utterance
stringlengths 594
850k
| label
listlengths 11
11
|
|---|---|
*****
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 2242/84
of 31 July 1984
re-establishing the levying of customs duties on woven fabrics of sheep's or lambs' wool or of fine animal hair, products of category 50 (code 0500), originating in Peru, to which the preferential tariff arrangements set out in Council Regulation (EEC) No 3570/83 apply
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN
COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3570/83 of 16 December 1983 applying generalized tariff preferences for 1984 in respect of textile products originating in developing countries (1), and in particular Article 4 thereof,
Whereas Article 2 of that Regulation provides that preferential tariff treatment shall be accorded, for each category of products subjected to individual ceilings not allocated among the Member States, within the limits of the quantities specified in column 7 of Annex A or B thereto, in respect of certain or each of the countries or territories of origin referred to in column 5 of that Annex; whereas Article 3 of that Regulation provides that the levying of customs duties may be re-established at any time in respect of imports of the products in question once the relevant individual ceilings have been reached at Community level;
Whereas, in respect of woven fabrics of sheep's or lambs' wool or of fine animal hair, products of category 50 (code 0500), the relevant ceiling amounts to 7,6 tonnes; whereas, on 25 July 1984, imports of the products in question into the Community, originating in Peru, a country covered by preferential tariff arrangements, reached and were charged against that ceiling;
Whereas it is appropriate to re-establish the levying of customs duties for the products in question with regard to Peru,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
As from 4 August 1984, the levying of customs duties, suspended pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3570/83, shall be re-established in respect of the following products, imported into the Community and originating in Peru:
1.2.3.4.5 // // // // // // Code // Category // CCT heading No // NIMEXE code (1984) // Description // // // // // // // (1) // (2) // (3) // (4) // // // // // // 0500 // 50 // 53.11 // 53.11-01, 03, 07, 11, 13, 17, 20, 30, 40, 52, 54, 58, 72, 74, 75, 82, 84, 88, 91, 93, 97 // Woven fabrics of sheep's or lambs' wool or of fine animal hair // // // // //
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, 31 July 1984.
|
[
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Decision
of 10 April 2001
laying down the measures to be carried out before releasing the restrictions applied in accordance with Article 9 of Council Directive 85/511/EEC
(notified under document number C(2001) 1094)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2001/295/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990 concerning veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Community trade in certain live animals and products with a view to the completion of the internal market(1), as last amended by Directive 92/118/EEC(2), and in particular Article 10 thereof,
Having regard to Council Directive 89/662/EEC of 11 December 1989 concerning veterinary checks in intra-Community trade with a view to the completion of the internal market(3), as last amended by Directive 92/118/EEC, and in particular Article 9 thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Council Directive 85/511/EEC of 18 November 1985(4), as last amended by the Act of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden, introduced Community measures for the control of foot-and-mouth disease.
(2) The establishment, in accordance with Article 9 of that Directive, of protection and surveillance zones around confirmed outbreaks is an essential element of disease control, however the Directive does not provide for the measures necessary to be carried out before the restrictions applied in the zones are released.
(3) Following the reports of outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in the United Kingdom, France, the Netherlands and Ireland, the Commission, in order to reinforce the measures taken by the affected Member States in the framework of Directive 85/511/EEC adopted Decisions 2001/172/EC(5), 2001/208/EC(6), 2001/223/EC(7) and 2001/234/EC(8) concerning certain protection measures with regard to foot-and-mouth disease in the respective Member State.
(4) The current epidemic involves to a great extent animals of susceptible species that express very mild clinical signs and therefore the absence of disease must be substantiated by appropriate laboratory testing.
(5) It appears appropriate to lay down the minimum requirements for the measures to be taken before the restrictions applied in protection and surveillance zones can be released.
(6) The measures provided for in this Decision shall not apply to Great Britain in view of the different epidemiological situation which cannot be compared with other parts of the Community.
(7) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
Northern Ireland and Member States other than the United Kingdom shall ensure that the following measures are carried out in the zones established in accordance with Directive 85/511/EEC prior to lifting the restrictions provided for in Article 9 of that Directive:
1. The measures applied in the protection zone shall be maintained until the following requirements have been met:
(a) at least 15 days have elapsed since the elimination of all the animals of susceptible species from the holding referred to in Article 5 of Directive 85/511/EEC and the completion of the preliminary cleansing and disinfection on this holding, carried out in accordance with Article 10 of that Directive, and
(b) a survey has been concluded with negative results in all holdings with animals of susceptible species situated within the zone.
This survey shall be carried out in compliance with the provisions in paragraph 1 of the Annex and shall, where required by the epidemiological situation, in particular where small ruminants are affected by the disease and based on the provisions in paragraphs 2.1 and 2.4 of the Annex, include the measures provided for in paragraph 2.2 of the Annex.
2. The measures applied in the surveillance zone shall be maintained until the following requirements have been met:
(a) at least 30 days have elapsed since the elimination of all the animals of susceptible species from the holding referred to in Article 5 of Directive 85/511/EEC and the completion of the preliminary cleansing and disinfection on this holding, carried out in accordance with Article 10 of that Directive, and
(b) the requirements laid down in paragraph 1(b) have been met in the respective protection zone,
(c) a survey has been concluded with negative results in all holdings with animals of susceptible species situated within the zone.
This survey shall be carried out in compliance with the provisions in paragraph 1 of the Annex and shall, where required by the epidemiological situation, in particular where small ruminants are affected by the disease and based on the provisions in paragraphs 2.1 and 2.4 of the Annex, include the measures provided for in paragraph 2.3 of the Annex.
