is for the Community to combat marine pollution in general, provide for inter alia Community action to combat pollution caused by transport and shipping and specify that the protection of sea-water with a view to preserving vital ecological balances is a priority task;
Whereas the Barcelona Convention for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against Pollution of 16 February 1976 provides inter alia that the necessary measures are to be taken to ensure cooperation in combating pollution of the Mediterranean Sea by oil and other harmful substances in cases of emergency;
Whereas Article 24 of the Barcelona Convention states that the Convention and its Protocols shall be open for signing by the European Economic Community; whereas the latter has already concluded the Convention for the protection of the Mediterranean Sea against pollution and the Protocol for the prevention of the pollution of the Mediterranean Sea by dumping from ships and aircraft;
Whereas the Protocol concerning cooperation in combating pollution of the Mediterranean Sea by oil and other harmful substances in cases of emergency provides for the Parties to cooperate in drawing up emergency plans, promoting methods of controlling marine pollution by hydrocarbons, disseminating information on the organization of resources and on new methods to prevent and control pollution and developing relevant research programmes;
Whereas it is necessary that the Community accede to the Protocol in accordance with Article 26 of the Barcelona Convention if the common market machinery is to be used to achieve one of the Community's objectives in the protection of the environment and the quality of life; whereas the Treaty makes no provision for powers to take such action;
Whereas it is necessary for the Community to accede to the said Protocol, in order to take part in the information exchange and common research and thus achieve the above objective, alongside Member States and without prejudice to the role hitherto played by them within the framework of the Barcelona Convention; whereas future Community acts are not hereby prejudiced;
Whereas the said Protocol provides for exchange of information, common research and cooperation at sea, which of their nature do not constitute common rules which might be affected by agreements which the Member States might wish to conclude within this area;
HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Article 1
The Protocol concerning cooperation in combating pollution of the Mediterranean Sea by oil and other harmful substances in cases of emergency is hereby approved on behalf of the European Economic Community.
The text of the Protocol is annexed to this Decision.
Article 2
The President of the Council shall deposit the instruments of accession as provided for in Article 26 of the Barcelona Convention.
Done at Brussels, 19 May 1981.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 700/2009
of 3 August 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 4 August 2009.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 3 August 2009.
|
[
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 98/88/EC of 13 November 1998 establishing guidelines for the microscopic identification and estimation of constituents of animal origin for the official control of feedingstuffs (Text with EEA relevance)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to the Council Directive 70/373/EEC of 20 July 1970 on the introduction of Community methods of sampling and analysis for the official control of feedingstuffs (1), as last amended by the Act of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden, and in particular Article 2 thereof,
Whereas Directive 70/373/EEC stipulates that official controls of feedingstuffs for the purpose of checking compliance with the requirements arising under the laws, regulations and administrative provisions governing their quality and composition must be carried out using Community sampling and analysis methods;
Whereas Commission Decision 94/381/EC of 27 June 1994 concerning certain protection measures with regard to bovine spongiform encephalopathy and the feeding of mammalian derived protein (2), as amended by Decision 95/60/EC (3) prohibits the feeding of protein derived from all mammalian tissues to ruminants, with the exception of certain animal products and by-products;
Whereas Commission Decision 91/516/EEC of 9 September 1991 establishing a list of ingredients whose use is prohibited in compound feedingstuffs (4), as last amended by Decision 97/582/EC (5), prohibits the use of protein derived from mammalian tissue in compound feedingstuffs for ruminants;
Whereas Council Directive 79/373/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the marketing of compound feedingstuffs (6), as last amended by Commission Directive 97/47/EC (7), provides in Article 5c that all ingredients must be mentioned where a declaration of the ingredients is provided and that the listing of ingredients is subject to several rules, inter alia, the listing of ingredients in descending order by weight for compound feedingstuffs intended for animals other than pets;
Whereas Directive 97/47/EC amending the Annexes to Council Directives 77/101/EEC (8), 79/373/EEC and 91/357/EEC (9) introduces appropriate labelling provisions with regard to the prohibition of these products on their use in ruminant feed;
Whereas Member States may have adopted more stringent provisions, in accordance with Article 1(2) of Council Directive 90/667/EEC of 27 November 1990 laying down the veterinary rules for the disposal and processing of animal waste, for its placing on the market and for the prevention of pathogens in feedstuffs of animal or fish origin and amending Directive 90/425/EEC (10), as last amended by the Act of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden;
Whereas by microscopic examination the presence of constituents of animal origin can be established; whereas bones of terrestrial animals and bones of fish can be distinguished by microscopic examination; whereas the possibility of distinguishing, by microscopic examination, the bones of mammalian origin from bones of poultry origin depends on the experience of the analyst; whereas the possibility of estimation of the quantity of constituents of animal origin depends also largely on the experience of the analyst; whereas it may be appropriate according to the progress of scientific and technological knowledge, to combine microscopic examination with other methods of analysis; whereas the fixing of these guidelines for the microscopic examination do not exclude the use, instead or in addition, of methods of analysis, other than microscopic examination, which have been proved to be scientifically valid;
Whereas it is therefore advisable to lay down the provisions concerning microscopic examination as guidelines;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Feedingstuffs,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:
Article 1
The Member States shall provide that where, with a view to officially controlling the identification and/or estimation of the amount of constituents of animal origin in feedingstuffs, microscopic examination is carried out, it shall be carried out using the guidelines set out in the Annex hereto.
In accordance with the requirements posed by the competent authorities to the analysis, point 7 'Calculation and evaluation` of these guidelines are to be considered as optional, provided that in the case where the estimation of the quantity is carried out, the provisions laid down in point 7 have to be followed.
The fixing of these guidelines, in respect of the procedure for microscopic examination does not exclude the use, instead or in addition, of methods of analysis, other than microscopic examination, which have been scientifically proved to be valid for the identification and/or estimation of the amount of constituents of animal origin.
Article 2
The Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations or administrative provisions necessary to comply with the provisions of this Directive, not later than 1 September 1999. They shall forthwith notify the Commission thereof.
When Member States adopt these provisions, the provisions 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 the Member States.
Article 3
This Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
This Directive is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 13 November 1998.
|
[
1,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Decision
of 24 March 2004
providing for the temporary marketing of certain seed of the species Vicia faba and Glycine max not satisfying the requirements of Council Directives 66/401/EEC or 2002/57/EC respectively
(notified under document number C(2004) 884)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2004/287/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Directive 66/401/EEC of 14 June 1966 on the marketing of fodder plant seed(1), and in particular Article 17(1) thereof,
Having regard to Council Directive 2002/57/EC of 13 June 2002 on the marketing of seed of oil and fibre plants(2), and in particular Article 21(1) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) In France the quantity of available seed of field bean (Vicia faba) and of soya bean (Glycine max) suitable to the national climatic conditions and which satisfies the germination capacity requirements of Directives 66/401/EEC or 2002/57/EC respectively is insufficient and is therefore not adequate to meet the needs of that Member State.
(2) It is not possible to meet the demand for seed of these species satisfactorily with seed from other Member States or from third countries which satisfies all the requirements laid down in Directives 66/401/EEC or 2002/57/EC respectively.
(3) Accordingly, France should be authorised to permit the marketing of seed of these species subject to less stringent requirements for a period expiring on 30 April 2004.
(4) In addition, other Member States irrespective of whether the seed was harvested in a Member State or in a third country covered by Council Decision 2003/17/EC of 16 December 2002 on the equivalence of field inspections carried out in third countries on seed-producing crops and the equivalence of seed produced in third countries(3) which are in a position to supply France with seed of that species, should be authorised to permit the marketing of such seed.
(5) It is appropriate that France act as coordinator in order to ensure that the total amount of seed authorised pursuant to this Decision does not exceed the maximum quantity covered by this Decision.
(6) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Seeds and Propagating Material for Agriculture, Horticulture and Forestry,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION
Article 1
The marketing in the Community of seed of field bean (Vicia faba) which does not satisfy the minimum germination capacity requirements laid down in Directive 66/401/EEC shall be permitted, for a period expiring on 30 April 2004, in accordance with the terms set out in the Annex to this Decision and subject to the following conditions:
(a) the germination capacity must be at least that set out in the Annex to this Decision;
(b) the official label must state the germination ascertained in the official examination carried out pursuant to Article 2(1)(C)(d) of Directive 66/401/EEC;
(c) the seed must have been first placed on the market in accordance with Article 3 of this Decision.
Article 2
The marketing in the Community of seed of soya bean (Glycine max) which does not satisfy the minimum germination capacity requirements laid down in Directive 2002/57/EC shall be permitted, for a period expiring on 30 April 2004, in accordance with the terms set out in the Annex to this Decision and subject to the following conditions:
(a) the germination capacity must be at least that set out in the Annex to this Decision;
(b) the official label must state the germination ascertained in the official examination carried out pursuant to Article 2(1)(f) and (g) of Directive 2002/57/EC;
(c) the seed must have been first placed on the market in accordance with Article 3 of this Decision.
Article 3
Any seed supplier wishing to place on the market the seeds referred to in Articles 1 and 2 shall apply for authorisation to the Member State in which he is established or importing.
The Member State concerned shall authorise the supplier to place that seed on the market, unless:
(a) there is sufficient evidence to doubt as to whether the supplier is able to place on the market the amount of seed for which he has applied for authorisation; or
(b) the total quantity authorised to be marketed pursuant to the derogation concerned would exceed the maximum quantity specified in the Annex.
Article 4
The Member States shall assist each other administratively in the application of this Decision.
France shall act as coordinating Member State in respect of Articles 1 and 2 in order to ensure that the total amount authorised does not exceed the maximum quantity specified in the Annex.
Any Member State receiving an application under Article 3 shall immediately notify the coordinating Member State of the amount covered by the application. The coordinating Member State shall immediately inform the notifying Member State as to whether authorisation would result in the maximum quantity being exceeded.
Article 5
Member States shall immediately notify the Commission and the other Member States of the quantities in respect of which they have granted marketing authorisation pursuant to this Decision.
Article 6
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 24 March 2004.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 215/2003
of 3 February 2003
amending for the tenth time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and extending the freeze of funds and other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan(1), as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 145/2003(2), and in particular Article 7(1), first indent, thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 lists the persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation.
(2) On 23, 24 and 28 January 2003, the Sanctions Committee decided to amend the list of persons, groups and entities to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply and, therefore, Annex I should be amended accordingly.
(3) In order to ensure that the measures provided for in this Regulation are effective, this Regulation must enter into force immediately,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is hereby amended in accordance with 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 Union.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 3 February 2003.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 841/2006
of 7 June 2006
on granting of import licences for cane sugar for the purposes of certain tariff quotas and preferential agreements
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),
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1095/96 of 18 June 1996 on the implementation of the concessions set out in Schedule CXL drawn up in the wake of the conclusion of the GATT XXIV.6 negotiations (2),
Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1159/2003 of 30 June 2003 laying down detailed rules of application for the 2003/04, 2004/05 and 2005/06 marketing years for the import of cane sugar under certain tariff quotas and preferential agreements and amending Regulations (EC) No 1464/95 and (EC) No 779/96 (3), and in particular Article 5(3) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1159/2003 stipulates how the delivery obligations at zero duty of products of CN code 1701, expressed in white sugar equivalent, are to be determined for imports originating in signatory countries to the ACP Protocol and the Agreement with India.
(2)
Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 1159/2003 stipulates how the zero duty tariff quotas for products of CN code 1701 11 10, expressed in white sugar equivalent, are to be determined for imports originating in signatory countries to the ACP Protocol and the Agreement with India.
(3)
Article 22 of Regulation (EC) No 1159/2003 opens tariff quotas at a duty of EUR 98 per tonne for products of CN code 1701 11 10 for imports originating in Brazil, Cuba and other third countries.
(4)
In the week of 29 May to 2 June 2006 applications were presented to the competent authorities in line with Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1159/2003 for import licences for a total quantity exceeding a country's delivery obligation quantity of ACP-India preferential sugar determined pursuant to Article 9 of that Regulation.
(5)
In these circumstances the Commission must set reduction coefficients to be used so that licences are issued for quantities scaled down in proportion to the total available and must indicate that the limit in question has been reached,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
In the case of import licence applications presented from 29 May to 2 June 2006 in line with Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1159/2003 licences shall be issued for the quantities indicated in the Annex to this Regulation.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 8 June 2006.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 7 June 2006.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1163/2008
of 24 November 2008
amending Council Regulation (EC) No 40/2008 as regards catch limits for certain stocks of Norway pout, whiting and haddock
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 40/2008 of 16 January 2008 fixing for 2008 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 Articles 5(5) and 5(7) thereof:
Whereas:
(1)
Preliminary catch limits for the stock of Norway pout in ICES zone IIIa and in EC waters of ICES zones IIa and IV are laid down in Annex IA to Regulation (EC) No 40/2008.
(2)
Pursuant to Article 5(5) of that Regulation, the Commission may revise those catch limits in the light of scientific information collected during the first half of 2008.
(3)
Taking into account information collected during the first half of 2008, the final catch limits for Norway pout in the zones concerned should be fixed.
(4)
The Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries advises that catches in 2008 of up to 148 000 tonnes would correspond to a fishing mortality of 0,6 and are expected to maintain the stock above precautionary limits.
(5)
Norway pout is a North Sea stock which is shared with Norway but which is currently not managed jointly by the two Parties. The measures provided for in this Regulation should be in accordance with consultations held with Norway pursuant to the provisions of the Agreed Record of conclusions of fisheries consultations between the European Community and Norway of 26 November 2007.
(6)
In consequence, the Community share of the total allowable catches (TAC) of Norway pout in ICES zone IIIa and in EC waters of ICES zones IIa and IV should be fixed at 75 % of 148 000 tonnes.
(7)
Pursuant to Article 5(7) of Regulation (EC) No 40/2008 the catch limits for the stock of whiting in ICES zone IIIa, the stock of whiting in ICES zone IV and EC waters of ICES zone IIa, the stock of haddock in ICES zone IIIa and EC waters of ICES zones IIIb, IIIc and IIId, and the stock of haddock in ICES zone IV and EC waters of ICES zone IIa may be revised by the Commission as a consequence of a revision of the catch limits for the stock of Norway pout in accordance with Article 5(5) of that Regulation, to take into account industrial by-catches of those stocks in the Norway pout fishery.
(8)
In view of the limited fisheries for Norway pout in ICES zone IIIa and EC waters of ICES zones IIIb, IIIc and IIId, and in the absence of any new forecasts of the by-catches of haddock and whiting in other industrial fisheries operating in those zones, the catch limits for the stocks of whiting and haddock in ICES zone IIIa and EC waters of ICES zones IIIb, IIIc and IIId should remain unchanged for the remainder of 2008.
(9)
Taking into account the fixing of the final catch limits for Norway pout in ICES zone IIIa and in EC waters of ICES zones IIa and IV, the catch limits for whiting and haddock in ICES zone IV and in EC waters of ICES zone IIa should be revised.
(10)
Norway pout is a short-lived species. Consequently the catch limitations should be implemented as soon as possible, in order to avoid delays which could lead to overfishing of the stock.
(11)
Annex IA to Regulation (EC) No 40/2008 should therefore be amended accordingly.
(12)
The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Annex IA to Regulation (EC) No 40/2008 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 24 November 2008.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Decision
of 14 May 1981
establishing that the apparatus described as "Arenberg-R. F. pulsed oscillator, model PG-655-C with accessories", may be imported free of Common Customs Tariff duties
(81/373/EEC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1798/75 of 10 July 1975 on the importation free of Common Customs Tariff duties of educational, scientific and cultural materials [1], as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1027/79 [2],
Having regard to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2784/79 of 12 December 1979 laying down provisions for the implementation of Regulation (EEC) No 1798/75 [3], and in particular Article 7 thereof,
Whereas, by letter dated 4 November 1980, the United Kingdom has requested the Commission to invoke the procedure provided for in Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 2784/79 in order to determine whether or not the apparatus described as "Arenberg-R. F. pulsed oscillator, model PG-655-C with accessories", to be used for research involving the measurement of the speed of ultrasonic waves in new materials of physical interest, should be considered to be a scientific apparatus and, where the reply is in the affirmative, whether apparatus of equivalent scientific value is currently being manufactured in the Community ;
Whereas, in accordance with the provisions of Article 7 (5) of Regulation (EEC) No 2784/79, a group of experts composed of representatives of all the Member States met on 26 March 1981 within the framework of the Committee on Duty-Free Arrangements to examine the matter;
Whereas this examination showed that the apparatus in question is an oscillator;
Whereas its objective technical characteristics such as the power and the use to which it is put make it specially suited to scientific research; whereas, moreover, apparatus of the same kind are principally used for scientific activities; whereas it must therefore be considered to be a scientific apparatus ;
Whereas, on the basis of information received from Member States, apparatus of equivalent scientific value capable of use for the same purpose is not currently manufactured in the Community; whereas, therefore, duty-free admission of this apparatus is justified,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
The apparatus described as "Arenberg-R. F. pulsed oscillator, model PG-655-C with accessories", which is the subject of an application by the United Kingdom of 4 November 1980, may be imported free of Common Customs Tariff duties.
Article 2
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 14 May 1981.
|
[
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 172/2006
of 31 January 2006
fixing the corrective amount applicable to the refund on malt
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 of 29 September 2003 on the common organization of the market in cereals (1), and in particular Article 15(2),
Whereas:
(1)
Article 14(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 provides that the export refund applicable to cereals on the day on which application for an export licence is made must be applied on request to exports to be effected during the period of validity of the export licence. In this case, a corrective amount may be applied to the refund.
(2)
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) allows for the fixing of a corrective amount for the malt referred to in Article 1(1)(c) of Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 (3). That corrective amount must be calculated taking account of the factors referred to in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95.
(3)
It follows from applying the provisions set out above that the corrective amount must be as set out in the Annex hereto.
(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 corrective amount referred to in Article 15(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 which is applicable to export refunds fixed in advance in respect of malt shall be as set out in the Annex hereto.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 February 2006.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 31 January 2006.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1035/2008
of 21 October 2008
establishing a prohibition of fishing for ling in IIIa; EC waters of IIIb, IIIc and IIId by vessels flying the flag of Sweden
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 26(4) thereof,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to common fisheries policy (2), and in particular Article 21(3) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
Council Regulation (EC) No 40/2008 of 16 January 2008 fixing for 2008 the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks applicable in Community waters and for Community vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required (3), lays down quotas for 2008.
(2)
According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2008.
(3)
It is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing for that stock and its retention on board, transhipment and landing,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Quota exhaustion
The fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2008 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.
Article 2
Prohibitions
Fishing for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. It shall be prohibited to retain on board, tranship or land such stock caught by those vessels after that date.
Article 3
Entry into force
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 21 October 2008.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0
] |
Commission Decision
of 21 August 2001
updating the amounts specified in Regulation (Euratom, ECSC, EC) No 3418/93 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of the Financial Regulation
(notified under document number C(2001) 2570)
(2001/642/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Commission Regulation (Euratom, ECSC, EC) No 3418/93 of 9 December 1993 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of certain provisions of the Financial Regulation of 21 December 1977(1), and in particular Article 145 thereof,
Whereas:
(1) The consumer price index (EUR 15) was 103,4 in December 1998 and 105,1 in December 1999.
(2) Pursuant to Article 145 of Regulation (Euratom, ECSC, EC) No 3418/93 the fixed amounts specified in Article 31 of that Regulation must be updated with effect from 1 January 2001,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
The amounts specified in Article 31 of Regulation (Euratom, ECSC, EC) No 3418/93 shall be updated as follows with effect from 1 January 2001:
TABLE
Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
The Commission's Accounting Officer shall communicate it to the other Community institutions and bodies.