Article 2
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 10 April 2001.
|
[
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE of 22 July 1991 amending Directive 85/350/EEC concerning the Community list of less-favoured farming areas within the meaning of Directive 75/268/EEC (Ireland) (91/466/EEC)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Directive 75/268/EEC of 28 April 1975 on mountain and hill-farming and farming in certain less-favoured areas(1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) N° 797/85(2), and in particular Article 2 (2) thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission(3),
Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament(4),
Whereas Directive 85/350/EEC(5) sets out the areas of Ireland which are included in the Community list of less-favoured farming areas within the meaning of Article 3 (4) of Directive 75/268/EEC;
Whereas the Irish Government has requested, pursuant to Article 2 (2) of Directive 75/268/EEC, that the Community list of farming areas listed in the Annex to Directive 85/350/EEC be amended in accordance with the Annexes I and II to this Directive;
Whereas the new areas to be included in the list are in line with the criteria and figures used in Directive 85/350/EEC for determining the areas within the meaning of Article 3 (4) of Directive 75/268/EEC;
Whereas the existence of unfavourable natural production conditions (island position, excessive ambient salinity, violent winds, low soil potential and poor soil water movement) and the handicaps arising from constraints imposed by measures for the protection of the countryside constituted criteria for the definition of the areas affected by specific handicaps which are to be treated as less-favoured areas, as referred to in Article 3 (5) of Directive 75/268/EEC; whereas moreover, the total extent of these areas is no more than 0,3 % of the area of the Member State concerned,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:
Article 1
The list of less-favoured areas of Ireland as set out in the Annex to Directive 85/350/EEC is hereby amended in accordance with the lists set out in Annexes I and II to this Directive.
Article 2
This Directive is addressed to Ireland.
Done at Brussels, 22 July 1991.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
*****
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 734/84
of 21 March 1984
amending Regulation (EEC) No 2315/76 on the sale of butter from public storage
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 Regulation (EEC) No 1600/83 (2), and in particular Article 6 (7) thereof,
Whereas Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2315/76 (3), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3294/80 (4), lays down that the product put up for sale must have been put into storage by the intervention agency before 1 February 1980;
Whereas, in view of the development of stocks, these sales should be extended to butter taken into storage before 1 February 1983;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Mangement Committee for Milk and Milk Products,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
In Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 2315/76, '1 February 1980' is hereby replaced by '1 February 1983'.
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, 21 March 1984.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1140/2001
of 8 June 2001
amending the import duties in the cereals sector
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 of 30 June 1992 on the common organisation of the market in cereals(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1666/2000(2),
Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1249/96 of 28 June 1996 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 as regards import duties in the cereals sector(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2235/2000(4), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) The import duties in the cereals sector are fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1053/2001(5).
(2) Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1249/96 provides that if during the period of application, the average import duty calculated differs by EUR 5 per tonne from the duty fixed, a corresponding adjustment is to be made. Such a difference has arisen. It is therefore necessary to adjust the import duties fixed in Regulation (EC) No 1053/2001,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Annexes I and II to Regulation (EC) No 1053/2001 are hereby replaced by Annexes I and II to this Regulation.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 9 June 2001.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 8 June 2001.
|
[
0,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE DECISION ATALANTA/5/2009
of 10 June 2009
amending Political and Security Committee Decision ATALANTA/2/2009 on the acceptance of third States' contributions to the European Union military operation to contribute to the deterrence, prevention and repression of acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast (Atalanta) and Political and Security Committee Decision ATALANTA/3/2009 on the setting-up of the Committee of Contributors for the European Union military operation to contribute to the deterrence, prevention and repression of acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast (Atalanta)
(2009/446/CFSP)
THE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,
Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular the third subparagraph of Article 25 thereof,
Having regard to Council Joint Action 2008/851/CFSP of 10 November 2008 on a European Union military operation to contribute to the deterrence, prevention and repression of acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast (1), and in particular Article 10(2) thereof on the participation by third States,
Having regard to Political and Security Committee Decision Atalanta/2/2009 of 21 April 2009 on the acceptance of third States' contributions to the European Union military operation to contribute to the deterrence, prevention and repression of acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast (Atalanta) (2) and to Political and Security Committee Decision Atalanta/3/2009 of 21 April 2009 on the setting-up of the Committee of Contributors for the European Union military operation to contribute to the deterrence, prevention and repression of acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast (Atalanta) (3), and the addendum thereto (4),
Whereas:
(1)
The EU Operation Commander held Force Generation and Manning Conferences on 17 November 2008, 16 December 2008 and 19 March 2009.
(2)
Following the recommendations on a contribution from Croatia by the EU Operation Commander and the European Union Military Committee, the contribution from Croatia should be accepted.
(3)
In accordance with Article 6 of the Protocol on the position of Denmark annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Denmark does not participate in the elaboration and implementation of decisions and actions of the European Union which have defence implications,
HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Article 1
Article 1 of Political and Security Committee Decision Atalanta/2/2009 shall be replaced by the following:
‘Article 1
Third States' contributions
Following the Force Generation and Manning Conferences, the contributions from Norway and Croatia shall be accepted for the EU military operation to contribute to the deterrence, prevention and repression of acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast (“Atalanta”).’.
Article 2
The Annex to Political and Security Committee Decision Atalanta/3/2009 shall be modified as follows:
‘ANNEX
LIST OF THIRD STATES REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 2(1)
-
Norway,
-
Croatia’.
Done at Luxembourg, 10 June 2009.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
1
] |
COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1/2009
of 18 December 2008
amending Regulation (EC) No 1255/96 temporarily suspending the autonomous common customs tariff duties on certain industrial, agricultural and fishery products
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 26 thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,
Whereas:
(1)
By virtue of Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/96 (1) the autonomous common customs tariff duties have been suspended partially or totally for a number of products during certain periods. It is in the interest of the Community to insert 88 new products in the list of suspensions set out in the Annex thereto.
(2)
In relation to some products in the list contained in the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1255/96, the description should be amended in order to take account of technical product developments and economic trends on the market. Those products should be considered as withdrawn from the list and should as a consequence be inserted in it as new products. For six products another CN code should be added to facilitate imports under the measure in question.
(3)
After reviewing all autonomous tariff suspensions with an expiry date of 31 December 2008, 610 products which are currently listed in the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1255/96 should be withdrawn from the list because it is no longer in the interest of the Community to maintain the suspension of autonomous common customs tariff duties for those products.
(4)
For ease of comprehension, in view of the large number of amendments coming into force on 1 January 2009, the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1255/96 should be replaced by a completely new version which has effect from the same date and in which new, amended or prolonged entries are indicated with an asterisk.
(5)
Experience has shown the need to provide for an expiry date for the suspensions listed in Regulation (EC) No 1255/96 to ensure that account is taken of technological and economic changes. This should not exclude the premature termination of certain measures or their continuation beyond the suspension period, if economic reasons are submitted, in accordance with the principles laid down in the Commission Communication of 1998 concerning autonomous tariff suspensions and quotas (2).
(6)
Regulation (EC) No 1255/96 should therefore be amended accordingly.
(7)
Having regard to the economic importance of this Regulation, it is necessary to rely on the grounds of urgency provided for in point I(3) of the Protocol on the role of national parliaments in the European Union annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaties establishing the European Communities.
(8)
Since the suspensions laid down in this Regulation have to take effect from 1 January 2009, this Regulation should apply from the same date and enter into force immediately,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1255/96 shall be replaced by the Annex to this Regulation.
Article 2
The temporary suspensions of the autonomous duties of the Common Customs Tariff for the products set out in the Annex shall apply from 1 January 2009. They shall expire on the dates listed in the Annex.
Article 3
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
It shall apply from 1 January 2009.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 18 December 2008.
|
[
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
*****
COMMISSION DECISION
of 9 June 1983
establishing that the apparatus described as 'Sorvall - Ultramicrotome, model MT-1A' may be imported free of Common Customs Tariff duties
(83/301/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 1 December 1982, the Netherlands have 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 'Sorvall - Ultramicrotome, model MT-1A', ordered on 30 July 1981 and intended to be used for the preparation of very thin specimens of animal tissue required for the microscopic examination of neurosecretory substances in crustaceans, 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 25 April 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 microtome;
Whereas its objective technical characteristics, such as the reproduction of very thin specimens of tissues, 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 'Sorvall - Ultramicrotome, model MT-1A', which is the subject of an application by the Netherlands of 1 December 1982, may be imported free of Common Customs Tariff duties.
Article 2
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 9 June 1983.
|
[
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Council Decision
of 28 November 2002
setting up a European Network for the Protection of Public Figures
(2002/956/JHA)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 30(1)(a) and (c) and Article 34(2)(c) thereof,
Having regard to the initiative of the Kingdom of Spain(1),
Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament(2),
Whereas:
(1) Apart from the Council Recommendation of 6 December 2001 setting a common scale for assessing threats to public figures visiting the European Union(3), no Union legislation, standards or manuals of a general nature exist to govern the protection of public figures, whether they be national public figures or those of Community or foreign origin.
(2) The possibility of assaults and attacks to those figures cannot be excluded.
(3) The protection of public figures is the responsibility of the host Member State. Protective measures of the host Member State are based solely on the legal provisions in force in that Member State and the relevant international agreements.
(4) The increased travel by public figures within the Union requires a formal channel for communication and consultation between national Authorities,
HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Article 1
1. A European network for the protection of public figures, hereinafter referred to as "the Network", is hereby created.
2. The Network shall consist of the national police services and other services responsible for the protection of the public figures. Each Member State shall designate a single contact point. Information concerning the designated national contact points, including subsequent modifications, shall be transmitted to the General Secretariat of the Council which shall publish the information in the Official Journal.
Article 2
For the purposes of this Decision, "public figure" shall mean any person to whom a protection service is assigned in accordance with the national legislation of a Member State or pursuant to the regulations of an international or supranational organisation or institution.
Article 3
1. The Network activity shall be promoted by the Member State holding the Presidency of the Council.
2. Candidate countries and Europol may also designate a contact point to participate in the Network.
The Presidency shall consider, on a case-by-case basis, on the participation of the Commission and the General Secretariat of the Council in the activities of the Network as referred to in Article 4(a), (b), (c) and (d).
Article 4
The Network shall have the following objectives:
(a) promoting the exchange of information between the departments participating in the Network, in particular:
- general and technical information and experience regarding the protection of public figures,
- information on the most appropriate criteria for selecting and training appropriate staff of the services which are responsible for the protection of public figures;
(b) promoting the development of a set of common best practices as regards operational activities undertaken by the departments participating in the Network;
(c) promoting the mutual secondment of officials of the departments participating in the Network;
(d) allowing the departments participating in the Network to exchange information, communicate and develop common views on:
- procedures and requests for authorisation by the host Member State of the presence in its territory of the protection services of the requesting State accompanying a public figure,
- methods of common action to prevent assaults and attacks, including the way in which officials and resources could be deployed,
- protocols on the priority to be granted to the protected public figure during movement of delegations,
- collaboration with relevant law enforcement services and other public departments,
- recommendations regarding media;
(e) favouring the exchange, in accordance with the national legislation, of operational information, either through the contact points or by means of direct contacts between the responsible services, as communicated by the contact points, concerning the application of security in cases where the protection of a public figure has to be assured in two or more Member States.
Article 5
The Network shall submit an annual report to the Council on the development of its activities. The Council will evaluate the activities of the Network every three years.