Done at Brussels, 21 August 2001.
|
[
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1793/2002
of 9 October 2002
fixing the estimated production of olive oil and the unit amount of the production aid that may be paid in advance for the marketing year 2001/02
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation No 136/66/EEC of 22 September 1966 on the establishment of a common organisation of the market in oils and fats(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1513/2001(2),
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2261/84 of 17 July 1984 laying down general rules on the granting of aid for the production of olive oil and of aid to olive oil producer organisations(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1639/98(4), and in particular Article 17a(1) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Article 5 of Regulation No 136/66/EEC provides that the unit production aid must be reduced in each Member State where actual production exceeds the guaranteed national quantity referred to in paragraph 3 of that article. In assessing the extent of the overrun, account should be taken of the estimates for the production of table olives processed into olive oil, expressed as olive-oil equivalent using the relevant coefficients referred to, for Spain, in Commission Decision 2001/650/EC(5), as amended by Decision 2001/883/EC(6), for Greece, in Commission Decision 2001/649/EC(7), as amended by Decision 2001/880/EC(8), for Portugal in Commission Decision 2001/670/EC(9), as amended by Decision 2001/878/EC(10), for France in Commission Decision 2001/648/EC(11), as amended by Decision 2001/879/EC(12) and, for Italy, in Commission Decision 2001/658/EC(13), as amended by Decision 2001/884/EC(14).
(2) Article 17a of Regulation (EEC) No 2261/84 provides that in order to determine the unit amount of the production aid for olive oil that can be paid in advance, the estimated production for the marketing year concerned should be determined. That amount must be fixed at a level that avoids any risk of unwarranted payment to olive growers. The amount also applies to table olives, expressed as olive-oil equivalent.
(3) In order to establish the estimated production, Member States must forward to the Commission data for the olive oil and, where appropriate, table olive production estimates for each marketing year. The Commission may use other sources of information. On the basis of that data, the estimated production of olive oil and table olives, expressed as olive-oil equivalent, should be fixed for each Member State at the levels indicated below.
(4) In determining the amount of the advance, account must be taken of the amount withheld for measures to improve the quality of olive oil and tables olive production provided for in Article 5(9) of Regulation No 136/66/EEC.
(5) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Oils and Fats,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
1. For the marketing year 2001/02, the estimated production of olive oil is:
- 1575575 tonnes for Spain,
- 2592 tonnes for France,
- 398588 tonnes for Greece,
- 713620 tonnes for Italy,
- 33808 tonnes for Portugal.
2. For the marketing year 2001/02, the estimated production of table olives, expressed as olive-oil equivalent, is:
- 64155 tonnes for Spain, using a coefficient of equivalence of 11,5 %,
- 130 tonnes for France, using a coefficient of equivalence of 13 %,
- 13000 tonnes for Greece, using a coefficient of equivalence of 13 %,
- 1806 tonnes for Italy, using a coefficient of equivalence of 13 %,
- 782 tonnes for Portugal, using a coefficient of equivalence of 11,5 %.
3. For the marketing year 2001/02, the advance referred to in Article 17a(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2261/84 shall be:
- EUR 57,18 per 100 kilograms for Spain,
- EUR 117,36 per 100 kilograms for France,
- EUR 117,36 per 100 kilograms for Greece,
- EUR 90,54 per 100 kilograms for Italy,
- EUR 117,36 per 100 kilograms for Portugal.
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, 9 October 2002.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1863/95 of 17 July 1995 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 on the common organization of the market in cereals and Regulation (EC) No 1868/94 establishing a quota system in relation to the production of potato starch
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Articles 42 and 43 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 Article 8 of Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 (3) provides for a system of compensatory payments for producers of potatoes intended for the manufacture of potato starch; whereas, in order to avoid excessive production of potato starch, such compensatory payments should be paid only in respect of the quantity of potatoes delivered by a potato producer to an undertaking producing potato starch which does not lead to that undertaking exceeding its quota limit;
Whereas Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1868/94 (4) set out the quotas for Member States for the production of potato starch for the marketing years 1995/96, 1996/97 and 1997/98; whereas the accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden makes it necessary that quotas be allocated for those Member States; whereas the development of the potato starch industry during the reference period envisaged in Regulation (EC) No 1868/94 in those Member States differed from that of the Member States; whereas it is therefore necessary to allocate quotas on the basis of a more representative period; whereas the basis for the allocation of quotas used for other Member States is inappropriate in the case of Austria, Finland and Sweden, as the premium referred to in Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 1543/93 (5) was not payable to them; whereas the quota should therefore be allocated on the basis of the amount of potato starch produced in each Member State in the calendar year 1993, for which national aid was received;
Whereas account should be taken of the fact that in Finland, 1993 was less representative of normal production levels than it was for Austria and Sweden; whereas, in the case of Finland, an additional quota should be allocated to cover production which could not be realized in 1993 as a result of the imposition of an obligation to set aside land;
Whereas, however, as a result of particular difficulties in the three Member States concerned, relating to structural adjustments, unused production capacity and investments undertaken prior to the introduction of the quota system, the quota referred to above should be adjusted;
Whereas, as a result of an error, Article 6 (1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 1868/94 appear to be contradictory; whereas, for the sake of clarity, the said Article should be amended,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Article 8 of Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 shall be amended as follows:
(1) paragraph 2 shall become paragraph 2 (a);
(2) the following point shall be added:
'(b) Without prejudice to (a), the compensatory payment shall be paid only in respect of the quantity of potatoes covered by a contract concluded between the potato producer and the undertaking producing potato starch within the limit of the quota allocated to such undertaking, as referred to in Article 2 (2) of Regulation (EC) No 1868/94.`
Article 2
Regulation (EC) No 1868/94 shall be amended as follows:
(1) in Article 2:
(a) the table in paragraph 1 shall be replaced by the following:
TABLE
(b) the following subparagraph shall be added after the second indent in paragraph 2:
'However, in the case of Austria, Finland and Sweden, the Member State shall allocate the quota referred to in paragraph 1 to undertakings producing potato starch, for use in the marketing years 1995/96, 1996/97 and 1997/98, in particular on the basis of the amount of potato starch produced by them in the calendar year 1993 and for which they received national aid.`;
(2) in Article 6:
(a) in paragraph 1, the words 'Without prejudice to Article 5` shall be deleted;
(b) in paragraph 2, the words 'Without prejudice to` shall be replaced by the word 'Notwithstanding`.
Article 3
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
It shall apply from 1 July 1995.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Luxembourg, 17 July 1995.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1974/2005
of 2 December 2005
amending Annexes X and XI to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards national reference laboratories and specified risk material
(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 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (1), and in particular the first paragraph of Article 23 thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 sets out a list of designated national reference laboratories for Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies (TSEs).
(2)
Certain Member States have notified to the Commission changes in the name or address of their national reference laboratories, therefore the list of those laboratories should be updated.
(3)
Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 designates certain bovine tissues as specified risk materials and lays down the rules for its removal.
(4)
Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 provides that export of specified risk material is prohibited but can be authorised only with view to their final destruction. Transitional measures set out in Annex XI to that Regulation provide that carcases, half-carcases or quarters containing no specified risk material other than vertebral column, may be dispatched to another Member State, where the vertebral column is to be removed in accordance with Community legislation. Such removal is not certain in case of exports to third countries. For food safety reasons, such an exception should not be allowed for exports of specified risk material to third countries.
(5)
In its opinion of 9 December 1997 the Scientific Steering Committee (SSC) suggested a list of specified risk materials (SRM) in bovine animals to be excluded from human and animal consumption on the basis of relative tissue infectivity, species and age. This opinion was revised and updated by SSC opinions on Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) risk on February 1998, on the human exposure risk via food with respect to BSE in December 1999, on the oral exposure of humans to the BSE agent in April 2000 and on TSE infectivity distribution in ruminant tissues in January 2002.
(6)
The SSC considered extremely unlikely that the central nervous system was detectably infected below the age of 30 months even in cattle exposed to infection as calves. However, the exceptional detection of young animals with clinical signs of BSE supported a cautious approach and, therefore, the SSC recommended the removal of various SRM from cattle 12 months of age or older. That recommendation led to the management decision to set the age limit for the removal of certain SRM in bovine animals at 12 months.
(7)
Different factors indicate a favourable trend in the BSE epidemic and a clear improvement of the situation in recent years due to the risk-reducing measures in place, in particular the total feed ban and the removal and destruction of SRM. Furthermore inspection reports indicate that implementation of BSE requirements in the Member States has improved. Taking into account the favourable evolution of the BSE epidemic and new data available from BSE pathogenesis studies, the European Commission submitted a new mandate to the European Food Safety Authority in October 2004 for an assessment of the age limit for the removal of SRM in bovines.
(8)
The average age of BSE positive cases reported in the EU increased from 86 to 108 months between 2001 and 2004. Only four BSE cases under the age of 35 months of a total of 6 520 BSE cases on a total of close to 41 million animals tested since 2001 have been reported.
(9)
In its opinion of 28 April 2005 the EFSA concluded that on the basis of the current scientific knowledge likely detectable infectivity appears at about three quarters of the incubation period.
(10)
Therefore a scientific basis exists to review the age limit for the removal of certain SRM in bovine animals, in particular as regards the vertebral column. In view of the development of the infectivity in the central nervous system during the incubation period, the age structure of positive BSE cases and the decrease in exposure of cattle born after 1 January 2001 the age limit for removing vertebral column, including dorsal root ganglia of bovine animals as specified risk material can be increased to 24 months. This age limit can be reviewed in the light of the evaluation of the BSE epidemic.
(11)
Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 should therefore be amended accordingly.
(12)
The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee of the Food Chain and Animal Health,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Annexes X and XI to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 are amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
It shall apply from 1 January 2006.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 2 December 2005.
|
[
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 951/2007
of 9 August 2007
laying down implementing rules for cross-border cooperation programmes financed under Regulation (EC) No 1638/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down general provisions establishing a European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1638/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 2006 laying down general provisions establishing a European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (1), and in particular Article 11(1) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
One of the strands of Regulation (EC) No 1638/2006 involves cooperation between the Member States of the European Union and partner countries in regions adjacent to their shared part of the external border of the European Union for the development of an area of prosperity and good neighbourliness (hereinafter ENPI cross-border cooperation).
(2)
Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 1638/2006 requires that the Commission adopt implementing rules laying down specific provisions for the implementation of Title III ‘Cross-border Cooperation’ and that the matters covered by the implementing rules include issues such as the rate of co-financing, preparation of joint operational programmes, the designation and functions of the joint authorities, the role and function of the joint monitoring and selection committees and of the joint secretariat, eligibility of expenditure, joint project selection, the preparatory phase, technical and financial management of Community assistance, financial control and audit, monitoring and evaluation, visibility and information activities for potential beneficiaries.
(3)
Article 21 of Regulation (EC) No 1638/2006 stipulates that the implementing rules should also lay down procurement rules for ENPI cross-border cooperation.
(4)
The strategy paper provided for in Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1628/2006 establishes the strategic framework for Commission support for ENPI cross-border cooperation and contains the indicative programme for this cooperation.
(5)
Community assistance for ENPI cross-border cooperation is implemented through joint operational programmes defined in the strategy paper.
(6)
It is necessary to draw up implementing rules which lay down joint specific provisions for cross-border cooperation within the meaning of Regulation (EC) No 1638/2006 while allowing participating countries a certain amount of flexibility as to the detailed arrangements regarding organisation and implementation of specific programmes taking account of the particular features of each programme. On the basis of this principle and in accordance with this Regulation, the participating countries must propose, by common agreement, detailed arrangements for ENPI cross-border cooperation in the joint operational programme, for adoption by the Commission in accordance with Article 9(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1638/2006.
(7)
In view of the fact that all participating countries are to be involved in the decision-making structures for the programme while the task of implementation is to be entrusted to a Joint Managing Authority based in one of the participating countries there is a need for joint rules on the distribution of functions between the various programme-management structures.
(8)
Since programmes are to be implemented through shared management, programme management and control systems must comply with Community rules. Adoption of the programme by the Commission must be taken as an ex ante accreditation of those systems. The Commission must monitor implementation of each programme by possible involvement in the Joint Monitoring Committee and by means of the reports presented to it by the Joint Managing Authority.
(9)
In order to ensure full and complete participation in the programme by potential beneficiaries in partner countries and to apply the same management arrangements for those established in a Member State of the European Union as for those established in a partner country, and given that appropriations for ENPI cross-border cooperation are managed as part of the European Union's foreign policy, the contractual procedures applicable to external actions financed by the European Commission must be used for all projects financed as part of the cross-border cooperation established by Regulation (EC) No 1638/2006.
(10)
In order to ensure effective implementation of the programme, evaluation and monitoring arrangements need to be laid down.
(11)
These measures are in line with the opinion of the Committee established by Council Regulation (EC) No 1638/2006,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Article 1
Subject and scope
This Regulation lays down rules for the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1638/2006 in relation to cross-border cooperation programmes.
Article 2
Definitions
For the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:
1.
‘technical assistance’ means preparatory work, management, monitoring, evaluation, information, audit and control, and any administrative capacity-building activities necessary for implementation of the joint operational programmes;
2.
‘beneficiary’ means a body which signs a grant contract with the Joint Managing Authority and which assumes full legal and financial responsibility for project implementation vis-à-vis that authority; it receives the financial contribution from the Joint Managing Authority and ensures it is managed and, where appropriate, distributed in accordance with the agreements drawn up with its partners; it alone is responsible to the Joint Managing Authority and it is directly accountable to the authority for the operational and financial progress of activities;
3.
‘contractor’ means a body which signs a service, works or supply contract with the Joint Managing Authority and which assumes full legal and financial responsibility for implementation of that contract vis-à-vis the Joint Managing Authority;
4.
‘strategy paper’ means the document which is referred to in Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1638/2006 and which establishes the list of the joint operational programmes, their multiannual indicative envelope and territorial units eligible within each programme;
5.
‘participating countries’ means all Member States and partner countries taking part in the joint operational programme;
6.
‘partner countries’ means the countries and territories listed in the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1638/2006;
7.
‘large-scale projects’ means projects comprising a set of works, activities or services intended to fulfil an indivisible function of a precise nature pursuing clearly identified objectives of common interest for the purposes of implementing cross-border investments;
8.
‘own resources of the countries participating in the joint operational programme’ means financial resources from the central, regional or local budget of the participating countries;
9.
‘operational follow-up of the projects’ means follow-up of the operations financed by the programme in accordance with the method for the project-management cycle, from programming to technical monitoring of implementation to evaluation.
CHAPTER II
BASIC DOCUMENTS
SECTION 1
Joint operational programmes
Article 3
Preparation of joint operational programmes
Each joint operational programme shall be defined by common agreement of all the participating countries, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1638/2006, the strategy paper and this Regulation.
Article 4
Content of joint operational programmes
Each joint operational programme shall describe the objectives, priorities and measures concerning the operations to be undertaken and shall explain how they fit in with other ongoing or planned bilateral and multilateral programmes in the countries and regions concerned, in particular programmes financed by the European Union.
In particular, each joint operational programme shall:
(a)
list the territorial units eligible, including the possible adjacent regions, as locations for projects financed by the programme, as defined in Regulation (EC) No 1638/2006 and the strategy paper;
(b)
lay down rules for participation in the programmes by adjacent areas in third countries which are not covered by Regulation (EC) No 1638/2006 but which are allowed to take part in cooperation on the basis of the strategy paper;
(c)
lay down priorities and measures addressing the objectives identified in the strategy paper;
(d)
set out the composition of the Joint Monitoring Committee in accordance with Article 11 of this Regulation;
(e)
identify the body appointed by the participating countries to perform the role of Joint Managing Authority;
(f)
describe the structure that will be set up by the Joint Managing Authority for the management of the programme in accordance with Articles 14, 15, 16 and 17 of this Regulation. This description shall be detailed enough to enable the Commission to be reasonably confident that effective and efficient internal control systems have been put in place, based on best international practices;
(g)
include a financial table describing the provisional yearly allocations of commitments and payments under the programme, established in accordance with the priorities and specifying in particular the amounts allocated to technical assistance;
(h)
identify programme implementation methods, in accordance with the contractual procedures referred to in Article 23 of this Regulation;
(i)
specify a provisional indicative timetable for the launching of procedures and the selection of projects to be financed;
(j)
describe any regulatory requirements regarding environmental impact assessment studies and give a provisional indicative timetable for the carrying-out of these studies;
(k)
state the language(s) adopted by the programme;
(l)
include an information and communication plan in accordance with Article 42.
The table referred to in point (g) of the second paragraph shall indicate the European Community contribution and divide the provisional indicative amounts to be committed by the Commission each year up to 2013 (the allocations for 2011-2013 shall be confirmed in the Indicative Programme for 2011-2013). The table shall also contain the provisional indicative amounts of co-financing from the own resources of participating countries.
For the purposes of point (h) of the second paragraph, the projects financed under the programme shall generally be selected following calls for proposals. Nevertheless, the participating countries may also, in agreement with the European Commission, jointly identify large-scale cross-border investment projects which will not be selected through calls for proposals: these projects shall be specifically mentioned in the programme or be selected at a later stage by the Joint Monitoring Committee, referred to in Articles 11 to 13, provided that they are consistent with the programme's priorities and measures and that there is a budget specifically for this purpose.
Article 5
Adoption of joint operational programmes
1. Each joint operational programme shall be submitted by the Joint Managing Authority to the Commission after the explicit agreement of all countries having participated in and contributed to the preparation of the programme.
2. The Commission shall examine the joint operational programme in order to verify that it contains all the elements referred to in Article 4, which shall involve in particular:
(a)
assessing its conformity with the strategy paper;
(b)
checking the quality of the analysis, its consistency with the proposed priorities and measures, and its consistency with the other bilateral and multilateral programmes ongoing or planned in the regions concerned by the programme;
(c)
verifying that the programme complies with the Community legislation applicable;
(d)
checking that any environmental impact assessment studies that may be required have been carried out or are planned before the proposed projects are implemented;
(e)
ensuring the consistency of the financial table for the programme, particularly with regard to the amounts to be committed by the Commission;
(f)
ensuring the management capacity of the Joint Managing Authority is commensurate with the volume, content and complexity of the operations planned under the programme. In particular, the Commission shall check that the Joint Managing Authority has sufficient properly qualified human resources fully dedicated to the programme, the requisite computerised management and accountancy tools and financial circuits that comply with the relevant Community legislation. These checks may be carried out through an ex ante on-the-spot audit, if considered necessary by the Commission;
(g)
ensuring that the Joint Managing Authority has planned for and set up satisfactory internal control and audit systems, based on international best practices.
3. Following the review of the joint operational programme, the Commission may ask the participating countries to provide additional information or, where necessary, to revise certain parts.
4. The adoption of each joint operational programme shall be taken as an ex ante accreditation by the Commission of the management and control structures set up by the Joint Managing Authority.
5. Each joint operational programme shall be adopted by a Commission decision for the whole of the programme's duration.
Article 6
Monitoring and evaluation of joint operational programme
1. The aim of monitoring and evaluating each joint operational programme shall be to improve the quality, effectiveness and consistency of implementation. The findings of evaluations shall be taken into account in future programming exercises.
2. A mid-term evaluation of the joint operational programme shall be carried out as part of the programme review in accordance with the strategy paper.
This evaluation shall be carried out by the Commission, and its results, which shall be communicated to the Joint Monitoring Committee and Joint Managing Authority for the indicative programme may lead to adjustments in the programme.
3. In addition to the mid-term evaluation, an evaluation of the joint operational programme, or a part thereof, may be carried out at any moment by the Commission.
4. In the year following the end of the implementation phase of the projects financed by the joint operational programme, an ex post evaluation of the programme shall be carried out by the Commission.
Article 7
Revision of joint operational programmes
1. Adjustments to the joint operational programme financial table which merely involve the transfer from one priority to another of no more than 20 % of the Community funds initially allocated to each priority may be made directly by the Joint Managing Authority, with the prior approval of the Joint Monitoring Committee. The Joint Managing Authority shall inform the Commission of any such changes.
This rule shall apply to technical assistance financed by Community funds only with the written prior approval of the Commission.
2. Following a reasoned request from the Joint Monitoring Committee or at the initiative of the Commission in agreement with the Joint Monitoring Committee, joint operational programmes may be reviewed and, if necessary, revised in the following cases:
(a)
in order to make allowance for major socio-economic changes or substantial changes in Community, national or regional priorities in the area covered by the programme;
(b)
following implementation difficulties giving rise to substantial delays;
(c)
where there is a transfer of Community funds from one priority to another going beyond the margin of flexibility referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article;
(d)
following the evaluations referred to in Article 6(2) and 6(3);
(e)
where the programme is terminated in accordance with Article 44.
3. Any revision of a joint operational programme in the cases referred to in paragraph 2 shall be adopted by a decision of the Commission and shall require the signing of an amendment to the financing agreements referred to in Article 10.
Article 8
Use of languages
1. The management structures for joint operational programmes shall use one or more of the European Union's official languages as their working language(s).
2. In order to take account of the partnership nature of the programmes, the project beneficiaries may submit to the Joint Managing Authority documents concerning their project in their national language, provided that this possibility is specifically mentioned in the programme and that the Joint Monitoring Committee makes provision, through the Joint Managing Authority, for any interpretation and translation that may be necessary.
3. Interpreting and translation costs for all languages selected by the programme shall be met:
(a)
from the technical assistance budget at joint operational programme level;
(b)
from the budget of each individual project at project level.
Article 9
Starting phase of joint operational programmes
1. Following the adoption of the joint operational programme by Commission decision, the programme shall start immediately in the Member States with the allocation in the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument for cross-border cooperation from heading 1B of the Financial Perspective (Interinstitutional Agreement 2006/C 139/01) (2). Joint actions required to launch the programme may also be undertaken, namely:
(a)
the establishment of the Joint Managing Authority and of the Joint Technical Secretariat;
(b)
the first meetings of the Joint Monitoring Committee, including representatives of partner countries that have not yet signed a financing agreement;
(c)
the preparation and launching of tender procedures or calls for proposals, if necessary with a suspension clause linked to the signing of the financing agreements.
2. Commission decisions referred to in paragraph 1 shall be applicable in each partner country from the signing of a financing agreement by the country in accordance with Article 10.
SECTION 2
Financing agreement
Article 10
Signing of financing agreements
1. A financing agreement shall be established between the Commission and each partner country for each joint operational programme. The Joint Managing Authority designated under each joint operational programme may countersign the financing agreement.
2. The joint operational programme adopted by the Commission shall be a technical annex to the financing agreement.
3. Each financing agreement shall be concluded at the latest before the end of the year which follows the year of the Commission decision adopting the joint operational programme (N+1 rule).
4. If the financing agreement is not concluded within the time-limit, the external component of the joint operational programme with the partner country may not be launched.
Where a programme includes several partner countries, it may be launched with each partner country as soon as that country has signed its financing agreement.
5. If no partner country signs a financing agreement within the set time limit, the external component of the joint operational programme shall become null and void and paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 44 shall apply.
CHAPTER III
MANAGEMENT STRUCTURES FOR JOINT OPERATIONAL PROGRAMMES
SECTION 1
Joint Monitoring Committee
Article 11
Composition of the Joint Monitoring Committee
1. The Joint Monitoring Committee shall comprise representatives appointed by each participating country to take all decisions concerning the joint operational programme within the competence of the committee. Members shall be appointed as representatives of their countries on a functional basis and not on a personal basis. The committee shall also include a chairperson and a secretary. The secretary shall be chosen from the members of the Joint Managing Authority.
2. In addition to the duly appointed representatives, it is important that the participating countries ensure the adequate participation of the civil society (local authorities, economic and social partners, civil society) to ensure the close association of different local stakeholders in the implementation of the joint operational programme.
3. The Commission shall be invited to each meeting of the Joint Monitoring Committee at the same time as the participants and shall be informed of the results of its deliberations. It may take part in all or part of each committee meeting on its own initiative, as an observer and without any decision-making power.
Article 12
Functioning of the Joint Monitoring Committee
1. The appointed members of the Joint Monitoring Committee shall adopt its rules of procedure unanimously.
2. The Joint Monitoring Committee shall take decisions by consensus. However, it may put certain decisions to a vote, particularly those relating to the final selection of projects and the grant amounts allocated to them. Within this voting procedure, each country has only one vote whatever the number of its representatives.
3. The appointed representatives shall elect a chairperson. The committee may decide to elect a representative of the Joint Managing Authority or another outside person as chairperson.
The chairperson of the Joint Monitoring Committee shall act as arbitrator and lead discussions. The chairperson shall retain their vote, unless the position of chairperson has been given to a representative of the Joint Managing Authority or another outside person. In the latter case, the chairperson shall have no vote.
4. The Joint Monitoring Committee shall meet as often as necessary and at least once a year. It shall be convened by its chairperson at the request of the Joint Managing Authority or following a duly justified request from one of its appointed members or from the Commission. It may also take decisions through written procedure at the initiative of its chairperson, the Joint Managing Authority or one of the participating countries. In case of a disagreement, any member may request that the decision be discussed at a meeting.
5. Minutes shall be drawn up after each meeting of the Joint Monitoring Committee for signature by the chairperson and the secretary. Minutes shall be given to each member of the committee and to the Commission.
Article 13
Functions of the Joint Monitoring Committee
As part of its functions with regard to the joint operational programme, the committee shall:
(a)
approve the Joint Managing Authority's work programme;
(b)
decide on the volume and allocation of the programme's resources for technical assistance and human resources;
(c)
at each of its meetings, review the management decisions taken by the Joint Managing Authority;
(d)
appoint the project-selection committees;
(e)
decide on the selection criteria for the projects and take the final decision on projects and on the amounts granted to them;
(f)
at each of its meetings and on the basis of the documents submitted by the Joint Managing Authority, evaluate and monitor progress towards the objectives of the joint operational programme;
(g)
review all reports submitted by the Joint Managing Authority and, if necessary, take appropriate measures;
(h)
examine any contentious cases of recovery brought to its attention by the Joint Managing Authority.
If, when taking decisions referred to in point (e) of the first paragraph, the Joint Monitoring Committee decides not to follow all or part of the recommendations of the selection committee, it shall explain its decision in writing. The decision shall then be sent via the Joint managing authority to the Commission for prior approval. Commission communicates its opinion to the Joint Managing Authority within 15 working days.
Duties of the Joint Managing Authority shall be performed in compliance with regulations and provisions in force. The Joint Managing Authority is responsible for ensuring that decisions of the Joint Monitoring Committee comply with these rules.
SECTION 2
Joint Managing Authority
Article 14
Organisation of the Joint Managing Authority
1. The Joint Managing Authority shall, normally, be a national, regional or local public sector body. The Joint Managing Authority may also be a body governed by private law with a public-service mission.
This body must satisfy appropriate financial requirements and comply with the conditions provided for in Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (3), in particular Article 54 thereof, and Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 in particular Articles 38, 39 and 41 thereof (4).
2. The participating countries shall entrust the Joint Managing Authority with the tasks involved in implementing the joint operational programme which have been entrusted to them as part of programme management. They shall be responsible, within the Joint Monitoring Committee, for checking that funds are used in accordance with the rules and principles governing programme management.
3. The functioning of the Joint Managing Authority may be financed from the Community contribution for technical assistance and from the co financing, in particular from the contributions in kind provided for in Article 19(3).
4. The accounts established by the Joint Managing Authority shall be subject to an annual ex post external audit carried out by an independent organisation as referred to in Article 31.
5. The organisation of the Joint Managing Authority shall be based on international best practice in management and internal control and shall draw on management and internal control systems suited to the carrying out of its tasks in such a way as to ensure that its operations comply with laws, other rules and the principle of sound financial management.
In particular, operational management functions and financial management functions shall be organised separately within the Joint Managing Authority. The functions of authorising officer and accounting officer shall be separate and mutually incompatible.
6. The Joint Managing Authority shall have an internal audit service which shall be independent from the departments performing authorising-officer, accounting-officer and management functions.
7. The Joint Managing Authority shall put in place procedures to ensure that expenses declared under the programme are genuine and legitimate and shall establish reliable computerised accounting, monitoring and financial information systems.
8. The Joint Managing Authority shall in particular respect the conditions and payment deadlines for the grant agreements and procurement contracts that it signs with third parties. Using appropriate verification procedures, it shall ensure that the funds paid under grant agreements or procurement contracts are used only for the purposes for which they were granted.
A general system shall be used for the management of accounts and the administrative and financial monitoring of grants and contracts (correspondence, follow-up letters or reminders, receipt of reports, etc.).
9. The Joint Managing Authority shall without delay notify the Commission and the Joint Monitoring Committee of any change in its procedures or its organisation, or any other circumstance likely to affect programme implementation.
10. The Joint Managing Authority, and the various beneficiaries, contractors and partners with which it signs contracts for the implementation of the projects, shall be subject to controls by the Commission, the European Court of Auditors and the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF).
Article 15
Functions of the Joint Managing Authority
1. The Joint Managing Authority shall be responsible for managing and implementing the joint operational programme, including technical assistance, in line with the principle of sound financial management and the principles of economy, efficiency and effectiveness, and shall carry out any controls necessary in accordance with the rules and procedures provided for by the relevant regulations.
2. The various tasks of the Joint Managing Authority shall include:
(a)
organising and acting as a secretariat for meetings of the Joint Monitoring Committee, including drawing-up the minutes of the meetings;
(b)
preparing detailed annual budgets for the programme and payment requests for the Commission;
(c)
drawing up annual operational and financial reports and sending them to the Joint Monitoring Committee and the Commission;
(d)
implementing, through its internal audit service, an audit programme to check internal circuits and to ensure that procedures are properly applied within the Joint Managing Authority; annual internal audit reports shall be sent to the Joint Monitoring Committee and the Commission;
(e)
launching, after approval by the Joint Monitoring Committee, calls for tenders and calls for proposals for the selection of projects;
(f)
receiving project applications, organising, chairing and acting as secretariat for selection committees, and sending reports including selection committee recommendations to the Joint Monitoring Committee and the Commission;
(g)
following up the selection of projects by the Joint Monitoring Committee, signing contracts for the various projects with beneficiaries and contractors;
(h)
carrying out operational follow-up and financial management of the projects;
(i)
immediately notifying the Joint Monitoring Committee of all contentious cases of recovery;
(j)
carrying out any environmental impact assessment studies at programme level;
(k)
implementing the information and visibility plan in accordance with Article 42.
Article 16
Joint Technical Secretariat
1. Each Joint Managing Authority may, with the prior agreement of the Joint Monitoring Committee, use a Joint Technical Secretariat with the requisite resources to assist it with the day-to-day management of the activities under the joint operational programme.
The operation of the Joint Technical Secretariat shall be financed from the technical assistance budget.
2. The Joint Technical Secretariat may, if necessary, establish small branch offices in participating countries for the purpose of informing potential beneficiaries in those countries of activities planned under the programme.
Article 17
Principle of continuity
Where an existing Joint Managing Authority with Commission-approved systems for the management of previous or ongoing programmes is reappointed to manage a joint operational programme, it shall not be necessary to modify the Joint Managing Authority's organisational arrangements, provided the systems used meet the requirements of this Regulation.
CHAPTER IV
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT OF THE JOINT OPERATIONAL PROGRAMMES
SECTION 1
Financing
Article 18
Technical assistance financed by the Community contribution
No more than 10 % of the Community's total contribution to a joint operational programme may be allocated to technical assistance.
However, on a case-by-case basis and if warranted by the level of expenditure incurred during previous years of implementation and forecast legitimate programme requirements, an increase in the amount of the technical assistance initially allocated to the programme may be considered.
Article 19
Co-financing sources
1. Co-financing shall come from the own resources of the countries or bodies participating in each joint operational programme.
2. Within each joint operational programme the participating countries shall be free to determine the source, amount and distribution of co-financing between objectives and priorities.
3. Contributions in kind from the Joint Managing Authority may be considered as co-financing, subject to the prior approval of the Commission. In this case they shall be explicitly mentioned in the programme document.
Article 20
Co-financing rate
1. Co-financing shall amount to at least 10 % of the Community contribution to the joint operational programme, minus the amount of technical assistance financed from the Community contribution.
2. Where possible, co-financing shall be distributed in a balanced way throughout the duration of the programme in such a way that the minimum objective of 10 % is achieved by the end of the programme.
Article 21
Bank account of the joint operational programme and interest on pre-financing
1. A single bank account in euro, specifically dedicated to the programme, shall be opened and managed by the service acting as accounting officer within the Joint Managing Authority. The account shall be set up in such a way that the transactions require signatures of both the authorising officer and the accounting officer.
2. If the bank account bears interest, any interest generated by the pre-financing payments shall be assigned to the joint operational programme and shall be declared to the Commission in the final report referred to in Article 32.
Article 22
Accounts for the joint operational programme
Accounts for the joint operational programme shall be drawn up by the service within the Joint Managing Authority responsible for financial transactions. These accounts shall be independent and separate and shall include only transactions relating to the joint operational programme. They shall be kept in such a way as to enable analytical monitoring of the programme by objective, priority and measure.
The Joint Managing Authority shall present the Joint Monitoring Committee with reports reconciling these accounts with the balance in the bank account for the programme to accompany the annual report and any request for additional pre-financing.
Article 23
Contractual procedures
1. The contractual procedures for procurement contracts and grants necessary for implementation of the joint operational programme by the Joint Managing Authority shall be those applicable to external actions as defined in Articles 162 to 170 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 and Articles 231 to 256 of the Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002.
The procedures and related standard documents and contract templates to be used shall be those included in the Practical Guide to contract procedures for EC external actions with annexes in force at the time of the launching of procurement procedures or calls for proposals.
2. The eligibility rules for participation in the calls for tenders and calls for proposals shall be those referred to in Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 1638/2006 in conformity with Articles 40 and 41 of this Regulation.
3. These provisions shall be applicable to the entire geographical area of the programme, both on the territory of the Member States and on the territory of the partner countries.
SECTION 2
Payments
Article 24
Annual commitments by the Commission
Further to the initial commitment accompanying the decision adopting the joint operational programme, the Commission shall each year make the corresponding commitment no later than 31 March of the year concerned. The amount of this commitment shall be determined in accordance with the financial table detailing the provisional yearly allocations in the joint operational programme, and shall also depend on the programme's progress and the availability of funds. The Commission shall inform the Joint Managing Authority of the exact date on which the annual commitment is made.
Article 25
Common rules for payments
1. The Commission shall make each payment from the Community contribution, subject to the availability of funds. The Commission shall automatically deduct any payment to the Joint Managing Authority from the oldest annual commitment tranche until the entire amount of this commitment has been spent. When the oldest annual commitment tranche has been entirely spent, the next annual commitment tranche may be used.
2. Payments shall be made in euro to the bank account of the joint operational programme.
3. Payments may take the form of pre-financing or the final balance.
Article 26
Pre-financing
1. Each year, once the Joint Managing Authority has been notified of the budgetary commitment, it may request, as pre-financing, the transfer of up to 80 % of the Community contribution to the budget for the year in question.
From the second year of the joint operational programme, requests for pre-financing shall be accompanied by the provisional annual financial report covering all expenditure and revenue from the previous year not yet certified in the annual external audit report, and by the provisional budget detailing the Joint Managing Authority's commitments and payments for the following year.
After reviewing this report, assessing actual financing needs for the programme and verifying the availability of funds, the Commission shall proceed with the payment of all or part of the requested pre-financing.
2. In the course of the year, the Joint Managing Authority may ask for the transfer of all or part of the balance of the annual Community contribution, as additional pre-financing.
In support of its request, the Joint Managing Authority shall submit an interim financial report showing that the expenditure actually incurred or likely to be incurred before the end of the year exceeds the amount of pre-financing already granted.
Such subsequent transfers shall constitute additional pre-financing in so far as they are not certified by an external audit report.
3. In the second half of each year of the programme's implementation, the Commission shall clear previous pre-financing payments on the basis of eligible expenditure actually incurred, as certified by the annual external audit report referred to in Article 31.
On the basis of the results of this clearance, the Commission may proceed with the necessary financial adjustments.
Article 27
Recovery
1. The Joint Managing Authority shall be responsible for the recovery of any unjustified or ineligible expenditure and for the reimbursement to the Commission of its share or amounts recovered, in proportion to its contribution to the programme.
Where ineligible expenditure already covered by a payment is identified on receipt of the final report for a contract or following a control or an audit, the Joint Managing Authority shall make out recovery orders to the beneficiaries or contractors concerned.
2. Where the recovery relates to a claim against a beneficiary, contractor or partner established in a Member State and the Joint Managing Authority is unable to recover the debt within one year of issuing the recovery order, the Member State in which the beneficiary, contractor or partner is established shall pay the amount owing to the Joint Managing Authority and claim it back from the beneficiary, contractor or partner.
3. Where the recovery relates to a claim against a beneficiary, contractor or partner established in a partner country and the Joint Managing Authority is unable to recover the debt within one year of the issuing of the recovery order, the Joint Managing Authority shall refer the case to the Commission, which, on the basis of a complete file, shall take over the task of recovering the amounts owing from the beneficiary, contractor or partner established in the partner country or directly from the national authorities of that country.
4. Files transferred to a Member State or to the Commission shall contain all the documents needed for recovery as well as proof of steps taken by the Joint Managing Authority to the beneficiary or contractor with a view to recovering the amounts owed.
5. The Joint Managing Authority shall exercise due diligence to ensure reimbursement within one year of the issuing of the recovery order. In particular it shall ensure that the claim is certain, of a fixed amount and due. Where the Joint Managing Authority is planning to waive recovery of an established debt, it shall ensure that the waiver is in order and complies with the principles of sound financial management and proportionality. The waiver decision must be substantiated and submitted to the Commission and the Joint Monitoring Committee for prior approval.
6. When the debt has not been recovered or a complete file, as referred to in paragraph 4, has not been transferred to the Member State or the Commission, due to the negligence of the Joint Managing Authority, the Joint Managing Authority shall remain responsible for the recovery after the one year period has elapsed and the amounts due shall be declared ineligible for Community financing.
7. Pursuant to paragraphs 2 and 3, the contracts concluded by the Joint Managing Authority as part of the programme shall contain a clause allowing the Commission or the Member State concerned to carry out recovery from a beneficiary, contractor or partner where the claim is still open one year after the issue of the recovery order by the Joint Managing Authority.
SECTION 3
Reports
Article 28
Annual reports of the Joint Managing Authority
1. Each year, by 30 June at the latest, the Joint Managing Authority shall submit to the Commission an annual report, approved by the Joint Monitoring Committee and certified by the audit report referred to in Article 31, on implementation of the joint operational programme from 1 January to 31 December of the previous year. The first annual report shall be submitted by 30 June of the second year of the programme.
2. Each annual report shall contain:
(a)
a technical part describing:
-
the progress achieved in implementing the programme and its priorities,
-
the detailed list of the signed contracts as well as possible difficulties encountered,
-
the technical assistance activities carried out during the previous year,
-
the measures undertaken to monitor, evaluate and audit projects, their results and actions undertaken to remedy to the problems identified,
-
the information and communication activities,
-
the programme of activities to be implemented the following year.
(b)
a financial part giving, in euro, for each priority:
-
the amounts allocated to the Joint Managing Authority by the Commission as the Community contribution and by the participating countries as co-financing, as well as any other possible revenue for the programme,
-
the payments made and amounts recovered by the Joint Managing Authority for technical assistance and for the projects, as well as the report reconciling these with the bank account for the programme,
-
the amount of eligible expenditure incurred by the projects as presented by the beneficiaries in their reports and payment requests,
-
the provisional budget (commitments and expenditure) of the Joint Managing Authority for the following year.
(c)
a declaration signed by the representative of the Joint Managing Authority giving an assurance that the management and control systems set up by the programme in the course of the previous year continue to comply with the model approved by the Commission and that they have operated in such a way as to warrant a reasonable degree of confidence in the correctness of the financial report and in the legality and regularity of the transactions to which it relates.
Article 29
Annual report of the internal audit service
1. The internal audit service of the Joint Managing Authority shall each year implement a control programme to check the internal circuits and ensure procedures have been correctly applied within the Joint Managing Authority. It shall draw up an annual report and send it to the representative of the Joint Managing Authority.
2. The Joint Managing Authority shall send the report referred to in paragraph 1 to the Commission and to the Joint Monitoring Committee as an annex to the annual report referred to in Article 28.