Article 6
This Decision shall take effect on the day following that of its adoption by the Council.
Done at Brussels, 28 November 2002.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COUNCIL DECISION of 28 April 1992 amending Decision No 90/233/EEC establishing a trans-European mobility scheme for university studies (Tempus) (92/240/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 (1),
Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (2),
Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee (3),
Whereas Council Decision No 90/233/EEC of 7 May 1990 (4) established the Tempus trans-European mobility scheme for university studies, hereinafter referred to as the 'Tempus scheme';
Whereas Article 11 of the said Decision provides that the Commission shall submit to the Council, before 31 December 1992, an interim evaluation of the results of the Tempus scheme as well as a proposal for the continuation or adaptation of the scheme beyond the initial pilot phase;
Whereas the first annual activity report on the Tempus scheme (1 May 1990 to 31 July 1991), which the Commission has just made public, enables members of the European Parliament, the Council and the Economic and Social Committee to be informed of all the activities undertaken by the Commission to implement the Tempus scheme;
Whereas the interim evaluation report on the Tempus scheme will be available as from April 1992; whereas it is appropriate that the Commission should be able to avail itself of the evaluation before elaboration of the proposal provided for in Article 11 of the said Decision;
Whereas only a decision to extend the pilot phase as such for a further academic year will give the European Parliament the Council and the Economic and Social Committee sufficient time to examine, on the basis of the results of the evaluation, the new Commission proposal, in order to make their decision with a full knowledge of the facts;
Whereas it is essential, in order to ensure the continuity of the Tempus scheme, that its framework for the 1993/94 academic year be defined as soon as possible in 1992,
HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Sole Article
Article 1 of Decision 90/233/EEC is hereby replaced by the following:
'Article 1
The trans-European mobility scheme for university studies (hereinafter referred to as "Tempus") is hereby adopted, for an initial pilot phase of four years, beginning on 1 July 1990, and subject to the monitoring and evaluation arrangements set out in
Article 11.' Done at Luxembourg, 28 April 1992.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 3865/91 of 16 December 1991 fixing the reference prices for fishery products for the 1992 fishing year
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3796/81 of 29 December 1981 on the common organization of the market in fishery products (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3571/90 (2), and in particular the first subparagraph of Articles 21 (6) and 22 (5) thereof,
Whereas Article 21 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 3796/81 provides, among other things, for reference prices valid for the Community to be fixed each year, by product category, for the products specified in Annexes I, II, III, IV (B) and V to that Regulation;
Whereas Article 22 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 3796/81 allows, inter alia, the fixing of reference prices for the products referred to in Annex IV (A) (1) before the beginning of each marketing year;
Whereas Article 21 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 3796/81 provides that the reference price for the products specified in Annex I (A), (D) and (E) thereto must be equal to the withdrawal and selling prices fixed in accordance with Article 12 (1) thereof;
Whereas the Community withdrawal and selling prices for the products concerned were fixed for the 1992 fishing year by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3864/91 (3);
Whereas the reference prices for the products specified in Annex II to Regulation (EEC) No 3796/81 must be derived from their guide prices by reference to the price level at which the intervention measures provided for in Article 16 (1) thereof may be taken, and fixed taking account of the situation on the market in those products; whereas the reference prices for those products should therefore be 85 % of the guide prices fixed by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3569/91 (4);
Whereas the reference prices for the fishes of the species Thunnus and Euthynnus specified in Annex III to Regulation (EEC) No 3796/81, are based on the weighted average of the free-at-frontier prices recorded on the most representative markets in the Member States during the three preceding years;
Whereas the reference prices for the products specified in Annexes I (B) and (C) and IV (B) to Regulation (EEC) No 3796/81 are determined on the basis of the average of the reference prices for the fresh product, account being taken of the processing costs and of the need to ensure a price relationship in keeping with the market situation;
Whereas the reference prices for carp referred to in Annex IV (A) (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 3796/81 are fixed on the basis of the average of the producer prices recorded during the three years preceding the date on which the reference price is fixed for a product with commercial characteristics as set out in Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1985/74 of 25 July 1974 laying down detailed rules of application for the fixing of reference prices and free-at-frontier prices for carp (5), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1106/90 (6);
Whereas, for the frozen and salted products specified in Annex V to Regulation (EEC) No 3796/81 for which no reference price is fixed for the fresh product, the reference prices are determined on the basis of the reference price applied to a commercially similar fresh product;
Whereas, given the quantities of certain frozen and salted products and the conditions governing their importation, it does not appear necessary to fix a reference price for such products in the immediate future;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Fishery Products,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The reference prices for the 1992 fishing year for the products specified in Annexes I, II, III, IV (A) 1 and (B) and V to Regulation (EEC) No 3796/81 shall be as shown in the Annex hereto.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 January 1992. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 16 December 1991.
|
[
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
*****
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 2290/83
of 29 July 1983
laying down provisions for the implementation of Articles 50 to 59 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs duty
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN
COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 of 28 March 1983 setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs duty (1), and in particular Article 143 thereof,
Whereas Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 replaced, by its Articles 50 to 59, 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 (2); whereas it is therefore necessary to replace Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2784/79 of 12 December 1979 laying down provisions for the implementation of Regulation (EEC) No 1798/75 (3) by a new Regulation laying down provisions for the implementation of Articles 50 to 59 of Regulation (EEC) No 918/83;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on Duty-Free Arrangements,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
This Regulation lays down provisions for the implementation of Articles 50 to 59 of Regulation (EEC) No 918/83, hereinafter referred to as the 'basic Regulation'.