Article 30
Annual report on implementation of the audit plan for the projects
1. Each year the Joint Managing Authority shall draw up a report on the previous year's implementation of the audit plan for the projects, referred to in Article 37. The report shall describe in detail the methodology used by the Joint Managing Authority for selecting a representative sample of projects, as well as the controls carried out, the recommendations made and the conclusions drawn by the Joint Managing Authority in relation to the financial management of the projects concerned.
2. The Joint Managing Authority shall send the report referred to in paragraph 1 to the Commission and to the Joint Monitoring Committee as an annex to the annual report referred to in Article 28.
Article 31
External audit report
1. Independently of the external audits of the Joint Managing Authority undertaken by the administration of the country in which the Joint Managing Authority is established, the Joint Managing Authority shall call upon an independent public body or contract an independent approved auditor who is a member of an internationally recognised supervisory body for statutory auditing to carry out each year an ex post verification of the revenue and expenditure presented by the Joint Managing Authority in its annual financial report, in accordance with the standards and ethics of the International Federation of Accountants (IFAC).
2. The scope of the external audit shall cover the Joint Managing Authority's direct expenditure on technical assistance and project management (payments). The external audit report shall certify the statement of revenue and expenditure presented by the Joint Managing Authority in its annual financial report, and in particular it shall certify that stated expenditure has actually been incurred and is accurate and eligible.
3. The Joint Managing Authority shall send the external audit report to the Commission and to the Joint Monitoring Committee as an annex to the annual report referred to in Article 28.
Article 32
Final report
The final report on implementation of the joint operational programme shall contain mutatis mutandis the same elements as the annual reports, including their annexes, for the entire duration of the programme. It shall be submitted by 30 June 2016 at the latest.
SECTION 4
Eligible expenditure of the joint operational programme
Article 33
Eligible costs at joint operational programme level
1. In order to be eligible for Community financing, the expenditure of the joint operational programme must be incurred during the programme's period of execution, as defined in Article 43.
2. To be considered eligible as technical assistance costs, costs relating to the implementation of the joint operational programme by the Joint Managing Authority must:
(a)
be necessary for implementing the programme in compliance with the criteria defined by the programme and by the Joint Monitoring Committee and comply with the principles of sound financial management, in particular value for money and cost-effectiveness;
(b)
be recorded in the accounts of the programme, be identifiable, verifiable and backed by original supporting documents;
(c)
have been incurred in compliance with the relevant procurement procedures.
3. Subject to paragraphs 1 and 2, the following costs shall be eligible:
(a)
the cost of staff assigned to the programme, corresponding to actual salaries plus social security charges and other remuneration-related costs. Salaries and costs must not exceed those normally borne by the structures hosting the Joint Managing Authority or the Joint Technical Secretariat, unless it is justified by showing that this is essential to carrying out the joint operational programme;
(b)
travel and subsistence costs for staff and other persons taking part in the joint operational programme, provided they do not exceed those normally borne by the authorities appointed to manage the programme. Any flat-rate reimbursement of the subsistence costs must not exceed the rates of the scales published by the European Commission at the time of the adoption of the joint operational programme;
(c)
purchase or rental costs for equipment and supplies (new or used) specifically for the purposes of the Joint Managing Authority or the Joint Technical Secretariat for implementation of the joint operational programme and costs of services, provided they correspond to market rates;
(d)
the cost of consumables;
(e)
indirect costs to cover administrative overheads;
(f)
the subcontracting expenditure;
(g)
costs deriving directly from requirements imposed by this Regulation and the programme (for example, information and visibility operations, evaluations, external audits, translations etc.) including financial service costs (in particular the cost of bank transfers).
Article 34
Non-eligible costs at joint operational programme level
The following costs relating to the implementation of the joint operational programme by the Joint Managing Authority shall not be considered eligible as technical assistance costs:
(a)
debts and provisions for losses or debts;
(b)
interest owed;
(c)
items already financed in another framework;
(d)
purchases of land or buildings;
(e)
exchange-rate losses;
(f)
taxes, including VAT, unless the Joint Managing Authority cannot reclaim them and the applicable regulations authorise coverage of taxes;
(g)
loans to third parties;
(h)
fines.
Article 35
Contributions in kind at the joint operational programme level
Any contributions in kind from the participating countries, or any other source, shall be listed separately in the budget of the joint operational programme and shall not be eligible.
They may not be considered part of the minimum 10 % co-financing requirement for the participating countries referred to in Article 20.
The cost of staff assigned by participating countries to technical assistance for the programme shall not be considered a contribution in kind and cannot be considered as co-financing in the budget of the programme, with the exception of the initial in-kind contribution by the Joint Managing Authority referred to in Article 19(3) of this Regulation.
Article 36
Eligible costs at projects level
1. Expenditure for each project shall be incurred during the period of execution of each relevant contract.
2. Eligible costs, non-eligible costs and the possibility of contributions in kind at project level shall be described in the contracts concluded with the beneficiaries or contractors.
SECTION 5
Control
Article 37
Annual audit plan for projects
1. From the end of the first year of the joint operational programme, the Joint Managing Authority shall each year draw up an audit plan for the projects that it finances.
2. The controls referred to in paragraph 1 shall be conducted by examining the documents or conducting on-the-spot checks of a sample of projects selected by the Joint Managing Authority based on a random statistical sampling method taking account of internationally recognized audit standards, in particular having regard to risk factors related to the projects’ value, type of operations, type of beneficiary or other relevant elements. The sample shall be sufficiently representative to warrant a satisfactory level of confidence in relation to the direct controls carried out by the Joint Managing Authority on the existence, accuracy and eligibility of expenditure claimed by the projects.
Article 38
Community control
The Commission, OLAF, the European Court of Auditors and any external auditor authorised by these institutions may verify, by examining the documents or conducting on-the-spot checks, the use of Community funds by the Joint Managing Authority and the various project beneficiaries and partners.
These checks may take the form of a full audit on the basis of the supporting documents for the accounts, accounting documents and any other document relevant to the financing of the joint operational programme (including, for the Joint Managing Authority, all documents related to the selection procedures and to contracts) and of the project.
Article 39
National control system
Member States may set up a control system making it possible to verify the soundness of the expenditure declared for operations or parts of operations implemented on their territories, and the compliance of such expenditure and of related operations, or parts of those operations, with Community rules and their national rules.
CHAPTER V
PROJECTS FINANCED BY THE JOINT OPERATIONAL PROGRAMMES
Article 40
Bodies participating in projects under the joint operational programmes
1. Projects shall be submitted by applicants representing partnerships consisting of at least one partner from a Member State participating in the programme and at least one partner from a partner country participating in the programme.
2. The applicants and partners referred to in paragraph 1 are established in regions defined in Article 4(a) and (b) and comply with the eligibility criteria defined in Article 23(2) of this Regulation.
In cases where the projects’ objectives cannot be achieved without the participation of partners established in regions other than those defined in the first subparagraph, participation of these other partners can be accepted.
Article 41
Nature of projects
The nature of these projects may be of three kinds:
(a)
integrated projects, where each partner carries out a part of the activities of the joint project on its own territory;
(b)
symmetrical projects, where similar activities are carried out in parallel in Member States and in partner countries;
(c)
projects implemented mainly or entirely in a Member State or a partner country but for the benefit of all or some of the partners involved in the joint operational programme.
Projects take place in regions defined in Article 4(a) and (b) of this Regulation.
In exceptional cases, if necessary for achieving projects’ objectives, projects can take place partially in regions other than those defined in the second paragraph.
Article 42
Information and visibility of the joint operational programme
1. The Joint Managing Authority shall be responsible for implementation of information and visibility actions relating to the joint operational programme. In particular, the Joint Managing Authority shall take all necessary steps to ensure the visibility of the Community financing or co-financing in relation to its own activities and to the activities of the projects financed under the programme. Such measures shall comply with the relevant rules on the visibility of external actions laid down and published by the Commission.
2. The responsibility of any branch offices of the Joint Technical Secretariat which might be set up in participating countries shall be to publicise activities under the joint operational programme and to provide anyone who may be interested with information.
CHAPTER VI
CLOSURE OF JOINT OPERATIONAL PROGRAMMES
Article 43
Duration of the joint operational programmes
1. The period of execution of each joint operational programme shall start at the earliest at the date of the adoption of the joint operational programme by the Commission and end on 31 December 2016 at the latest.
2. This period of execution shall comprise the following phases:
(a)
an implementation phase for the joint operational programme with a maximum duration of seven years ending at 31 December 2013 at the latest. No call for tenders or call for proposals may be launched and no contract may be signed after this date, with the exception of audit and evaluation contracts;
(b)
an implementation phase for projects financed by the joint operational programme starting at the same time as the implementation phase for the programme and ending on 31 December 2014 at the latest. All activities of projects financed by the programme shall end by that date at the latest;
(c)
a financial closure phase for the joint operational programme including the financial closure of all contracts concluded as part of the programme, the ex post evaluation of the programme, the submission of the final report and the final payment or final recovery by the Commission. This phase shall end on 31 December 2016 at the latest.
Article 44
Early termination of the programme
1. In the cases described in Article 9(10)(c) and (d) of Regulation (EC) No 1638/2006 and in other duly justified cases, the Commission may decide to terminate the joint operational programme before the expiry date of the period of execution, at the request of the Joint Monitoring Committee or on its own initiative after having consulted the Joint Monitoring Committee.
2. In this case the Joint Managing Authority shall refer the request to the Commission and transmit the final report within the deadline of three months following the decision of the Commission. After clearing the previous pre-financing payments, the Commission shall pay the final balance or, where appropriate, issue the final recovery order vis-à-vis the Joint Managing Authority. The Commission shall also decommit the balance of commitments.
3. Where the programme is terminated because partner countries do not sign financing agreements within the required deadlines, budgetary allocations already committed to cross-border cooperation under the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument under heading 1B of the Financial Perspective (Interinstitutional Agreement 2006/C 139/01) shall remain available for their normal lifetime but may be used only for activities which take place exclusively in the Member States concerned. The European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument allocations committed to the cross-border cooperation from heading 4 of the Financial Perspectives (Interinstitutional Agreement 2006/C 139/01) shall be decommitted.
4. If partner countries do not sign the financing agreement or the Commission decides to terminate the joint operational programme before the normal expiry date of the programme, the following procedure shall apply:
(a)
for the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument allocations for cross-border cooperation from heading 1B of the Financial Perspective (Interinstitutional Agreement 2006/C 139/01), the amounts earmarked for future annual commitments of the joint operational programme concerned shall be used within the framework of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) in accordance with the procedures referred to in Article 9(10) of Regulation (EC) No 1638/2006;
(b)
for the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument allocations for cross-border cooperation from heading 4 of the Financial Perspectives (Interinstitutional Agreement 2006/C 139/01), the amounts earmarked for future annual commitments of the joint operational programme concerned shall be used to finance other programmes or projects eligible under Regulation (EC) No 1638/2006.
Article 45
Keeping of documents
The Joint Managing Authority and the various project beneficiaries and partners shall, for seven years from the date of payment of the balance for the programme or for a project, keep all documents related to the joint operational programme or a project, in particular the reports and supporting documents as well as accounts, accounting documents and any other document relating to the financing of the joint operational programme (including, for the Joint Managing Authority, all documents relating to the selection and to contracts) and of the project.
Article 46
Closure of the programme
1. A joint operational programme shall be considered closed after:
(a)
all the contracts concluded under the programme have been closed;
(b)
the final balance has been paid or reimbursed;
(c)
remaining appropriations have been decommitted by the Commission.
2. The closure of the operational programme shall not prejudice the Commission's right to undertake, at a later stage, financial corrections vis-à-vis the Joint Managing Authority or the project beneficiaries if the final amount of the programme or the projects has to be readjusted as a result of controls carried out after the closure date.
CHAPTER VII
FINAL PROVISIONS
Article 47
Entry into force
This Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh 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, 9 August 2007.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
*****
COMMISSION DECISION
of 16 December 1982
on the list of establishments in the Republic of South Africa and Namibia approved for the purpose of importing fresh meat into the Community
(82/913/EEC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN
COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Directive 72/462/EEC of 12 December 1972 on health and veterinary inspection problems upon importation of bovine animals and swine and fresh meat from third countries (1), and in particular Articles 4 (1) and 18 (1) (a) and (b) thereof,
Whereas establishments in third countries cannot be authorized to export fresh meat to the Community unless they satisfy the general and special conditions laid down in Directive 72/462/EEC;
Whereas the competent authorities have forwarded, in accordance with Article 4 (3) of Directive 72/462/EEC, a list of the establishments authorized to export to the Community;
Whereas Community on-the-spot visits have shown that the hygiene standards of many of these establishments are sufficient and they may therefore be entered on a first list, established according to Article 4 (1) of the said Directive, of establishments from which importation of fresh meat may be authorized;
Whereas the case of the other establishments proposed by the competent authorities has to be re-examined on the basis of additional information regarding their hygiene standards and their ability to adapt quickly to the Community legislation;
Whereas, in the meantime and so as to avoid any abrupt interruption of existing trade flows, these establishments may be authorized temporarily to continue their exports of fresh meat to those Member States prepared to accept them;
Whereas it will therefore be necessary to re-examine and, if necessary, amend this Decision in the light of measures taken to this end and improvements made;
Whereas it should be recalled that imports of fresh meat are also subject to other Community veterinary legislation, particularly as regards health protection requirements, including the special provisions for Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom;
Whereas the conditions of importation of fresh meat from establishments appearing on the list annexed to the present Decision remain subject to provisions laid down elsewhere and to the general provisions of the Treaty; whereas, in particular, the importation from third countries and the re-exportation to other Member States of certain categories of meat, such as meat weighing less than 3 kilograms, or meat containing residues of certain substances which are not yet covered by harmonized Community rules, remain subject to the health legislation of the importing Member State;
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. The establishments in South Africa and Namibia listed in the Annex are hereby approved for the import of fresh meat into the Community pursuant to the said Annex.
2. Imports from the establishments referred to in paragraph 1 shall remain subject to the Community veterinary provisions laid down elsewhere and, in particular, those concerning health protection requirements.
Article 2
1. Member States shall prohibit imports of fresh meat coming from establishments other than those listed in the Annex.
2. However, the prohibition provided for in paragraph 1 shall not apply until 1 August 1983 to establishments which are not listed in the Annex but which have been officially approved and proposed by the competent authorities as of 16 August 1982 pursuant to Article 4 (3) of Directive 72/462/EEC, unless a decision is taken to the contrary, in accordance with Article 4 (1) of the abovementioned Directive, before 1 August 1983.
The Commission shall forward the list of these establishments to the Member States.
Article 3
This Decision shall apply from 1 January 1983.
Article 4
This Decision shall be reviewed and if necessary amended before 1 May 1983.
Article 5
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 16 December 1982.
|
[
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COUNCIL DECISION
of 16 March 1998
on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Community and the United States of America on sanitary measures to protect public and animal health in trade in live animals and animal products
(98/258/EC)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 113 in conjunction with the first sentence of Article 228(2) thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,
Whereas the Agreement between the European Community and the United States of America on sanitary measures to protect public and animal health in trade in live animals and animal products provides an adequate means for putting into practice the provisions of the WTO Agreement on the application of sanitary and phytosanitary measures as regards public and animal health measures;
Whereas the Agreement will contribute towards facilitating bilateral trade between the European Community and the United States of America in live animals and animal products through the progressive recognition of the equivalence of sanitary measures, the recognition of animal health status, the application of regionalisation and the improvement of communication and cooperation;
Whereas it is appropriate to make provisions for a procedure establishing close and effective cooperation between the Commission and the Member States within the Standing Veterinary Committee;
Whereas the Agreement should be approved on behalf of the Community,
HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Article 1
The Agreement between the European Community and the United States of America on sanitary measures to protect public and animal health in trade in live animals and animal products is hereby approved on behalf of the Community.
The text of the Agreement and the Annexes thereto are attached to this Decision.
Article 2
The President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person or persons empowered to sign the Agreement in order to bind the Community.
Article 3
The measures necessary for the implementation of this Agreement, including as regards fresh meat and meat-based products guarantees equivalent to those laid down by Directive 72/462/EEC (1), shall be established pursuant to the procedure laid down in Article 30 of that Directive.
Article 4
The Commission, assisted by Member States' representatives, shall represent the Community in the Joint Committee referred to in Article 14(1) of the Agreement.
The Community position with regard to the matters to be dealt with by that Joint Committee shall be established within the appropriate Council bodies, in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty.
Amendments to the Annexes to the Agreement which are the result of recommendations by the Joint Committee shall be adopted according to the procedure provided for in Article 29 of Directive 72/462/EEC.
Article 5
This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Communities. It shall take effect on the date of its publication.
Done at Brussels, 16 March 1998.
|
[
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION
of 21 September 2005
on the implementation of aid scheme N192/1997 by Italy - Autonomous Province of Bolzano
(notified under document number C(2005) 2723)
(Only the Italian text is authentic)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2006/945/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 regard to decision C(2003) 517 final by which the Commission decided to initiate the procedure provided for in Article 88(2) of the Treaty in respect of aid C18/2003 (ex NN01/2003) (1),
Having called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to those provisions,
Whereas:
I. PROCEDURE
(1)
By letter registered as received on 11 February 2002 (CAB(02)A/410), a complaint was lodged in respect of two provincial laws of the Autonomous Province of Bolzano, Law No 4 of 13 February 1997, Chapters II and III, and Law No 9 of 15 April 1991.
(2)
Additional information was requested by letters D/50813 of 25 February 2002 and D/53149 of 18 June 2002. The Italian authorities replied by letters A/32982 of 22 April 2002 and A/36773 of 18 September 2002. The text of the new implementing criteria for Law No 4/97, which were adopted by Resolutions of the Provincial Executive Nos 4732 of 11 December 2000 and 4607 of 17 December 2001, was attached to the second letter.
(3)
By letter SG(2003)D/228597 of 21 February 2003, the Commission notified the Italian authorities of its decision to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the Treaty in respect of this aid.
(4)
The Commission 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 this aid.
(5)
The Commission received no comments from interested parties.
(6)
Two meetings between the Italian authorities and the Commission departments took place in Brussels on 9 April and 5 August 2003.
(7)
Several draft replies accompanied by the text of new implementation criteria for the scheme were sent informally to the Commission. They were followed by exchanges of emails. On 22 October 2003 and 27 February 2004 Italy was invited to submit its own comments formally.
(8)
Italy sent its comments by letter No 8000 of 22 June 2004, registered as received on 25 June 2004 under the number A/34747.
(9)
After a meeting held on 3 March 2005, the Commission requested, by letter D/52114 of 18 March 2005, additional information and undertakings from the Italian authorities, which were given in letter A/34426 of 2 June 2005.
II. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE AID FOLLOWING THE APPLICATION OF RESOLUTION 4607/2001
(10)
According to the complainant, investment aid in the form of grants or subsidised loans with a maximum intensity of 40 % were granted under the above laws to enterprises in the Province of Bolzano, even though the province is not eligible for the exemptions provided for in Article 87(3)(a) and (c) of the Treaty.
(11)
The two laws of the Province of Bolzano referred to in the complaint had been approved by the Commission:
(a)
Provincial Law No 4 of 13 February 1997 was registered as aid N192/97 and authorised by letter SG(97) D/10781 of 19 December 1997 (3). This law provides for various forms of aid, in particular aid for business investment (Chapter II); aid for ecological-environmental investment (Chapter III); aid for the promotion of consultancy and training services (Chapter V); aid for job creation (Chapter VI); and aid for internationalisation (Chapter VIII).
On the basis of the above decision approving aid scheme No 192/97, any aid to large enterprises that exceeds the de minimis threshold must be notified individually. The Italian authorities undertook not to exceed the thresholds of 15 % and 7,5 % for investment aid to small and medium-sized enterprises respectively since the province of Bolzano is not eligible for the exemption provided for in Article 87(3)(a) and(c) of the Treaty. However the Commission approved an aid intensity of 40 % for microenterprises not engaged in activities where there was intra-Community trade;
(b)
Law No 9 of 15 April 1991, which was approved under the reference NN95/95 by letter SG(96) D/4842 of 22 May 1996 (4), establishes an economic incentive fund. The measure in question establishes only the form of the aid (loans on favourable terms) and otherwise refers to other aid measures to be introduced by subsequent measures; these were laid down in Law 4/97. The Italian authorities undertook to restrict the application of this scheme to SMEs and to comply with all the conditions laid down by Community law on state aid.
(12)
However, new criteria for granting the aid provided for by Provincial Law No 4/97 in the craft, distributive, tourism and service sectors were adopted by the Provincial Executive in Resolution (deliberazione) No 4607 of 17 December 2001. The resolution was not notified in advance to the Commission.
(13)
The basic aid intensities of 13 % and 6 % decided by the province for investment aid for small and medium-sized enterprises respectively in the craft, tourism and distributive sectors (wholesale and retail) are systematically exceeded as a result of a number of increases.
(14)
These increases entail:
(a)
an intensity of 40 % for microenterprises (for a maximum investment of EUR 2 million over three years);
(b)
an intensity of 25 % for small enterprises (maximum investment of EUR 3,5 million over three years for the craft sector and EUR 2 million, again over three years, for the tourism and distributive sectors),
(c)
an intensity of 22,5 % (20 % in the distributive sector) for medium-sized enterprises (the maximum investment permissible in the craft sector is EUR 4 million over three years and is EUR 3 million in other sectors).
All these increases in respect of the basic intensity are granted, according to the Italian authorities, under the de minimis rule.
(15)
Craft microenterprises, of whatever size and regardless of the activity they exercise, can receive an aid intensity of 40 %. In particular, struggling microenterprises employing no more than two people and engaged in activities mentioned in the resolution referred to above may enjoy this intensity even in absence of the conditions required for other enterprises.
(16)
Even large enterprises in the tourism sector are eligible for investment aid under the above resolution, at a basic intensity of 6 %, apparently without any requirement for prior individual notification.
There are also increases in aid intensity of up to 22,5 % for large enterprises on the basis of the de minimis criterion. The maximum investment eligible for aid is EUR 3 million over three years.
(17)
The resolution in question also provides for three forms of aid for the protection of the environment:
Aid of an intensity of 25 % is available for SMEs of any sector and for large enterprises in the tourism sector to enable them to adjust to new mandatory standards.
Aid of an intensity of 40 % is available for measures that go beyond mandatory standards.
Aid, again with an intensity of 40 %, is available for environmental audit projects.
Under the de minimis rule provision is made for increasing the maximum intensities up to 30 %, 40 % and 75 % respectively for the three aid headings of the measure. The maximum eligible investment, in particular in the case of aid to promote compliance with new mandatory Community standards, ranges from EUR 1 million to EUR 4 million, depending on the size of the enterprise.
(18)
Under Resolution 4607/2001 the following became eligible for employment aid: the costs of legal and tax advisory services, those incurred in setting up new enterprises or transferring enterprises, and the cost of ‘tutoring’ new enterprises in the first two years after their setting-up.
Also admissible are the costs of research on existing trademarks and patents and the costs of registering trademarks. Provision is made for an aid intensity of 50 %. Large tourism enterprises may also, in principle, receive such aid.
(19)
Aid for internationalisation includes aid to cover the expenses of SMEs participating in fairs and exhibitions (with an intensity of 25 % in the EU and 40 % outside); aid for studies, research and consultancy services (up to 50 % intensity); and aid for other initiatives in and outside the EU, apparently in the form of business advertising on websites (50 %).
Also admissible are the costs of guaranteeing export credits and insuring exchange-rate risks, with a maximum intensity of 50 % accorded to SMEs. There is also provision for aid to large enterprises for export credits for trade with any country outside the EU of up to 50 %, under the de minimis rule.
(20)
There is aid for training and consultancy services at the rate of 50 % of eligible costs. There is an increase of 30 points, under the de minimis rule, for the first four days of consultancy services provided directly or indirectly by a chamber of commerce or business innovation centre (BIC). Large enterprises in the tourism sector are also covered by this aid; there is also provision in this scheme for an aid intensity of 35 % for creating web pages. Only aid intensities of over 35 % for training and 50 % for consultancy services are accorded under the de minimis rule, where appropriate.
(21)
There is also provision for aid intensity of 80 % for joint projects under Community programmes, including LEADER and INTERREG (but individual contributions to specific enterprises are excluded).
III. GROUNDS FOR INITIATING THE PROCEDURE
(22)
The Commission approved aid schemes N192/97 and NN69/95, which have their legal basis in Provincial Laws Nos 4/97 and 9/91 respectively (see recital 11(a) and (b)).
(23)
Examination of Resolution 4607/2001 showed that the new criteria adopted for granting aid in the craft, distributive, tourism and services sectors under Law 4/97 (also in the form of loans on favourable terms under Law 9/91) did not appear to comply with the Commission decisions that approved the schemes, and did not seem consistent with the relevant new rules guidelines and regulations for reasons that are set out below.
(24)
At the start of this procedure the Italian authorities stated in letter A/32982 that both medium-sized and large enterprises in the distributive and tourism sectors could receive aid under Resolution 4607/2001 in the form of loans at preferential rates for eligible investments of between EUR 1 million to EUR 3 million.
(25)
The tables in Resolution 4607/2001 show that large enterprises in the tourism sector may be granted a basic intensity of 6 %, possibly rising to 22 % (increase accorded under the de minimis rule), while large enterprises in the distributive sector may enjoy aid intensities of between 6 % and 20 %.
Only in the case of the distributive sector does the resolution specify that ‘unless notification is made to the Commission “in applicable cases”, aid for large enterprises may be granted only if de minimis’. But no limit seems to be set for large enterprises in the tourism sector.
(26)
Under Article 87(3)(a) and (c) of the Treaty large enterprises outside assisted areas should not receive investment aid. The province of Bolzano was not eligible for regional aid at the time schemes N192/97 and NN69/95 were approved, nor is it now.
Here it should be emphasised that the Commission decision on scheme N192/97 explicitly excluded large enterprises from aid other than de minimis aid.
(27)
Aid granted in the form of loans on favourable terms under Law 9/91 is also covered by scheme NN69/95 governing the form of the aid. The Commission approved this scheme on condition that only SMEs benefited, and following the undertaking given by the Italian authorities to comply with all the rules concerning SMEs in force at the time and to notify the provincial administration of these rules in a circular setting out implementation criteria for the scheme to ensure its correct application.
(28)
In spite of this, Resolution 4607/2001, which lays down the implementation criteria for scheme N192/97 (and of scheme NN69/95 in cases where aid is granted in the form of soft loans under Law 9/91), also accords investment aid to large enterprises.
(29)
Accordingly, the Commission took the view that Resolution 4607/2001 constituted a misuse of aid schemes N192/97 and NN69/95 within the meaning of Article 16 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/99 (5) and doubted whether investment aid granted to large enterprises on the basis of this resolution other than de minimis cases could be exempted from the prohibition laid down in Article 87(1) of the Treaty.
(30)
When the Commission appraised the dossier for scheme NN65/95 the Italian authorities undertook to comply with all the conditions laid down in Community legislation on state aid for SMEs. On notifying aid scheme N192/97 they also undertook not to grant them operating aid.
(31)
It should also be emphasised that the eligible investments referred to in Resolution 4607/2001 do not correspond to the definition of initial investment in Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 (6), in that mere replacement investment does not appear to be excluded.
(32)
Moreover, the fact that the aid recipients are only SMEs that have their registered office on the territory of the province of Bolzano appears to be an infringement of the principle of freedom of establishment of enterprises inside the European Union.
(33)
Finally, the principle of the necessity of aid is not adhered to, as aid applications must as a rule be submitted within six months of the start-up of work or from the date of the first invoice for the work.
(34)
The Commission doubted therefore whether the aid in question was compatible.
(35)
The Italian authorities have argued that the aid intensity of 40 % was confined to struggling craft microenterprises with no more than two employees engaged in a strictly defined list of activities (7) - which list was given in the letter A/36773 of 18 September 2002 - and to some microenterprises in the distributive sector.
(36)
Analysis of Resolution 4607/2001 shows that the craft microenterprises referred to above can enjoy this intensity even when they do not satisfy the conditions for such an increase in intensity that apply to other microenterprises; it also shows that this intensity is extended to all craft microenterprises, regardless of their size and economic situation. Since the level of admissible investment is EUR 2 million over three years (EUR 1 million in the case of microenterprises with up to two employees), it would seem that the level of aid could reach EUR 800 000 (EUR 400 000 for microenterprises with up to two employees).
(37)
Moreover, the definition of a microenterprise that is not considered to be involved in intra-Community trade, and is consequently eligible for the aid intensity of 40 % given in Resolution 4607/2001 (8), seems to focus on the activity being carried out by individual beneficiaries of aid not involving the establishment of economic relations with enterprises of other Member States, rather than - as would be correct - on the lack of intra-Community trade in the sector of activity of the enterprises concerned.
(38)
In view of this, and considering that microenterprises are SMEs within the meaning of Recommendation 96/280/EC (9) and so are not outside the application of Article 87(1) of the Treaty, the Commission expressed doubts as to whether all the aid granted to them under the measure in question could escape the definition of state aid.
(39)
The Commission approved the environmental protection aid provided for in Provincial Law 4/97 (10) on the base of the previous state aid rules on environmental protection that have now been replaced by new guidelines published on 3 February 2001 (OJ C 37, p. 3).
When the new guidelines came into force, it was proposed to the Member States that they adopt appropriate measures. Having agreed to do this, Italy was obliged to implement them. In assessing the measure in question, therefore, the Commission has referred to the new rules on state aid for environmental protection.
(40)
On the basis of point 28 of the Community guidelines on state aid for environmental protection (‘the guidelines’) (11), investment aid to help SMEs meet new standards may be authorised up to a maximum of 15 % of gross eligible costs for a period of three years from the adoption of new mandatory Community standards.
(41)
The Commission took the view that the aid intensity of 25 % to help SMEs adjust to the new Community standards provided for in Law 4/97 and confirmed by Resolution 4607/2001 was not consistent with the guidelines, and that the aid to help large enterprises adhere to the new mandatory environmental standards could not be exempted.
(42)
According to point 29 of the guidelines, investment aid to enable firms to improve on Community standards may be authorised up to a basic 30 % of the investment made in the absence of mandatory Community standards.
(43)
The Commission therefore considered that the 40 % intensity for investment aid to enable firms to improve on Community standards, mainly intended for large tourism enterprises, was not compliant with point 29 of the guidelines.
(44)
Finally, under point 41 of the guidelines aid may be granted to advisory/consultancy services to help SMEs with environmental protection in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 70/200138 (12).
(45)
However, under Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 aid to environmental audit projects as provided for in the resolution may be granted only to SMEs and must satisfy the conditions of Article 5(a) of that Regulation.
(46)
In the case of aid for environmental investments provided for in the first two environmental provisions of the measure, which are referred to in recitals 41 and 43, the Commission also expressed doubts in relation to points 36 and 37 of the guidelines concerning investments to be taken into account and methods of calculating eligible costs.
(47)
The Commission had approved employment aid for SMEs of a maximum intensity of 25 % of the wage bill under scheme N192/97.
(48)
However, the aid provided for under this heading by Resolution 4607/2001 does not create or maintain jobs, the Commission considered that it could not be defined as employment aid, though some of forms of this aid (for consultancy services) might be exempted if they satisfied the conditions of Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 and the recipients were exclusively SMEs.
(49)
The Commission took the view that the aid for trademark and patent searches and for registering trademarks and business products provided for in the specific measure for employment aid could not enjoy any exemption for large enterprises, as it did not appear to be linked to any research and development activity.
(50)
In opening the procedure the Commission noted that the aid for participation in fairs and exhibitions may be considered compatible under Article 5(b) of Regulation 70/2001 if the expenses to which the maximum aid intensity of 50 % are applied consist in the hiring, setting-up and running of the stand. Such an exemption applies only to a firm's first participation in a given fair or exhibition.
The consultancy services provided by external consultants should not be permanent or regular nor be linked to the firm's normal running costs, such as advertising.
Finally, aid for export-related activities (13) is not covered by Regulation 70/2001, Regulation 69/2001 (14) or the Commission notice on de minimis aid of 1996 (15).
(51)
So, in the Commission's view, the aid for internationalisation provided for in Resolution 4607/2001, other than participation to fairs and exhibitions that meets the conditions of Article 5 of Regulation 70/200, could not be considered compatible, even if it was granted only to SMEs.
(52)
Moreover, the Commission found that export credits, in particular those for large enterprises, which had been explicitly excluded when Law 4/97 was notified, were not entitled to any exemption, even under Regulation 69/2001.
(53)
Such aid, which was not provided for in scheme N192/97, was not considered state aid in Resolution 4607/2001.
(54)
However, the Commission had doubts as to whether enterprises do not derive a competitive advantage from involvement in joint projects under the Community programmes Leader and Interreg, which are accorded an intensity of 80 %.
(55)
The definition of consultancy service needs to be clarified. On the basis of the current definition the Commission thinks that no aid to large enterprises for consultancy services can be exempted other than in cases where the consultancy is an eligible cost of a training-aid project within the meaning of Article 4(7)(e) of Commission Regulation No 68/2001 of 12 January 2001 on training aid.
(56)
According to the Italian authorities, in the case of investment aid, any increase in the basic aid intensity rates of 13 % and 6 % for small and medium-sized enterprises respectively was granted under the de minimis rule.
(57)
Neither Law 4/1997 nor the text of Resolution 4607/2002 adopted on 17 December 2001, i.e. after the entry into force of Regulation 69/2001, make reference to procedures for checking the threshold or other conditions laid down in the de minimis Regulation (16) or the old 1996 notice on the subject (17).
(58)
In view of the amount of eligible investment (EUR 3,5 million and EUR 4 million over three years for small and medium-sized enterprises respectively) and the maximum intensity provided for in Resolution 4607/2001 (25 % and 22,5 %, of which 12 and 16,5 percentage points under the de minimis rule for small and medium-sized enterprises respectively), the Commission doubted whether the EUR 100 000 threshold over three years laid down in the de minimis Regulation was adhered to.
(59)
In a broader perspective the Commission had doubts about Resolution 4607/2001's provision for very extensive use of the de minimis rule with the aim of systematically exceeding maximum permissible intensities for SMEs and the granting of a maximum aid intensity of 22,5 % to large enterprises outside assisted areas, also given the high level of eligible investment.
IV. COMMENTS FROM INTERESTED THIRD PARTIES
(60)
No comment has been submitted by either interested third parties or the complainant, who was notified by letter D/51908 of 24 March 2003 of the opening of the procedure and the possibility of supplementing the comments made in the original complaint in response to the letter.
V. COMMENTS FROM ITALY
(61)
Following two meetings between representatives of the Province of Bolzano and DG COMP, Italy's comments were set out in letter A/34747 of 25 June 2004.
In this letter the Italian authorities made the following points.
V.1. Investment aid for large enterprises
(62)
Resolution 4607/2001 did not explicitly exclude large tourism enterprises, as it did enterprises in the distributive sector, because of a clerical error.
(63)
However, no large enterprise in the tourism sector had received aid either under scheme N192/1997 (Provincial Law 4/97) or scheme NN69/1995 (Provincial Law 9/91). In the distributive sector large enterprises were already excluded from aid other than de minimis aid under Resolution 4607/01.
(64)
The Italian authorities undertook to exclude large enterprises more explicitly from aid in the form of loans on favourable terms under scheme NN69/95, even though none had received any such aid other than de minimis.
(65)
Subsequently, in answer to a specific question from the Commission, it was explained in a letter of 2 June 2005 that no aid had been granted to large enterprises in any sector, and also that enterprises whose main activity was in the transport sector were excluded from aid.
(66)
Furthermore, the draft new implementation criteria explicitly excluded all large enterprises from aid other than de minimis aid, in accordance with Regulation 69/2001.
V.2. Aid for SMEs
V.2.1. Failure to exclude replacement investment from eligible costs
(67)
Although not explicitly excluded from the implementation criteria, the Italian authorities said no aid had been granted for replacement investment.
(68)
Specifically, what was eligible for aid was investment in tangible assets complying with the definition in Article 2(c) of Regulation 70/2001, namely the creation of a new establishment and investment in diversification or modernisation that involved a fundamental change in the product or production process of an existing establishment. Relatively high minimum investment thresholds had been set in relation to the average size of the enterprises concerned.
(69)
The new criteria explicitly excluded both replacement investment and maintenance costs, and the description of eligible investments was fully in compliance with Regulation 70/2001.
V.2.2. Freedom of establishment
(70)
The condition laid down in the old criteria that in order to have access to aid firms should have a registered office in the Province of Bolzano was not rigorously applied even in the past. In support of this argument a list was supplied of 16 recipients of investment aid under the scheme whose registered office was outside the Province of Bolzano (and in one case even outside Italy). In many cases (six of the 16) the aid dated back to 1998, i.e. well before the Commission opened this case. Moreover, enterprises that possess only an operating unit in the Province of Bolzano can now benefit from the scheme in question.
V.2.3. The necessity of aid principle
(71)
This principle was already applied in accordance with the second indent of Article 7 of Regulation 70/2001 in that the conditions for granting aid were so objective that the Province had no possibility of using discretionary powers.
(72)
However, the Italian authorities have undertaken to require that the request be introduced before the start of work on the project for which the aid is granted.
V.2.4. Aid for microenterprises
(73)
Henceforth, the only provision for any increase of more than 15 % in the intensity of investment aid for microenterprises in general is under the de minimis rule
(74)
Aid of an intensity of 40 % not falling within the scope of Article 87(1) of the Treaty and not even classed de minimis, is now reserved exclusively for some local activities, notably small-scale traditional trades threatened with extinction and small distributive businesses, which are listed exhaustively in the new criteria.
(75)
In any case, a survey carried out by the Italian authorities revealed that no aid exceeding both the 15 % intensity and the de minimis threshold had been granted so far.
V.2.5. Aid for environmental protection
(76)
The only aid intensities authorised are those of 15 % for transitional investment aid granted to SMEs to help them adapt to new Community rules and 30 % for aid for improving on Community standards or for investment carried out in the absence of mandatory Community standards.
(77)
Aid for environmental audits is currently confined to SMEs, by Article 5(a) of Regulation 70/2001, while large enterprises are eligible only for de minimis aid. The provision of Article 12(4) of Law 4/97 making large enterprises eligible would be repealed as soon as possible; in the meantime the Italian authorities have pledged not to grant it anymore.
(78)
Finally, the Italian authorities undertook to comply with the conditions set out in points 36 and 37 of the guidelines concerning investments to be taken into account and methods of calculating eligible costs.
(79)
Only one request - in the craft sector - had been received on the basis of the existing criteria for the scheme in question; the aid amounted to EUR 14 719,02, which was over the authorised intensity of EUR 7 359,51. So this amount was classed as de minimis.
V.2.6. Contributions classed as ‘employment aid’
(80)
According to the Italian authorities such aid is linked to the start-up phase of new enterprises (the first 24 months after their establishment) and, even though it takes the form of support for consultancy services and research into and/or registration of trademarks and business products, is designed to create jobs and is therefore compatible. In any case it has not been granted to any large enterprise.
(81)
However, in compliance with Chapter V of Law 4/97, the only provision now is in the form of loans on favourable terms as laid down in Chapter VI of the same law for the purpose of increasing the availability of funds on the basis, and within the limits, of the de minimis criterion.
V.2.7. Aid for internationalisation
(82)
Up to now only negligible amounts of such aid have been granted. Some SMEs had been accorded an aid intensity of 25 % for participation in fairs and exhibitions, plus an intensity of up to 50 % without verification whether it was their first participation in a given event; only two aid grants in the form of a contribution (50 %) to the insurance cost of export credits - for EUR 3 500 and LIT 7 million - have been accorded for countries outside the EU.
(83)
The new implementation criteria provide for aid of an intensity of 50 % only to SMEs for the cost of consultancy services supplied by external consultants and the cost of their first participation in a fair or exhibition inside or outside the Community.