TITLE I
GENERAL PROVISIONS
A. Obligations on the part of the establishment or organization to which the goods are consigned
Article 2
1. The admission free of import duties of educational, scientific and cultural materials referred to in Articles 51, 52 (1), 53 and 56 of the basic Regulation, hereinafter referred to as 'goods', shall entail the following obligations on the part of the establishment or organization to which the goods are consigned:
- to dispatch the goods in question directly to the declared place of destination,
- to account for them in its inventory,
- to use them exclusively for non-commercial purposes within the meaning of the second indent of Article 54 of the basic Regulation,
- to facilitate any verification which the competent authorities consider necessary in order to ensure that the conditions for granting admission free of import duties are satisfied, or remain satisfied.
2. The head of the establishment or organization to which the goods are consigned, or his authorized representative, shall furnish the competent authorities with a statement declaring that he is aware of the various obligations listed in paragraph 1 and including an undertaking to comply with them.
The competent authorities may require that the statement referred to in the preceding subparagraph be produced for each import, or for several imports, or for all the imports to be carried out by the establishment or organization to which the goods are consigned.
B. Provisions to be applied where the goods are lent, hired out or transferred
Article 3
1. Where the provisions of the first subparagraph of Article 57 (2) of the basic Regulation are applied, the establishment or organization to which goods are lent, hired out or transferred shall, from the date of receipt of the goods, comply with the same obligations as those set out in Article 2.
2. Where the establishment or organization to which goods are lent, hired out or transferred is situated in a Member State other than that in which the establishment that lent, hired out or transferred the goods is situated, upon the dispatch of such goods to that Member State the competent customs office of the Member State of dispatch shall issue a Control Copy T No 5 in accordance with the rules laid down in Regulation (EEC) No 223/77 in order to ensure that such goods are put to a use entitling them to continue to qualify for admission free of import duties.
For this purpose, the said control copy shall include, in box 104 under the heading 'other', one of the following entries:
- 'Goods admitted free of import duties (Unesco).
Implementation of Article 57 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 918/83',
- 'Importafgiftsfrit indfoerte varrer (Unesco).
Anvendelse af artikel 57, stk. 2, i forordning (EOEF) nr. 918/83',
- 'Abgabenfreie Ware (Unesco).
Anwendung von Artikel 57 Absatz 2 der Verordnung (EWG) Nr. 918/83',
- 'Objet en franchise des droits à l'importation (Unesco).
Application de l'article 57 paragraphe 2, du règlement (CEE) no 918/83',
- 'Eídi eisagómena atelós apó toys eisagogikoýs dasmoýs ( UNESCO).
Efarmogí toy árthroy 57 parágrafos 2 déftero edáfio toy kanonismoý (EOK) arith. 918/83',
- 'Oggetto in franchigia dai dazi all'importazione (UNESCO).
Applicazione dell'articolo 57, paragrafo 2, del regolamento (CEE) n. 918/83',
- 'Voorwerp met vrijstelling van rechten bij invoer (Unesco).
Toepassing van artikel 57, lid 2, van Verordening (EEG) nr. 918/83'.
3. The provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the loan, hire or transfer of spare parts, components or specific accessories for scientific instruments or apparatus, and to tools for the maintenance, control, calibration or repair of scientific instruments or apparatus, which have been admitted free of import duties under Article 53 of the basic Regulation.
TITLE II
SPECIFIC PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE ADMISSION FREE OF IMPORT DUTIES OF EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC OR CULTURAL MATERIALS IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 51 OF THE BASIC REGULATION
Article 4
In order to obtain admission free of import duties of goods in accordance with Article 51 of the basic Regulation, the head of the establishment or organization to which the goods are consigned, or his authorized representative, must submit an application to the competent authority of the Member State in which the establishment or organization is situated.
Such application must be accompanied by all information which the competent authority considers necessary for the purpose of determining whether the conditions laid down for granting admission free of import duties are fulfilled.
TITLE III
SPECIFIC PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE IMPORTATION FREE OF IMPORT DUTIES OF SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENTS AND APPARATUS UNDER ARTICLES 52, 54 AND 55 OF THE BASIC REGULATION
Article 5
1. For the purposes of the first indent of Article 54 of the basic Regulation, the objective technical characteristics of a scientific instrument or apparatus shall be understood to mean those characteristics resulting from the construction of that instrument or apparatus or from adjustments to a standard instrument or apparatus which make it possible to obtain high-level performances above those normally required for industrial or commercial use.
Where it is not possible to establish clearly on the basis of its objective technical characteristics whether an instrument or apparatus is to be regarded as a scientific instrument or apparatus, reference shall be made to the general uses in the Community of instruments or apparatus of the type for which admission free of import duties is requested. If this examination shows that the instrument or apparatus in question is used mainly for scientific purposes, it shall be deemed to be of a scientific nature.
2. In making the comparison provided for in the third indent of Article 54 of the basic Regulation, only such technical characteristics as have a decisive influence on the outcome of the specific work planned may be regarded as 'essential'.
The following, in particular, shall not be taken into account in making this comparison:
- the technical conception of an instrument or apparatus,
- the fact that an instrument or apparatus is able to achieve performances superior to those which are necessary for a proper execution of the specific work to be carried out,
- the external appearance of an instrument or apparatus,
- its commercial value,
- the servicing intervals,
- any after-sales service that may be provided.
Article 6
1. In order to obtain admission free of import duties of a scientific instrument or apparatus under the provisions of Article 52 (1) of the basic Regulation, the head of the establishment or organization to which the goods are consigned, or his authorized representative, must submit an application to the competent authority of the Member State in which the establishment or organization is situated.