(84)
Aid for the insurance of export credits is authorised only for the premium to cover risks which are not insurable on the market and which arise out of dealings with non-Community countries, excluding a number of OECD countries where such risks are marketable (‘marketable countries’ currently being Australia, Canada, Iceland, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland and the United States).
V.2.8. Aid provided for under Community programmes
(85)
Aid intensity of 80 %, previously offered to some joint projects carried out under the Community programmes LEADER and INTERREG, in which enterprises also take part, is not granted anymore.
V.2.9. Application of the de minimis rule
(86)
According to the Italian authorities, the de minimis rule is adhered to. First, the relevant departments of the Bolzano provincial authorities are interconnected thanks to an intranet system. Moreover, before applicants can obtain any aid under such a scheme they must submit a declaration concerning any other such aid received over the relevant three-year period.
(87)
Another system for automatically controlling all aid, not just that granted by the Province, is being set up; this system in turn will be connected to the national network currently being established.
VI. ASSESSMENT OF THE MEASURES
VI.1. Assessment of the nature of the aid measures in question
(88)
A measure may be considered aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty only if it satisfies all four of the following conditions: its being granted through state resources, selectivity, likelihood of distorting competition, and effect on trade.
(89)
In this case the first condition is satisfied as the measure is financed from the budget of the Autonomous Province of Bolzano - i.e. with public resources; the second because only enterprises operating in the Province of Bolzano receive the aid; the third because the financial situation of the recipients is improved; and the fourth because the firms concerned may in fact engage in international trade, since they are in a border region that is also very active in tourism. Therefore the measures in question are liable to affect trade between Member States, subject to the assessment of the measures resulting from the application of new criteria in favour of specific microenterprises, which is dealt with in recital 116.
(90)
Furthermore, the measures which are the subject of this procedure were deemed state aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty when the Commission examined the dossiers for state aid measures N192/97 and NN69/95.
VI.2. Legality of the measures
(91)
Since the measures were not notified to the Commission in advance in accordance with Article 88(3) of the Treaty they are illegal on the grounds of lack of notification. Since they are implementation criteria for scheme N192/97 (and, indirectly, for NN69/95), they constitute misuse of these schemes.
VI.3. Compatibility of the aid measures taken under Resolution 4607/2001
VI.3.1. Investment aid for large enterprises
(92)
Given that the Province of Bolzano was not eligible for regional aid throughout all the period in which the measures in question were in force, no exemption can be granted for investment aid to large enterprises in the province.
(93)
The Commission's decision on case N192/97 had already explicitly excluded large enterprises from any aid under the scheme other than de minimis.
(94)
Aid granted in the form of loans on favourable terms under Law 9/91 also comes under scheme NN69/95. The Commission approved that scheme on condition that only SMEs were eligible and following the undertaking given by the Italian authorities to comply with all the rules on SMEs and to communicate these rules to the provincial administration to ensure that the scheme was implemented correctly.
(95)
But the implementation criteria set out in Resolution 4607/2001 for scheme N192/97 (and for NN69/95 where aid is accorded in the form of soft loans under Law 9/91) are incompatible with the common market since they provide for investment aid for large enterprises as well.
(96)
The Commission notes that, according to the information supplied by the Italian authorities, no large enterprise has in fact received such aid.
VI.3.2. Investment aid for SMEs
(97)
First, the Commission confirms that any aid granted for replacement investment must be considered incompatible, while noting that the Italian authorities have informed it that no aid for this type of investment has been granted under the scheme in question.
(98)
Investment aid that exceeds the threshold of 15 % for small enterprises and 7,5 % for medium-sized enterprises is also incompatible.
VI.3.3. Microenterprises
(99)
The Commission confirms that, on the basis of both Recommendation 96/280/EC (18) and the new definition in force since 1 January 2005 (19), microenterprises as a category of SME are not excluded as such from the application of Article 87(1) of the Treaty. It follows that investment aid granted for such enterprises, where it exceeds an intensity of 15 % and cannot be considered de minimis, must be deemed incompatible with the common market.
(100)
The Commission takes note of the information supplied by the Italian authorities that no aid granted to microenterprises has exceeded both the 15 % intensity and the de minimis threshold.
VI.3.4. Environmental aid
(101)
The Commission finds that the aid intensities of 25 % and 40 % for the first two types of aid under this specific measure (namely adjustment to new mandatory standards and improving on Community standards), plus the eligibility of large enterprises to receive aid for environmental audit projects, are incompatible with the common market.
(102)
On this point the Commission notes that on the basis of information supplied by Italy only one grant of aid (of an amount much lower than the de minimis level) has exceeded the permissible thresholds, and that application of the legal basis for the third type of aid (aid for environmental audits) has been suspended and will be repealed as soon as possible.
VI.3.5. Contributions described as ‘employment aid’
(103)
The Commission confirms that the aid provided for under this heading in Resolution 4607/2001 does not correspond in any way to the aid authorised by the Commission decision on scheme N192/97. Furthermore, since it neither creates nor saves jobs, but it is accorded for consultancy services and activities related to trademarks and patents, it cannot be considered employment aid.
(104)
However, since most of the eligible costs under this specific measure are deemed to be made up of consultancy/advisory activities for newly-set up SMEs and for the registration of trademarks and business products that may be eligible under Articles 5 and 5c of Regulation 70/2001, such aid is incompatible only where the conditions laid down in Regulations Nos 70/2001 and 364/2004 are not met (20).
(105)
Such aid is incompatible, however, if large enterprises are also recipients.
VI.3.6. Aid for internationalisation
(106)
The Commission takes note of the fact that only a few aid grants of negligible amounts have been made on the basis of the implementation criteria that constituted the grounds for initiating the procedure. Furthermore, the intensity granted for participation in fairs and exhibitions is 25 %, instead of 50 % as was authorised, although it is true that there has been no verification as to whether it was the first participation in a given event. There have been five cases in total, with aid grants ranging from EUR 1 250 to EUR 8 875. There have been only two cases of aid for insuring export credits with an aid intensity of 50 %; the aid grants of EUR 3 500 and LIT 7 million (which is likewise about EUR 3 500) were restricted to the cost of the insurance premium and to countries outside the EU. These grants are compatible only on condition that they satisfy conditions of the Commission communication on short-term export-credit insurance (21).
(107)
However, any aid for consultancy services for large enterprises and for export-related activities (even that for SMEs) is incompatible with the common market. Also incompatible is aid to enterprises of whatever size for consultancy services that constitute a permanent or regular activity and aid related to an enterprise's normal running costs, such as advertising.
VI.3.7. Aid under Community programmes
(108)
The Commission remarks that such aid, of an intensity of 80 % as provided for in Resolution 4607/2001, was not authorised by the Commission decision on measure N192/97. Given the very high intensity, plus the fact that there seems to be no eligible objective, such aid is incompatible where Article 87(1) is applicable, in particular if persons engaged in economic activities may also benefit by participating in joint projects subsidised under the measure in question.
(109)
However, the Commission notes that the sums granted under this heading to the individual projects in question are, according to the information supplied by the Italian authorities, very small, and well below the de minimis threshold. Hence there was no impact on intra-Community trade. These measures may therefore be considered as not constituting state aid within the meaning of Article 87 of the Treaty, provided that that the Italian authorities supply the Commission with proof that all the criteria for the application of Regulation 69/2001 have been adhered to. Finally, the Commission takes note of the fact that aid to joint projects under the LEADER and INTERREG programmes in which enterprises also participate is no longer provided for in the new criteria for implementation of the scheme in question.
VI.3.8. Aid for consultancy services
(110)
The Commission reiterates its opinion that no aid may be granted for consultancy/advisory services to large enterprises, except within the framework of a training project within the meaning of Article 7(7)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 68/2001 (22). Aid is therefore incompatible outside this framework.
VI.3.9. Application of the de minimis rule
(111)
The Commission takes note of the assurances given by the Italian authorities that all the conditions set out in the relevant de minimis provisions, currently those of Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 (23), are rigorously adhered to, principally thanks to the ASTAT control system.
VI.4. Compatibility of the measures in the light of the new criteria notified by letter A/34/747 of 25 June 2004, amended and supplemented by letter A/34426 of 2 June 2005.
(112)
The Commission remarks that, regarding investment aid, the new implementation criteria explicitly exclude large enterprises, other than in de minimis cases.
(113)
In the case of investment aid for SMEs, the definition of eligible investment in the new criteria satisfies the conditions laid down in Regulation 70/2001 (24), and replacement investment and maintenance costs are explicitly excluded.
(114)
The Commission also notes that now there is formal provision for the principle of the freedom of establishment, whereas previously it was merely de facto, as is shown by the list notified in the course of procedure (see recital 70); it is now sufficient to have an operating unit on the territory of the Province of Bolzano to have access to the aid in question.
(115)
Finally, the principle of the necessity of aid is complied with since there is now a requirement to submit an application before starting to implement the project for which aid is given
(116)
Article 87(1) of the Treaty does not apply to microenterprises where these are merely enterprises engaged in local activities and so not in a position to affect intra-Community trade in view of their characteristics, size and location, and also because enterprises of other Member States have no interest in accessing their markets. In this case such enterprises are quite specific activities employing no more than two people in the craft sector (typically traditional trades threatened with extinction such as knife grinders, coopers, carders and spinners of wool, chandlers or candle dippers, basket makers, farriers and so on) and in distributive trades (in particular, the retail sale of products in daily use, above all food products, in localities with no more than a thousand inhabitants, not in commercial centres, and in any case outside areas more developed for tourism); both the craft and distributive activities are exhaustively listed in the new implementation criteria for the scheme.
(117)
Turning to environmental protection aid, the Commission finds that the transitional aid of an intensity of 15 %, confined to SMEs to help them adjust to new mandatory standards over a period of three years from their adoption, is consistent with point 28 of the Community guidelines on state aid for environmental protection (‘the guidelines’) (25).
(118)
Furthermore, aid of an intensity of up to 30 % to encourage enterprises of whatever size to improve on mandatory Community standards or to make investments designed to protect the environment in the absence of mandatory Community standards now satisfy the conditions of point 29 of the guidelines.
(119)
Aid for advisory/consultancy activities confined to SMEs are consistent with Article 5(a) of Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 (26), and are therefore compatible with the common market.
(120)
However, this Decision does not prejudge the compatibility of Resolution 4007 of 4 November 2002, thanks to which, it is claimed, all forms of environmental aid offered by the Province of Bolzano have been adapted to the new Commission guidelines, since this resolution is not the subject of this procedure.
(121)
On the issue of the supposed employment aid, the Commission notes that such aid is confined to the grant of loans to constitute liquid assets within the limits of Regulation 69/2001 on de minimis aid (27).
(122)
As to the aid for internationalisation, the Commission notes that the new implementation criteria notified to it provide only for aid of an intensity up to 50 % for the costs of consultancy services supplied by external consultants and for the costs incurred in a first participation in a given fair or exhibition, and that the aid is confined to SMEs. This complies with Article 5 of Regulation 70/2001 (28).
(123)
The Commission also notes that the only premiums now eligible are those for insuring credits for risks which are not insurable on the market and which arise out of dealings with non-Community countries, excluding OECD countries where such risks are marketable (these ‘marketable countries’ are currently Australia, Canada, Iceland, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland and the United States). This is in accordance with the communication on short-term export-credit insurance (29).
VII. FINAL COMMENTS
(124)
The Commission deplores the fact that the implementation criteria for Provincial Law No 4/97, adopted by Resolution 4607 of 17 December 2001, were enacted by Italy (Autonomous Province of Bolzano) without prior notification to the Commission, in violation of Article 88(3) of the Treaty, and so are illegal. This was a misuse of aid scheme N192/97 (and also, indirectly, of scheme NN69/95) within the meaning of Article 16 of Regulation 659/99 (30).
(125)
For that reason the Commission decided to initiate this formal procedure to investigate the aid in question.
(126)
However, during the procedure the Italian authorities explained that in most cases the provisions of Resolution 4607/2001 that were liable to be found incompatible and illegal in the light of the Commission's investigation have not been applied, or have been applied in only a very small number of cases and for insignificant amounts well below the de minimis threshold even in the case of SMEs.
(127)
On this subject much information has been supplied, in particular regarding the number and amount of aid grants in relation to the more controversial aspects of the specific aid measures covered by the scheme. According to this information, no large enterprise has received investment aid under the scheme in question. This type of aid has in fact been reserved for SMEs, as stipulated in the Commission decision approving schemes N192/97 and NN69/95.
(128)
The Italian authorities have also actively cooperated by suspending the application of a number of measures that will be repealed as soon as possible (in particular, aid for consultancy services for large enterprises) and proposing to amend the implementation criteria for the aid which is the subject of this procedure.
(129)
Finally, the Commission takes note of the undertakings and assurances given by Italy concerning compliance with the de minimis conditions and threshold, the Commission having expressed doubts about the extensive use of de minimis aid when initiating the procedure.
(130)
As long as aid was not granted to excluded sectors or export-related activities, and no aid was subordinated to the preferential use of domestic rather than imported products, the de minimis rule could be applied to the aid in question in accordance with Regulation 69/2001, provided that the aid did not exceed the EUR 100 000 threshold for any one enterprise over the relevant three-year period. Therefore such aid does not come under article 87(1) of the Treaty.
(131)
The Commission also remarks that a decision on an aid scheme does not exclude the possibility that individual measures may not constitute state aid (if the aid grant complies, for example, with the de minimis rule, as explained above), or may be considered, in whole or in part, compatible with the common market because of their specific characteristics (notably on the basis of an exemption regulation).
(132)
Even though, in the light of recitals 124 to 131 and the considerations set out in Part VI.3 concerning the compatibility of the measures taken under Resolution 4607/2001, no recovery, or only a partial recovery, of aid may possibly be necessary in this specific case, it is the established practice of the Commission to require the recovery of aid that has been declared illegal and incompatible under Article 88 of the Treaty. This practice is confirmed in Article 14 of Regulation No 659/99 (31).
(133)
The Commission will therefore require Italy to take all necessary measures to recover incompatible aid from beneficiaries of the scheme, other than in individual cases that satisfy the conditions for declaring the aid compatible with the relevant rules. Within two months of notification of this Decision, Italy must order aid recipients to repay the aid, with interest.
(134)
As laid down in Article 14(2) of Regulation 659/99, the aid to be recovered is to include interest calculated in accordance with Chapter V of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 (32). Interest is to be payable from the date the unlawful aid was at the disposal of the beneficiary until the date of its recovery.
(135)
The Commission requests Italy to send back the attached form concerning progress in the recovery procedure, to draw up a list of recipients subject to the recovery order and to indicate clearly what specific steps have been taken to ensure an immediate and effective recovery of the aid. An exhaustive list of all the aid measures cited in this Decision must be sent within two months of the date of notification of this Decision; for each measure there should be a breakdown of the amount granted, the amount compatible as a result of one of the cited exemptions, and the amount to be recovered.
(136)
The Commission also requests Italy to send within two months of the date of notification of this Decision documents that prove that procedures to recover illegal and incompatible aid from the recipients have been initiated (for example, circulars, repayment orders, and the like),
(137)
Lastly, the new implementation criteria, notified by letter A/34747 of 25 June 2004 and amended and supplemented by letter A/34426 of 2 June 2005, satisfy the conditions for compatibility with the common market, as is set out on a case-by-case basis in Part VI.4 (recitals 112 to 123),
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
The implementation criteria for Provincial Law No 4/97, adopted by Resolution No 4607 of 17 December 2001, are illegal because of the failure to notify the Commission in accordance with Article 88(3) of the Treaty. This means that the implementation of aid scheme N192/1997 was unlawful, as was, indirectly, that of scheme NN69/1995.
Article 2
The following aid measures provided for in Resolution 4607/2001 are incompatible with the common market:
a)
all investment aid for large enterprises;
b)
aid for SMEs that was granted for replacement investment and the portion of any investment aid grant which is over the 15 % gross aid-intensity threshold in the case of small enterprises and the 7,5 % threshold in the case of medium-sized enterprises;
c)
investment aid for microenterprises, other than that provided for in Article 3, which is in excess of a gross aid intensity of 15 %;
d)
following the entry into force of the new Community guidelines on state aid for environmental protection (33) and the acceptance by the Member State (34) of the proposal for appropriate measures to adapt the schemes previously approved in accordance with point 77 of the guidelines referred to above, namely from 1 January 2002:
i.
the portion of environmental protection investment aid to help adjustment to new mandatory Community standards that have recently entered into force which is over the 15 % gross aid-intensity threshold in the case of SMEs, and without exception where the recipients are large enterprises.
ii.
investment aid for environmental protection for the purpose of improving on mandatory Community standards, or in the absence of such standards, for the portion in excess of the gross aid intensity of 30 % in the case of large enterprises (40 % for SMEs);
iii.
all aid for environment-related consultancy/advisory activities for large enterprises;
e)
aid to enterprises for internationalisation, except aid that is confined to SMEs for an enterprise's first participation in a fair or exhibition, and aid that satisfies the criteria set out in the Commission communication on short-term export-credit insurance (35);
f)
contributions described as ‘employment aid’ (consisting in fact of aid for consultancy/advisory services and for the cost of registering trademarks) received by large enterprises;
g)
all aid for consultancy services received by large enterprises;
h)
aid of an intensity of 80 % granted for joint projects under Community programmes, the recipients of which include enterprises.
Article 3
The measures provided for in the new implementation criteria for scheme N192/97, notified by letter A/34747 of 25 June 2004, amended and supplemented by letter A/34426 of 2 June 2005 for microenterprises employing no more than two persons engaged in specific craft activities corresponding to typical traditional trades threatened with extinction and to local activities in the distributive sector, exhaustively listed in the implementation criteria referred to above, do not constitute aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty.
Article 4
Measures other than those referred to in Article 3 that are provided for in the new implementation criteria for scheme N192/97, notified by letter A/34747 of 25 June 2004, amended and supplemented by letter A/34426 of 2 June 2005, are compatible with the common market.
Article 5
1. Italy shall take all necessary measures to recover from the recipients any illegal and incompatible aid referred to in Article 2.
2. Italy shall suspend all payments of incompatible aid from the date of notification of this Decision.
3. Recovery shall be effected without delay and in accordance with the procedures of national law provided that they allow the immediate and effective enforcement of this Decision.
4. The aid to be recovered shall include interest charged from the date on which it was at the disposal of the recipients until the date of its recovery.
5. Interest shall be calculated on the basis of Chapter V of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty.
6. Within two months of the date of notification of this Decision, Italy shall order all the recipients of the aid referred to in Article 2 to repay the aid unlawfully granted with interest calculated as described above.
Article 6
Within two months of the date of notification of this Decision, Italy shall inform the Commission of the measures taken to comply with it by completing the questionnaire annexed hereto.
In particular, Italy shall, by the same deadline, send a complete list of all the aid measures referred to in this Decision, giving for each measure a breakdown of the amount granted, the amount compatible as a result of one of the cited exemptions, and the amount to be recovered.
Finally, again by the same deadline, Italy shall send all the documents demonstrating that it has initiated the procedures for recovering the unlawful aid from the recipients.
Article 7
This Decision is addressed to the Italian Republic.
Done at Brussels, 21 September 2005.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1642/1999
of 27 July 1999
amending Regulation (EEC) No 1713/93 establishing special detailed rules for applying the agricultural conversion rate in the sugar sector
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 organisation of the markets in the sugar sector(1), as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1148/98(2), and in particular Article 6(3), Article 28(8) and Article 28a(5) thereof,
(1) Whereas Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1713/93 of 30 June 1993 establishing special detailed rules for applying the agricultural conversion rate in the sugar sector(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 624/1999(4), states that the minimum sugar beet prices referred to in Article 5 of Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 and the production levy and additional levy referred to, respectively, in Articles 28 and 28a of that Regulation are to be converted into national currency using a specific agricultural conversion rate equal to the average, calculated pro rata temporis, of the agricultural conversion rates applicable during the marketing year in question;
(2) Whereas during the period from 1 July to 31 December 1998 the applicable rate was that calculated using the method laid down in Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 1713/93, while from 1 January 1999, by virtue of Council Regulation (EC) No 2799/98 of 15 December 1998 establishing agrimonetary arrangements for the euro(5), the only conversion rate applicable is that between the euro and the currencies of those Member States adopting the euro as fixed by Council Regulation (EC) No 2866/98(6); whereas, therefore, application of the euro conversion rate throughout the 1998/1999 marketing year would result in the retroactive application of a different rate from that which would be fixed if the method established by Regulation (EEC) No 1713/93 were applied to the participating Member States, and would fail to recognise the legitimate expectations operators have concerning the calculation method for conversion rates applicable to certain payments in the sugar sector;
(3) Whereas, therefore, two conversion rates should be applied to the 1998/1999 marketing year, one for the period 1 July to 31 December 1998 equivalent to the average, pro rata temporis, of the agrimonetary conversion rates and the euro conversion rate during that marketing year, and, for the period 1 January to 30 June 1999, the euro exchange rate fixed by Regulation (EC) No 2866/98;
(4) Whereas, to permit application to those payments of the rate resulting from the average pro rata temporis of the above conversion rates, special operative events for the amounts due under the minimum sugar beet prices and the production and additional levies should also be fixed;
(5) 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
Regulation (EEC) No 1713/93 is amended as follows:
1. the following Article 1a is added: "Article 1a
For the 1998/1999 marketing year and for participating Member States within the meaning of Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 2799/98,
1. the following rates are applicable for the conversion of the minimum sugar beet prices referred to in Article 5 of Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 and the production levies and additional levy referred to, respectively, in Articles 28 and 28a of that Regulation:
- the special agricultural conversion rate indicated in Annex II for the period 1 July to 31 December 1998,
- the conversion rate fixed by Regulation (EC) No 2866/98 for the period 1 January to 30 June 1999;
2. the following operative events shall be established for the application of the rates referred to in point 1:
- for the amounts due as payment of the minimum sugar beet prices referred to in Article 5 of Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81: the first day of the marketing year,
- for the amounts due as payment of the production levy and the additional levy referred to, respectively, in Articles 28 and 28a of that Regulation: the first day of the marketing year."
2. the Annex to this Regulation is added as Annex II.
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 to the amounts due as minimum sugar beet and production and additional levies during the 1998/1999 marketing year.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 27 July 1999.
|
[
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 438/2007
of 20 April 2007
concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
In order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.
(2)
Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific Community provisions, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.
(3)
Pursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column 1 of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN codes indicated in column 2, by virtue of the reasons set out in column 3 of that table.
(4)
It is appropriate to provide that binding tariff information which has been issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature but which is not in accordance with this Regulation can, for a period of three months, continue to be invoked by the holder, under Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).
(5)
The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The goods described in column 1 of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN codes indicated in column 2 of that table.
Article 2
Binding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States, which is not in accordance with this Regulation, can continue to be invoked for a period of three months under Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.
Article 3
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 April 2007.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION
of 25 September 2007
on measure C 45/06 (ex NN 62/A/06) implemented by France in connection with the construction by AREVA NP (formerly Framatome ANP) of a nuclear power station for Teollisuuden Voima Oy
(notified under document number C(2007) 4323)
(Only the French version is authentic)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2008/281/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 (1) pursuant to the provisions cited above and having regard to their comments,
Whereas:
1. PROCEDURE
(1)
By letter of 11 October 2004, registered as received by the Commission on 15 October 2004, Greenpeace submitted to the Commission a complaint concerning the granting by Compagnie française d'assurance pour le commerce extérieur (hereinafter Coface) of a guarantee in respect of the exportable French portion of the services provided by Framatome ANP to the Finnish company Teollisuuden Voima Oy (TVO). Framatome ANP has since been renamed AREVA NP (2).
(2)
The Commission registered the complaint under registry No CP 201/2004 on 29 October 2004.
(3)
By letter of 4 November 2004 (ref. D/57822), the Commission asked the French authorities for information on the guarantee. The French authorities provided the information by letter of 10 December 2004, registered as received by the Commission on 13 December 2004.
(4)
By letter of 14 December 2004, registered as received by the Commission on 16 December 2004, the European Renewable Energies Federation asbl (EREF) submitted to the Commission a complaint challenging the conformity with Community law of the arrangements for constructing, financing and operating TVO's new nuclear power station. It claims that, in addition to the Coface guarantee, the financing offered by Bayerische Landesbank (BLB) and by AB Svensk Exportkredit (SEK) also constitutes aid.
(5)
The Commission registered the State aid aspects of this complaint under registry No CP 238/2004 on 21 December 2004. To a large extent, it then examined the two complaints jointly since complaint CP 238/2004 covers the same ground as complaint CP 201/2004.
(6)
By letter of 15 February 2005 (ref. D/51174), the Commission asked the German authorities for information on the measures referred to in the complaints. The German authorities provided the information by letter of 16 March 2005, registered as received by the Commission on 17 March 2005.
(7)
By letter of 26 May 2005 (ref. D/54101), the Commission asked the French authorities for information on the measures referred to in the complaints. The French authorities provided the information by letter of 26 July 2005, reigstered as received by the Commission on 27 July 2005.
(8)
By letter of 7 June 2005 (ref. D/54366), the Commission asked the Finnish authorities for information on the measures referred to in the complaints. The Finnish authorities provided the information by letter of 8 July 2005, registered as received by the Commission on 11 July 2005.
(9)
By letter of 8 June 2005 (ref. D/54377), the Commission asked the Swedish authorities for information on the measures referred to in the complaints. The Swedish authorities provided the information by letter of 7 July 2005, registered as received by the Commission on 18 July 2005.
(10)
On 2 September 2005 a meeting took place between the Commission and EREF.
(11)
By letter of 18 November 2005, registered as received by the Commission on 22 November 2005, EREF provided the Commission with additional details regarding its complaint of 14 December 2004, including in particular details regarding the State aid referred to in complaint CP 238/2004.
(12)
By letter of 9 December 2005 (ref. D/59668), the Commission asked the Swedish authorities for additional information on the measures referred to in the complaints. The Swedish authorities provided the information by letter of 6 April 2006, registered as received by the Commission on 10 April 2006.
(13)
By letter of 13 January 2006 (ref. D/50295), the Commission asked the French authorities for additional information on the measures referred to in the complaints. The French authorities provided the information by e-mail of 20 February 2006, registered as received by the Commission on 21 February 2006 and supplemented by an e-mail of 10 March 2006, registered as received by the Commission on 13 March 2006.
(14)
The French authorities provided the Commission with additional information on the measures referred to in the complaints by an e-mail of 5 April 2006, registered as received by the Commission the same day.
(15)
By letter of 4 May 2006, registered as received by the Commission on 12 May 2006, Greenpeace provided the Commission with additional information on complaint CP 201/2004.
(16)
On 4 July 2006 a meeting took place between the Commission, the French authorities and representatives of a bank, AREVA NP and TVO at which the French authorities provided documents on the measures referred to in the complaints.
(17)
By letter of 18 July 2006, registered as received by the Commission on 25 July 2006, EREF provided further details regarding complaint CP 238/2004 and called on the Commission to take a decision in the matter.
(18)
On 7 September 2006 the Commission grouped together the two complaints under registry No NN 62/06. On 20 September 2006 it split the case into two (3) sub-cases, NN 62/A/06 and NN 62/B/06. Case NN 62/A/06 covers the aspects of the complaints that relate to the Coface guarantee, while Case NN 62/B/06 covers the aspects of complaint CP 238/2004 that relate to the credit facility involving BLB and the bilateral loan provided by SEK (complaint CP 201/2004 does not cover these aspects).
(19)
On 24 October 2006 the Commission took a decision in each of the two cases. In the first decision (4) it took the view that the measures covered by Case NN 62/B/06 did not constitute aid. It then informed France of its decision to initiate the procedure provided for in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty in respect of the Coface guarantee, with Case NN 62/A/06 being renumbered C 45/2006. This measure is the subject matter of the present decision, which terminates formal investigation procedure C 45/2006.
(20)
By letter of 14 November 2006, registered as received by the Commission on 16 November 2006, the French authorities asked the Commission to extend the deadline for submitting their comments. By letter of 30 November 2006, the Commission granted an extension. The French authorities submitted their comments by letter of 22 December 2006, registered as received on 4 January 2007.
(21)
The Commission decision to initiate the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (5) on 1 February 2007. The Commission called on interested parties to submit their comments on the measures in question. It received comments from 10 interested parties. It forwarded them to France by letter of 23 March 2007 (ref. D/51341), giving the latter the opportunity to comment. After requesting an extension of the deadline set, the French authorities submitted their comments by letter of 11 May 2007, registered as received on 14 May 2007.
2. DESCRIPTION
2.1. The Olkiluoto 3 project
(22)
At present, Finland has four nuclear reactors. Two of them, owned by the company Fortum, are situated in Loviisa, while the other two, owned by TVO, are in Olkiluoto.
(23)
TVO is a non-profit company which supplies electricity to its shareholders at cost price. Its capital is divided into several tranches, each corresponding to a power station or group of power stations. Possession of part of a tranche of TVO capital confers the right to buy an equivalent fraction of the production of the corresponding power station or stations at cost price.
(24)
VTO's shareholders are essentially energy and industrial enterprises that are large consumers of electricity.
(25)
TVO, which already owns two nuclear reactors, has a shareholding in a coal-fired power station and operates a wind farm, is currently having a third nuclear reactor built at the Olkiluoto site, to be known as ‘Olkiluoto 3’.
(26)
The entity responsible for constructing Olkiluoto 3 is a consortium comprising Siemens and AREVA NP, itself a subsidiary of AREVA and Siemens, which hold 66 % and 34 % respectively of the capital. The consortium was selected by TVO following an invitation to tender launched in September 2002. On 15 October 2003 TVO informed the AREVA NP/Siemens consortium that it was the preferred bidder. The construction contract was signed on 18 December 2003. According to the information received by the Commission, alongside the consortium selected, […] (6) had participated in the invitation to tender.
(27)
Olkiluoto 3 will be the first of a new generation of European pressurised-water reactors (EPRs), with a planned capacity of 1 600 MW. According to the initial planning, the reactor was to come on stream in 2009 but, since the construction work is behind schedule, it is planned to come on stream at the end of 2010/beginning of 2011.
2.2. Financing
(28)
TVO is using several sources of financing for Olkiluoto 3, which will cost more than EUR 3 billion.
(29)
Firstly, TVO's shareholders have agreed to increase TVO's capital (own funds) by an amount equivalent to some [15-30] % of the project cost by creating a specific tranche of shares for the new reactor. Secondly, a subordinated loan equivalent to [0-15] % of the total cost will be provided by the shareholders. In addition to this financing provided by the shareholders when the investment contract was signed in December 2003, TVO arranged a credit facility with a syndicate of international banks and a series of bilateral loans. Most of this debt financing was then refinanced by means of a loan guaranteed by Coface in March 2004, a new credit facility concluded in June 2005 and a number of new bilateral loans.
2.2.1. The credit facility
(30)
The facility (credit facility) is for EUR 1,35 billion.
(31)
The credit facility was granted to TVO by a banking syndicate in which BLB, BNP Paribas, JP Morgan, Nordea and Svenska Handelsbanken were the mandated lead arrangers. By letter of 11 November 2003, these five banks each undertook to provide, if necessary, up to EUR 500 million, representing EUR 2,5 billion in total. In the course of the syndication process, other banks participated in the credit facility. On 17 December 2003 the credit facility was signed by 12 banks participating on equal terms.
(32)
The credit facility comprises two tranches, with a respective maturity of five and seven years. It carries a EURIBOR-indexed variable interest rate. The five-year tranche offers a spread of […] basis points (bps) above EURIBOR for the first three years, with a step-up of […] bps for the years […]. The seven-year tranche offers a spread of […] bps for the first three years and then a step-up of […] bps for the years […] and […] bps for the years […]. The loan is not backed by any public guarantee.
(33)
The contract between VTO and the banks that was signed on 17 December 2003 was initially for EUR 1,95 billion. In March 2004 this amount was reduced to EUR 1,35 billion after TVO had been granted the Coface-guaranteed loan described in Section 2.2.2.
(34)
In June 2005, alongside other financing, TVO concluded a new EUR 1,6 billion credit facility on the back of more favourable market conditions, paying an average spread of only […] bps above EURIBOR for this seven-year facility. Since it had met its initial Olkiluoto 3-related disbursements out of the other sources of financing described in this section, and in particular the shareholder funds, TVO in the end never had to call on the credit facility concluded in December 2003 and thus terminated it.
(35)
On 11 June 2004 the Commission gave a positive opinion in accordance with Article 43 of the Euratom Treaty in which it concluded that the industrial project in question contributed to improving the security and diversity of supply at both regional and European level and that all aspects of the investment were consistent with the objectives of the Euratom Treaty.
2.2.2. The loan guaranteed by Coface
(36)
This is a EUR 570 million credit facility (‘the guaranteed loan’, the word ‘loan’ having been selected to avoid any confusion with the credit facility referred to in Section 2.2.1) and granted by the same mandated lead arrangers as those referred to in paragraph 31, excluding the bank […].
(37)
The loan principal will be gradually drawn down by TVO over a five-tear period, with the sums borrowed over time matching the payments to be made by TVO to AREVA NP. Repayment of the loan will be in the form of constant six-monthly repayments of the principal. It will begin six months after the last disbursement and will be spread over 12 years. The average duration of the loan as calculated by the French authorities is 8,92 years.
(38)
The interest rate payable to the banks is variable and indexed to EURIBOR. The loan offers the banks a spread of […] bps above EURIBOR.
(39)
The loan is backed by a guarantee granted by Coface as part of its export credit insurance activities on behalf of the French State. The insurance has been taken out by the banks and the insured parties are the banks, with Coface insuring 95 % of the loan amount. For this insurance Coface charges a flat-rate premium of [2,5-3,5] % for each payment, the total premiums payable to Coface thus amounting to EUR [14,25-19,95] million. The premium is charged to the banks, which in turn charge it to TVO, in addition to the interest rate referred to in paragraph 38.
(40)
The French Export Credit and Guarantee Commission (CGCCE), which was responsible for deciding whether or not the guarantee should be provided, delivered a positive decision on 17 November 2003. Coface promised to provide a guarantee on 1 December 2003. The guaranteed loan was concluded on 25 March 2004.
(41)
France gave notification of the guarantee to the participants in the Arrangement on Officially Supported Export Credits concluded within the OECD (the OECD Arrangement) on 20 November 2003. It should be pointed out that the transaction in question was not challenged by any of the participants to the OECD Arrangement.
2.2.3. The bilateral loans
(42)
In addition to the credit facility, when the investment decision was taken, TVO contracted a number of bilateral loans with various other financial bodies totalling EUR […] million. One of the loans was contracted with SEK for an amount of EUR 100 million (see the decision in Case NN 62/B/06).
2.2.4. Synopsis of the financial package and the chronology of events
(43)
The following table gives the breakdown of the financing for the Olkiluoto 3 project as at 25 march 2004:
Table 1
Breakdown of the financing for the Olkiluoto 3 project (as at 25 March 2004)
Source of financing
amount (EUR)
Proportion of project cost
Increase in capital of TVO
[…] million
[15-30] %
Subordinated shareholder loan
[…] million
[0-15] %
Credit facility
1,35 billion
approx. 42 %
Loan guaranteed by Coface
570 million
approx. 18 %
Bilateral loans
[…] million
[15-30] %
Total
3 billion
100 %
(44)
The following table gives the chronology of events:
Table 2
Project schedule (main stages 2002-04)
Date
Event
Before September 2002
Selection by TVO of the nuclear reactor for the power station (procedure for obtaining the corresponding permits)
September 2002
Launch of the tender invitation (the criteria for assessing the bids set out in the tender documents do not include the provision of financing by the bidders)
March 2003
Receipt of the bids by TVO and start of the assessment procedure
May-June 2003
Alongside and independently of the assessment procedure, TVO asks the bidders to comment on the possibility of obtaining an export credit as an alternative source of financing
August-September 2003
TVO launches an invitation to tender for banks interested in providing a EUR 2.5 billion syndicated loan
15 October 2003
The AREVA NP/Siemens consortium is notified by TVO of its ‘preferred bidder’ status
11 November 2003
Commitment by five banks to provide up to EUR 2,5 billion
1 December 2003
Following the positive decision by the CGCCE of 17 November 2003, Coface issues the promise of a guarantee to AREVA NP in respect of a EUR 570 million export credit
17 December 2003
Signing of the EUR 1,95 billion syndicated credit facility (with no Coface guarantee) to cover total financing needs with the support of shareholders and the other bilateral loans
18 December 2003
Signing of the commercial contract between TVO and the AREVA NP/Siemens consortium for the construction of the nuclear power station
End December 2003-January 2004
TVO begins discussions with the banks on the terms and conditions of an export credit
4 February 2004
The terms and conditions of an export credit are agreed on by TVO and the banks (in particular, fixing of the bank spread)
25 March 2004
Signing of the EUR 570 million loan guaranteed by Coface and subsequent reduction of the syndicated credit facility to EUR 1,35 billion
3. GROUNDS FOR INITIATING THE PROCEDURE
(45)
In its decision of 24 October 2006, the Commission examined for the first time whether the measure constituted aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty. The decision ascertained in detail whether or not an advantage was conferred. The Commission noted that the insurance premium of [2,5-3,5]% charged by Coface could not be compared directly to a market rate since no insurer seemed to offer this type of financial product. However, as the public guarantee was for a loan, it seemed that the total cost of the guaranteed loan - defined as the sum of the interest paid and the guarantee premium - could be compared with that which would have had to be borne by the borrower if there had been no public guarantee. On the basis of a comparison of the total cost of the guaranteed loan with the cost of the credit facility described in Section 2.2.1, the latter being regarded as a market rate, the Commission came to the preliminary conclusion that the guaranteed loan did not seem to reduce the financial charges that the borrower would normally have had to bear. It would seem, therefore, that no advantage was conferred on TVO. The Commission would though point out that this preliminary conclusion is based on a certain number of assumptions. And so it was unable to rule out at that stage any possibility that the measure constituted aid and it decided to allow France and the interested parties to comment on the methodology used and on the assumptions on which the Commission based its analysis of the existence of an advantage.
(46)
As for the compatibility of any aid, the Commission would comment that, if some particulars suggest compatibility on the basis of Article 87(3)(c) of the EC Treaty, others seem to point in the opposite direction. The compatibility of any aid cannot, therefore, be presumed a priori.
(47)
Since there can be no ruling out the possibility that the measure constituted aid and since, if this were the case, it was not certain that the measure would be compatible, the Commission decided to initiate the formal investigation procedure.
4. COMMENTS BY INTERESTED PARTIES
(48)
By letter of 2 January 2007, TVO sent its comments to the Commission. It stated that the decision to initiate the procedure contained a number of factual errors and suggested some corrections. It also took the view that some of the assessments made by the Commission were based solely on a certain number of hypothetical suppositions and were speculative in nature. As to the existence of any advantage, TVO, referring back to the Commission's preliminary assessment, pointed out that the loan guaranteed by Coface was more expensive than the credit facility and the other sources of financing available at the time. It opted nevertheless for the guaranteed loan because of its longer period to maturity and because it reduced the amounts lent by the banks, thus making the amounts not lent available for future financing needs (7). TVO therefore considered that the Commission should come to the conclusion that the guarantee did not constitute aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
(49)
By letter of 1 March 2007, Greenpeace, which was the first to submit a complaint when the present procedure was initiated (see Section 1), set out its comments, recalling that export aids within the Community had always been prohibited so that, in its opinion, the Commission should take a negative decision on the measure in question, with the aid being recovered. The letter did not comment on the preliminary analysis in the decision initiating the procedure as to the existence or otherwise of an advantage.
(50)
By letter also dated 1 March 2007, EREF, which was the second complainant at the time (see Section 1), set out its comments. In its view, it was clear that the granting of an export credit for intra-Community exports constituted unlawful State aid. EREF referred back to the arguments contained in its letter of 18 November 2005 and asked that that letter be included in the file relating to the present procedure.