2. The application referred to in paragraph 1 must contain the following information relating to the instrument or apparatus in question: (a) the precise trade description of the instrument or apparatus used by the manufacturer, its presumed Common Customs Tariff classification and the objective technical characteristics on the basis of which the instrument or apparatus is considered to be scientific;
(b) the name or business name and address of the manufacturer and, if available, of the supplier;
(c) the country of origin of the instrument or apparatus;
(d) the place where the instrument or apparatus is to be used;
(e) the use for which the instrument or apparatus is intended;
(f) a detailed description of the project for which the instrument or apparatus is to be used;
(g) the price of the instrument or apparatus or its value for customs purposes;
(h) the estimated delivery period;
(i) the date when the instrument or apparatus was ordered if it has already been ordered;
(j) the name or business name and address of the Community firm or firms which have been approached with a view to the supply of an instrument or apparatus of a scientific value equivalent to that for which admission free of import duties is requested, the outcome of these approaches and, where appropriate, detailed reasons why an instrument or apparatus which is available in the Community would not be suitable for the particular scientific work to be undertaken.
Documentary evidence providing all relevant information on the characteristics and technical specifications of the instrument or apparatus must be furnished with the application.
Article 7
1. The competent authority of the Member State in which is situated the establishment or organization to which the goods are consigned shall take a direct decision on applications under Article 6 in all cases where the information at its disposal, if necessary after consultation with the trade circles concerned, enables it to assess whether or not the instrument or apparatus is scientific and whether or not there exist instruments or apparatus of equivalent scientific value which are currently manufactured in the Community.
2. Where the competent authority of the Member State in which is situated the establishment or organization to which the goods are consigned is unable to take a decision as provided in paragraph 1, the application, with the relevant technical documents, shall be forwarded to the Commission in order to enable the latter to commence the procedure prescribed in paragraphs 3 to 7.
Pending the completion of that procedure, the competent authority may authorize the provisional importation free of import duties of the instrument or apparatus concerned, subject to an undertaking by the establishment or organization to which the goods are consigned to pay the relevant import duties should admission free of import duties not be granted.
The competent authority may make such provisional importation free of import duties conditional on the provision of security on terms to be laid down by it.
3. Within two weeks of the date of receipt of the application, the Commission shall dispatch a copy to each of the other Member States together with the relevant documentation.
4. If, on the expiry of a period of three months from the date of such dispatch, no Member State has sent the Commission objections concerning the admission free of import duties of the instrument or apparatus under consideration, the said instrument or apparatus shall be deemed to fulfil the conditions required for admission free of import duties. The Commission shall notify the Member State concerned of this decision within two weeks following the expiry of the aforesaid period. This notification shall, as soon as possible, be published, where necessary in an abbreviated form, in the Official Journal of the European Communities, C series.
5. If, within the period of three months laid down in paragraph 4, a Member State has sent the Commission objections regarding the importation free of import duties of the instrument or apparatus under consideration, the Commission shall as soon as possible notify a group of experts composed of representatives of all the Member States, who shall meet within the framework of the Committee on Duty-Free Arrangements in order to examine the matter.
The objections referred to in the preceding subparagraph must include a statement of the grounds therefor. Such grounds must indicate either why the instrument or apparatus concerned should not be regarded as being scientific, or should indicate precisely the instruments or apparatus manufactured in the Community which are regarded as having a scientific value equal to that for which admission free of import duties is requested, with the name or business name and address of the Community firm or firms who can supply them. In the latter case, the technical literature relating to the instruments or apparatus under consideration manufactured in the Community should be forwarded to the Commission as soon as possible.
The Commission shall transmit this information to the Member States as soon as it is received.
6. Where the examination undertaken in accordance with paragraph 5 shows that the instrument or apparatus for which admission free of import duties has been requested must be regarded as being scientific and that instruments or apparatus of equivalent scientific value are currently not manufactured in the Community, the Commission shall adopt a decision declaring that the said instrument or apparatus fulfils the conditions required for admission free of import duties. Where this examination shows that the instrument or apparatus for which admission free of import duties has been requested is not to be regarded as scientific, or that there is an instrument, or apparatus of equivalent scientific value currently manufactured in the Community, the Commission shall adopt a decision declaring that the said instrument or apparatus does not fulfil the conditions required for admission free of import duties.
The Commission decision shall be notified to the Member State concerned within two weeks. This decision shall, as soon as possible, be published, if necessary in abbreviated form, in the Official Journal of the European Communities, C series.
7. If, on the expiry of a period of six months from the date on which the application was received by the Commission, the latter has not adopted any decision under paragraph 6, the instrument or apparatus in question shall be deemed to fulfil the conditions required for admission free of import duties.
Article 8
Authorizations for admission free of import duties shall be valid for a period of six months.
The competent authorities may, however, set a longer period in the light of the particular circumstances of each case.
TITLE IV
SPECIFIC PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE ADMISSION FREE OF IMPORT DUTIES OF SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENTS OR APPARATUS UNDER ARTICLE 56 OF THE BASIC REGULATION
Article 9
1. In order to obtain admission free of import duties of scientific instruments or apparatus under the provisions of Article 56 of the basic Regulation, the head of the establishment or organization to which the goods are consigned or his authorized representative, must submit an application to the competent authority of the Member State in which the establishment or organization is situated.
2. The application referred to in paragraph 1 must contain the information specified in Article 6 (2) (a) to (e) and must be accompanied by a document or documents giving all relevant information on the characteristics and technical specifications of the instrument or apparatus concerned.
It must also include:
(a) the name or business name and address of the donor;
(b) a declaration by the applicant that the instruments or apparatus for which admission free of import duties is requested are in fact being offered to the establishment or organization concerned without a reciprocal commercial concession of any kind, in particular without any publicity being involved.
Article 10
1. The competent authority of the Member State in which is situated the establishment or organization to which such goods are consigned shall take a direct decision on applications under Article 9.