(51)
For EREF, Coface's involvement in the financing of the project gives a strong signal to private banks that they should participate too since, in its view, the Coface guarantee mitigates the risk for the banks involved in the financing and reduces the amount of own funds mobilised by the banks for the loans in question. By lowering the risks borne by the banks, the Coface guarantee would be an incentive for them to grant reduced-rate loans to TVO. The advantage conferred by the guarantee would, therefore, be greater. EREF considers that the structure of the project financing might collapse if Coface were to withdraw its guarantee. It asked the Commission to take a look at all the contractual relationships between the parties and at the negotiating process that led to these contracts being concluded.
(52)
Apart from the general points summarised in paragraph 51, EREF's letter does not comment on the preliminary analysis in the decision to initiate the procedure as to the existence or otherwise of an advantage.
(53)
In addition to the three letters mentioned in paragraphs 48, 49 and 50, the Commission received comments from six Member States - the Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, the Czech Republic, Austria and Germany - and from the Chairman of the Council Export Credits Group (8). The Member States concerned do not comment on the specific features of the case but criticise the Commission for initiating the Article 88(2) procedure in respect of an export credit and for taking the view that such a measure may constitute incompatible State aid. They consider that export credits are governed by the OECD Arrangement, which has been incorporated into Community law. By subjecting an export credit to the state aid procedures laid down in Article 88 of the EC Treaty, the Commission is creating considerable legal uncertainty and may be weakening the position of European exporters vis-à-vis their foreign competitors.
5. COMMENTS BY FRANCE
(54)
The French authorities begin by recalling the characteristics and main stages of the project, especially as regards financing and the invitation to tender.
(55)
As for the assessment of the measure in question, the French authorities argue mainly that the measure cannot be classified as aid. They maintain in particular that it does not confer any advantage. According to them, the Coface guarantee was granted on market terms. They comment on the methodology applied by the Commission in its decision to initiate the procedure. They regard it as one commonly used by banks and note that it shows that the guarantee premium was granted at market rates. They go on to say that the methodology can be usefully supplemented and verified by applying a more complex method for valuing financial assets which they describe as a ‘method for comparing credit values’. On the basis of this second method, the French authorities come to the conclusion that a bank would have attributed a higher value to the guaranteed loan than to the credit facility, that is to say, they would have regarded the former as being more remunerative. This amounts to saying that the credit guaranteed by Coface confers no advantage on any of the partners in the project in the form of lower financing costs. The French authorities also argue that the measure cannot be classified as Sstate aid since it affects neither competition nor trade between Member States.
(56)
In the alternative, France argues that, if the measure were to constitute aid, it would be compatible with the common market. On the one hand, it would be compatible on the basis of Article 87(3)(c) of the EC Treaty since it pursues a legitimate objective and does not affect trade to an extent contrary to the common interest. On the other hand, it would be compatible on the basis of Article 87(3)(b) of the EC Treaty.
(57)
In the latter respect, France furthermore points to various obstacles to recovery, referring in particular to the principle of legitimate expectations. According to France, the Commission has traditionally taken no action with regard to medium- or long-term export credits. The measure is also compatible with the rules of the OECD Arrangement. On these points, France's analysis reflects the comments presented by the other Member States mentioned in paragraph 53.
6. ASSESSMENT OF THE MEASURE
(58)
In order to assess the measure implemented by France in March 2004, the Commission has first to establish whether it constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty. In this connection, it points out that an export credit or a guarantee linked to such a credit may, especially where it relates to a transaction between Member States, constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty. The OECD Arrangement does not automatically rule out the possibility that such a measure may constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) (9).
(59)
In its decision initiating the procedure, the Commission states that, on the basis of an initial analysis, the measure does not seem to constitute aid, in particular because it does not seem to confer an advantage on the beneficiary. Accordingly, it should be ascertained whether there are any new elements that call the preliminary analysis into question.
6.1. Classification as State aid: existence of an advantage
6.1.1. Introduction
(60)
In its decision initiating the procedure, the Commission notes that the measure is a guarantee in respect of a loan provided by some banks to TVO and rules out the possibility that it confers an advantage on the banks. This assessment has not been challenged by the parties that presented their comments to the Commission under the present procedure. The Commission, in this decision, will therefore simply verify the existence or otherwise of an advantage for the borrower TVO and its supplier AREVA NP. As regard the latter, the decision initiating the procedure states that it cannot be ruled out at this stage that France made the provision of the guarantee to TVO conditional on the contract being concluded with AREVA NP. If this were the case, France would be conferring an advantage on TVO provided that AREVA NP were selected as the supplier. AREVA NP would, therefore, also benefit from the measure. It follows that the existence of an advantage for TVO is a necessary prior condition for the existence of an advantage for AREVA NP. In the present decision, the Commission will therefore ascertain initially the existence or otherwise of an advantage for TVO.
(61)
The advantage that a borrower like TVO might obtain from a public guarantee in respect of a loan is a reduction in its financing costs. In order to establish whether or not a public guarantee confers an advantage on the borrower, there is a case therefore for determining which financial charges the borrower would have had to bear if it had resorted to the market in bank loans without any public intervention and for comparing this cost with the cost incurred after public intervention. It should also be ascertained whether some companies simply have no access to the capital market and can take this step only with the help of public intervention. In such a case, the advantage accruing from public intervention may be even greater. In such circumstances and given the fact that EREF doubts that VTO had access to the market in bank loans at the time, the Commission, before analysing whether there was any reduction in financial charges, will ascertain whether TVO had access to the capital market and whether such access was sufficient to finance the entire Olkiluoto 3 project.
6.1.2. Analysis of access to the market in bank loans
(62)
In Section 2 of this decision the Commission analysed the different stages of the Olkiluoto 3 project and its financing. It transpires that the guaranteed loan was formally provided in March 2004. However, Coface had undertaken to stand guarantor as early as 1 December 2003, a move that had been approved by the CGCCE on 17 November 2003. On 11 November 2003 five banks had formally undertaken to provide TVO with up to EUR 2,5 billion, this loan being sufficient to complete the financing of the project. The information provided by the French authorities demonstrates that, even before the intervention of the French Government, TVO had sufficient access to financial markets to be able to finance the entire project.
(63)
The Commission would also point out that TVO was classified as investment grade by a leading rating agency when setting up the different financing packages for the Olkiluoto 3 project. In the normal course of events, such a rating guarantees easy access to the market in bank loans and so TVO cannot be regarded as a firm in difficulty.
(64)
Lastly, the Commission notes that the guaranteed loan (EUR 570 million) is small compared with the aggregate amount of capital raised (over EUR 3 billion). Consequently, even after the intervention of Coface, the bulk of the project is still being financed by the market. As regards the amount of the guaranteed loan, the Commission would comment that on 11 November 2003 five banks had agreed to provide up to EUR 2,5 billion, i.e. up to EUR 500 million each. The risk borne by the French State is thus comparable to that which private banks were prepared to bear. Accordingly, participation by the French State in the financing of the project did not diversify the sources of the finance or reduce the risks borne by the other banks any more than if another bank had participated in the financing of the project.
(65)
On the basis of the information at its disposal, the Commission has come to the conclusion that TVO had sufficient access to financial markets prior to any public intervention. Contrary to what EREF states, the French Government did not play the role of lead investor and provided its guarantee at a time when the financing for the entire project had already been secured. What is more, if the French Government had acted as lead investor, its intervention was in respect of an amount that was small compared with all the funds needed to finance the project and therefore insufficient to have a knock-on effect on private investors. The Commission also comes to the conclusion here that the possibility - referred to by EREF - of the financing for the project collapsing if the Coface guarantee were withdrawn can reasonably be ruled out.
6.1.3. Analysis of the existence of a reduction in financial charges for TVO
(66)
Since it has been established that, contrary to EREF's assertion, TVO had sufficient access to the capital market, it should be ascertained whether or not the level of the guarantee premium asked by the French Government led to a reduction in the financial charges that TVO would have had to bear in the absence of public intervention.
(67)
In the decision initiating the procedure, the Commission stated that no insurer or financial institution currently offered the precise type of insurance as that offered by Coface in the present case, i.e. insurance against a payment default by TVO in the long term. The fact that the market does not at present offer this type of insurance is confirmed by the French authorities and has not been challenged by the complainants. This is not contradicted by the Commission communication to the Member States pursuant to Article 93(1) of the EC Treaty applying Articles 92 and 93 of the Treaty to short-term export-credit insurance (10), according to which, while there is a market for short-term export-credit insurance, this is not always the case for medium- and long-term insurance. Consequently, the price charged by the French authorities cannot be directly compared to a market price.
(68)
The fact that there is no market for this type of insurance does not have any automatic consequences for the existence or otherwise of an advantage. Since the measure in question is a loan guarantee, TVO would, in the absence of public intervention, have had to obtain financing in the form of an unguaranteed loan. To establish the existence of an advantage, it should therefore be ascertained whether TVO benefited from a reduction in its financing costs by comparing the total cost of the guaranteed loan (the interest rate charged by the banks plus the amount of the guarantee premium) with the interest rate that would have been charged by private banks for a similar loan in the absence of a public guarantee.
(69)
The Commission notes that, in addition to the guaranteed loan, TVO had recourse to bank financing in the form of a credit facility for the project. It should, therefore, be examined whether the rate charged by the banks for the credit facility is a reliable indicator of the rate that would be charged by private banks for a loan similar to the guaranteed loan if no public guarantee had been provided.
(70)
EREF disputes the assertion that the interest rate for the credit facility is a sound estimate of the market rate that would have been charged by the banks in the absence of a public guarantee. Firstly, it takes the view that BLB's role regarding the credit facility constitutes aid and favourably influenced the conditions on which it was granted to TVO. The Commission notes that, in its decision in Case NN 62/B/06 (11), it ruled out the possibility that BLB's role might constitute aid. It therefore rejects the complainant's first assertion. Secondly, EREF considers that the Coface guarantee reduced the risk attaching to the credit facility and thus encouraged the banks to grant the latter on more favourable conditions than a loan not backed by a public guarantee. On this point, la Commission notes that EREF does not indicate the precise mechanism by which the Coface guarantee would reduce the risk attaching to the credit facility. It has analysed in detail the financing of the Olkiluoto 3 project. Although the Coface guarantee clearly reduces the risk attaching to the loan as regards the banks that provided it and therefore lowers the interest rate charged by them for the guaranteed loan, the Commission has not identified any mechanism or contract whereby the Coface guarantee would lower the risk attaching to the credit facility. It should be pointed out that the Coface guarantee in no way covers the credit facility. Accordingly, the Commission rejects the complainant's assertion that the Coface guarantee reduces the risk attaching to the credit facility.
(71)
The Commission has not identified any other factors that might suggest that the interest rate for the credit facility is not a valid indicator of the interest rate that private banks would charge for a loan similar to the guaranteed loan in the absence of a public guarantee. It notes that the guaranteed loan is not a subordinated loan, i.e. a loan the repayment of which would be conditional on the prior repayment of the credit facility. The guaranteed loan has the same ranking as the credit facility. The Commission also points out that the credit facility does not enjoy any preference or have any collateral that would distinguish it from the guaranteed loan (12).
(72)
In view of the foregoing, the Commission concludes that the interest rate for the credit facility is a valid indicator of the interest rate that private banks would charge for a loan similar to the guaranteed loan in the absence of any guarantee.
(73)
The Commission has already compared the total cost of the guaranteed loan with the cost of the credit facility in paragraphs 59 and 63 of the decision initiating the procedure. The comparison is based on the average period to maturity of the guaranteed loan. The interest rate (13) that would be charged for such a period is calculated by linear extrapolation of the rate for the credit facility. This shows that the total cost (the interest rate charged by the banks plus the guarantee premium charged by Coface) of the guaranteed loan is not lower than the interest rate charged by the banks for the credit facility.
(74)
The Commission notes that the French authorities consider the method of comparison described in paragraphs 59 and 63 of the decision initiating the procedure to be valid even though the complaints have not commented on this and have not proposed any alternative method of comparison. Agreeing with the Commission's analysis in this respect, TVO points out that the loan guaranteed by Coface was more expensive than the credit facility and the other sources of financing available at the time.
(75)
The Commission concludes that the guarantee has not led to any reduction in TVO's financial charges compared with those that it would have had to bear if it had turned to the banking market without the backing of a public guarantee.
(76)
The Commission would emphasise that neither in their comments on the initiation of the procedure nor in their previous comments had the complainants proposed a calculation method that would have made it possible to ascertain whether or not the level of the guarantee premium charged by France led to a reduction in TVO's financing costs.
6.2. Classification as State aid: conclusion
(77)
As the analysis described in Section 6.1 shows, the Commission has been unable to establish the existence of an advantage for TVO.
(78)
In points 69 and 70 of the decision initiating the procedure, the Commission stated that suppliers of nuclear power stations might have competed not only on the price asked for the construction of the power station itself but also on the financing conditions offered to TVO. It noted that, if this were so and suppliers competed on the ‘overall price’ including the financing, the guarantee might have allowed AREVA NP to propose to its customer TVO financing at a more advantageous rate and thus to propose a more attractive ‘overall price’ than the other suppliers of nuclear power stations. In such a case, the guarantee would have conferred an advantage on AREVA NP and would have constituted export aid.
(79)
The chronology of events described by the French authorities and summarised in Table 2 rules out the possibility that suppliers might have competed on an ‘overall price’ including the financing. Firstly, the AREVA NP/Siemens consortium was selected as the preferred bidder by TVO before the guarantee had been formally agreed and well before the precise level of the premium had been fixed. Secondly, the contract for the supply of the power station had been formally signed with the AREVA NP/Siemens consortium before the precise level of the guarantee premium has been formally fixed. These facts demonstrate that TVO chose AREVA NP/Siemens before knowing the precise cost of the guarantee and hence the cost of financing the project.
(80)
For the rest, even if this latter conclusion were to prove incorrect and if suppliers did indeed compete on an ‘overall price’, the Commission has already come to the conclusion in paragraph 75 of the present decision that the guaranteed loan was not a less expensive source of financing than the other sources available to TVO. Since the guarantee did not have the effect of reducing TVO's financing costs relative to the cost of other financing not covered by the guarantee that was available, it did not reduce the ‘overall price’ of the bid submitted by the AREVA NP/Siemens consortium and did not therefore make this bid more attractive.
(81)
In conclusion, the possibility that the measure may have conferred an advantage on AREVA NP should be ruled out.
(82)
Since the existence of an advantage, this being a key factor in classification as aid, could not be established either for TVO or for AREVA NP, the Commission concludes that the Coface guarantee for the EUR 570 million loan granted to TVO does not constitute State aid.
7. CONCLUSION
(83)
The Commission finds that the guarantee provided by France through the intermediary of Coface on 25 March 2004 does not constitute aid,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
The guarantee provided by France on 25 March 2004 in connection with the construction by AREVA NP of a nuclear power station for Teollisuuden Voima Oy does not constitute aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty.
Article 2
This Decision is addressed to the French Republic.
Done at Brussels, 25 September 2007.
|
[
0,
0,
1,
1,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
*****
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 1645/84
of 8 June 1984
re-establishing the levying of the customs duties on certain articles of apparel and clothing accessories, of leather or of composition leather, falling within subheadings 42.03 A, B II and III, and C and originating in Uruguay, to which the preferential tariff arrangements set out in Council Regulation (EEC) No 3569/83 apply
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN
COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3569/83 of 16 December 1983 applying generalized tariff preferences for 1984 in respect of certain industrial products originating in developing countries (1), and in particular Article 13 thereof,
Whereas, pursuant to Articles 1 and 10 of that Regulation, suspension of customs duties shall be accorded to each of the countries or territories listed in Annex C, other than those listed in column 4 of Annex A, within the framework of the preferential tariff ceiling fixed in column 9 of Annex A; whereas, as provided for in Article 11 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 certain articles of apparel and clothing accessories, of leather or of composition leather falling within subheadings 42.03 A, B II and III, and C, the individual ceiling was fixed at 3 990 000 ECU; whereas, on 4 June 1984, imports of these products into the Community originating in Uruguay reached that 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 Uruguay,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
As from 16 June 1984, the levying of customs duties, suspended pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3569/83 shall be re-established on imports into the Community of the following products originating in Uruguay:
1.2 // // // CCT heading No // Description // // // 42.03 (NIMEXE code 42.03-10, 25, 27, 28, 51, 59) // Articles of apparel and clothing accessories, of leather or of composition leather: A. Articles of apparel B. Gloves, including mittens and mitts: II. Special for sports III. Other C. Other clothing accessories // //
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, 8 June 1984.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 2227/92 of 31 July 1992 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2048/90 laying down detailed rules for the application of the system of aid in favour of small cotton producers
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1152/90 of 27 April 1990 instituting a system of aid in favour of small cotton producers (1) as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 2056/92 (2) and in particular Article 7 (1) thereof,
Whereas Regulation (EEC) No 2054/92 extended the system of aid in favour of small cotton producers instituted by Regulation (EEC) No 1152/90 to the marketing years 1989/90 to 1991/92; whereas the detailed rules of application provided for in Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2048/90 (3), as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3218/90 (4), are limited to those marketing years; whereas, therefore, that limit should be removed;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management for Flax and Hemp,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
In the first paragraph of Article 6 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2048/90 the words 'for the 1990/91 and 1991/92 marketing years' shall be deleted.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
It shall apply from the 1992/93 marketing year. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 31 July 1992.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION
of 21 November 2005
authorising the Slovak Republic to use statistics for years earlier than the last year but one and to use certain approximate estimates for the calculation of the VAT own resources base
(notified under document number C(2005) 4430)
(Only the Slovakian text is authentic)
(2005/820/EC, Euratom)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1553/89 of 29 May 1989 on the definitive uniform arrangements for the collection of own resources accruing from value added tax (1), and in particular Article 13 thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
Under Article 28(3) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes - Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (2), hereinafter called ‘the sixth Directive’, the Member States may continue to exempt or tax certain transactions; these transactions must be taken into account for the determination of the VAT resources base.
(2)
For the application of the provisions in Article 28(3) of the sixth Directive, paragraph 1 of section 7 (Taxation) of Annex XIV to the Act of Accession of the Slovak Republic to the European Communities (3), authorises the Slovak Republic to exempt certain transactions listed in Annex F to the sixth Directive.
(3)
The Slovak Republic is unable to make a precise calculation of the VAT own resources base for certain categories of transactions listed in Annex F, point 17, to the sixth Directive; such calculation is likely to involve an unjustified administrative burden in relation to the effect of these transactions on the Slovak Republic’s total VAT resources base; the Slovak Republic is able to make a calculation using approximate estimates for this category of transactions listed in Annex F to the sixth Directive; the Slovak republic should therefore be authorized to calculate the VAT base using approximate estimates in accordance with the second indent of Article 6(3) of Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1553/89.
(4)
For the purposes of the breakdown of transactions by statistical category provided for in Article 4(4) of Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1553/89, the Slovak Republic is unable to use the national accounts relating to the last year but one before the financial year for which VAT resources base is to be calculated; the Slovak Republic should therefore be authorised to use national accounts for years earlier than the last year but one.
(5)
The Advisory Committee on Own Resources has approved the report recording the opinions of its members on this Decision,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
For the purposes of the breakdown by rate referred to in Article 4(4) of Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1553/89, the Slovak Republic is hereby authorized to use figures obtained from the national accounts relating to 2001 for the 2004 financial year for which the VAT resources base has to be calculated.
Article 2
For the purpose of calculating the VAT own resources base from 1 May 2004, the Slovak Republic is authorised, in accordance with the second indent of Article 6(3) of Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1553/89, to use approximate estimates in respect of the following category of transactions referred to in Annex F to the sixth Directive:
1.
Passenger transport (Annex F, point 17).
Article 3
This Decision is addressed to the Slovak Republic.
Done at Brussels, 21 November 2005.
|
[
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1132/2009
of 24 November 2009
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Marroni del Monfenera (PGI))
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Italy’s application to register the name ‘Marroni del Monfenera’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).
(2)
As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, this name should be entered in the register,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 24 November 2009.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.