2. The competent authority shall authorize admission free of import duties of the instruments or apparatus under consideration only if it has been established that the donor is not deriving any direct or indirect commercial advantage from his gift to the establishment or organization to which the goods are consigned.
3. Where the competent authority of the Member State in which is situated the establishment or organization to which the goods are consigned is unable to decide on the basis of information at its disposal whether or not the instrument or apparatus for which admission free of import duties has been requested should be regarded as scientific, the procedure laid down in Article 7 (2) to (7) shall apply.
Article 11
The provisions of Articles 9 and 10 shall apply mutatis mutandis to tools for the maintenance, control, calibration and repair of scientific instruments or apparatus which have been admitted free of import duties under Article 56 of the basic Regulation.
TITLE V
SPECIFIC PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE ADMISSION FREE OF IMPORT DUTIES OF SPARE PARTS, COMPONENTS, SPECIFIC ACCESSORIES AND TOOLS UNDER ARTICLE 53 OF THE BASIC REGULATION
Article 12
For the purpose of Article 53 (a) of the basic Regulation specific accessories means those articles specially designed for use with a specific scientific instrument or apparatus for the purpose of improving its performance and scope.
Article 13
In order to obtain admission free of import duties under Article 53 of the basic Regulation, either of spare parts, components or specific accessories, or of tools, the head of the establishment or organization to which the goods are consigned, or his authorized representative, must submit an application to the competent authority of the Member State in which the establishment or organization is situated.
This application must be accompanied by all data deemed necessary by the competent authority for the purpose of determining whether the conditions laid down in Article 53 of the basic Regulation are fulfilled.
Article 14
1. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 2, the competent authority of the Member State in which is situated the establishment or organization to which the goods are consigned shall take a direct decision in respect of the application referred to in Article 13. 2. The procedure set out in Article 7 (2) to (7) shall apply mutatis mutandis in cases where the competent authority of the Member State in which is situated the establishment or organization to which the goods are consigned is unable to determine whether or not:
- the instrument or apparatus for which are intended the spare parts, components, specific accessories or tools forming the subject of an application as referred to in Article 13 would qualify for admission free of import duties if it were itself currently imported into the Community,
- tools equivalent to those for which admission free of import duties is requested are currently manufactured within the Community.
Article 15
The provisions of Article 8 shall apply to authorizations for admission free of import duties issued under Article 53 of the basic Regulation.
TITLE VI
COMMUNICATION OF INFORMATION TO THE COMMISSION AND THE MEMBER STATES
Article 16
1. Each Member State shall send the Commission a list of the instruments, apparatus, spare parts, components, accessories and tools of which the price or the value for customs purposes exceeds 3 000 ECU and for which it has authorized admission free of import duties under Article 7 (1) or 14 (1).
The list shall give the precise trade description of the goods referred to in the preceding paragraph and the Common Customs Tariff heading or subheading indicated in the application. It shall also include the name of the manufacturer or manufacturers, the country or countries of origin and the price or customs value of the goods concerned.
2. The lists referred to in paragraph 1 shall be sent during the first and third quarters of each year and shall contain particulars of those goods whose admission free of import duties has been authorized during the preceding six months. However, Member States may forward this information for shorter periods.
3. The Commission shall forward these lists to the other Member States.
Article 17
1. Each Member State shall also send the Commission a list of the instruments and apparatus for which it has authorized admission free of import duties under Article 10. The list shall contain the name or business name and address of the manufacturer, the exact trade descriptions of the goods in question, and their Common Customs Tariff heading or subheading as given in the application for admission free of import duties.
2. The lists referred to in paragraph 1 shall be sent during the first and third quarters of each year and shall contain particulars of those goods whose admission free of import duties has been authorized during the preceding six months. However, Member States may forward this information for shorter periods.
3. The Commission shall forward these lists to the other Member States.
Article 18
The lists referred to in Articles 16 and 17 shall be examined periodically by the Committee on Duty-Free Arrangements.
TITLE VII
FINAL PROVISIONS
Article 19
Regulation (EEC) No 2784/79 is hereby repealed.
Article 20
This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 July 1984.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 29 July 1983.
|
[
1,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2386/2001
of 6 December 2001
altering the export refunds on white sugar and raw sugar exported in the natural state
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), and in particular the third subparagraph of Article 27(5) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) The refunds on white sugar and raw sugar exported in the natural state were fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2316/2001(2), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2342/2001(3).
(2) It follows from applying the detailed rules contained in Regulation (EC) No 2316/2001 to the information known to the Commission that the export refunds at present in force should be altered to the amounts set out in the Annex hereto,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The export refunds on the products listed in Article 1(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001, undenatured and exported in the natural state, as fixed in the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 2316/2001 are hereby altered to the amounts shown in the Annex hereto.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 7 December 2001.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 6 December 2001.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION of 9 November 1998 on additional Community financial aid towards the eradication of classical swine fever in Germany (notified under document number C(1998) 3358) (only the German text is authentic) (98/650/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 3(3) thereof,
Whereas outbreaks of classical swine fever occurred in Germany in 1997; whereas the appearance of the disease represents a serious danger to Community pig stocks; whereas with a view to contributing towards the speedy eradication of the disease the Community is able to contribute to expenditure incurred by the Member States for losses suffered;
Whereas the Commission adopted Decision 98/60/EC on Community financial aid towards the eradication of classical swine fever in Germany (3); whereas an initial tranche by way of an advance payment of ECU 5 million has been paid under that Decision;
Whereas on 26 May 1998 Germany presented an application for reimbursement of all the expenditure incurred within the country in 1997; whereas the available appropriations in the current financial year cannot cover all the eligible expenditure; whereas only an additional tranche of ECU 2 million can be granted at this stage;
Whereas further tranches may be granted at a later stage once the Commission has verified the information provided in the application for reimbursement;
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
Germany may obtain an additional tranche of ECU 2 million in financial assistance from the Community for eligible expenditure incurred under eradication measures relating to outbreaks of classical swine fever which occurred in the course of 1997.
Article 2
The amount of the tranche referred to in Article 1 shall be paid to Germany as soon as this Decision has been adopted.
Article 3
1. The Commission may make on-the-spot checks, with the cooperation of the competent national authorities, on the application of measures and expenditure in receipt of support.
The Commission shall inform the Member States of the result of the checks carried out.
2. Articles 8 and 9 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 of 21 April 1970 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (4) shall apply mutatis mutandis.
Article 4
This Decision is addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany.
Done at Brussels, 9 November 1998.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
*****
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 471/88
of 19 February 1988
re-establishing the levying of customs duties on men's or boys' knitted or crocheted suits and ensembles, products of category 75 (order No 40.0750), and other made up textile articles, products of category 112 (order No 40.1120) originating in South Korea to which the preferential tariff arrangements of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3783/87 apply
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3783/87 of 3 December 1987 concerning the administration of the generalized tariff preferences for 1988 to textile products originating in developing countries (1), and in particular Article 4 thereof,
Whereas Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 3783/87, provides that preferential tariff treatment shall be accorded, for each category of products subjected in Annexes I and II to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3782/87 (2) to individual ceilings, within the limits of the quantities specified in column 7 of its Annexes I or II, in respect of certain or each of the countries or territories of origin referred to in column 5 of the same Annexes; whereas Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 3783/87 provides that the levying of customs duties may be re-established at any time in respect of imports of the products in question once the relevant individual ceilings have been reached at Community level;
Whereas, in respect of men's or boys' knitted or crocheted suits and ensembles, products of category 75 (order No 40.0750), and other made up textile articles, products of category 112 (order No 40.1120), the relevant ceiling amounts to respectively 9 000 pieces and 7 tonnes; whereas on 12 February 1988 imports of the products in question into the Community originating in South Korea, a country covered by preferential tariff arrangements, reached and were charged against that ceiling;
Whereas it is appropriate to re-establish the levying of customs duties for the products in question with regard to South Korea,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
As from 23 February 1988 the levying of customs duties, suspended pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 3782/87, shall be re-established in respect of the following products, imported into the Community and originating in South Korea:
1.2.3.4 // // // // // Order No // Category // CN code // Description // // // // // (1) // (2) // (3) // (4) // // // // // 40.0750 // 75 // 6103 11 00 6103 12 00 6103 19 00 6103 21 00 6103 22 00 6103 23 00 6103 29 00 // Men's or boys' knitted or crocheted suits and ensembles, of wool, of cotton or of man-made fibres, excluding ski suits // 40.1120 // 112 // 6307 20 00 ex 6307 90 99 // Other made up textile articles, woven, excluding those of categories 113 and 114 // // // //
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, 19 February 1988.
|
[
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1435/2006
of 28 September 2006
fixing the export refunds on cereal-based compound feedingstuffs
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 of 29 september 2003 on the common organisation of the market in cereals (1), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 provides that the difference between quotations or prices on the world market for the products listed in Article 1 of that Regulation and prices for those products within the Community may be covered by an export refund.
(2)
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1517/95 of 29 June 1995 laying down detailed rules for the application of Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 as regards the arrangements for the export and import of compound feedingstuffs based on cereals and amending Regulation (EC) No 1162/95 laying down special detailed rules for the application of the system of import and export licences for cereals and rice (2) in Article 2 lays down general rules for fixing the amount of such refunds.
(3)
That calculation must also take account of the cereal products content. In the interest of simplification, the refund should be paid in respect of two categories of ‘cereal products’, namely for maize, the most commonly used cereal in exported compound feeds and maize products, and for ‘other cereals’, these being eligible cereal products excluding maize and maize products. A refund should be granted in respect of the quantity of cereal products present in the compound feedingstuff.
(4)
Furthermore, the amount of the refund must also take into account the possibilities and conditions for the sale of those products on the world market, the need to avoid disturbances on the Community market and the economic aspect of the export.
(5)
The current situation on the cereals market and, in particular, the supply prospects mean that the export refunds should be abolished.
(6)
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 export refunds on the compound feedingstuffs covered by Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 and subject to Regulation (EC) No 1517/95 are hereby fixed as shown in the Annex to this Regulation.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 29 September 2006.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 28 September 2006.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 720/2002
of 26 April 2002
fixing a percentage for acceptance of contracts concluded for the optional distillation of table wine and suspending the notification of new contracts for the optional distillation of table wine
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1623/2000 of 25 July 2000 laying down detailed rules for implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine with regard to market mechanisms(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2464/2001(2), and in particular Article 63(6) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Article 63 of Regulation (EC) No 1623/2000 lays down the conditions for the application of the distillation arrangements for wines referred to in Article 29 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2585/2001(4). Those arrangements provide for subsidised, voluntary distillation in order to support the wine market and help ensure continued supplies to the potable alcohol sector, which traditionally uses this type of alcohol. To that end, wine producers and distillers conclude contracts, which the Member States notify to the Commission twice a month.
(2) Article 63(6) lays down the conditions under which the Commission must intervene in the contract-approval procedure, setting a single percentage for acceptance of the contracts concluded for distillation and/or suspending the notification of new contracts, where the available budgetary resources or the absorption capacity of the potable alcohol sector are exceeded or may be exceeded.
(3) For the 2001/2002 wine year the Commission has, for budgetary reasons and bearing in mind the absorption capacity of the potable alcohol sector, managed this distillation in quantitatively limited tranches. The third tranche was opened from 1 April 2002 by Commission Regulation (EC) No 378/2002(5) opening a third tranche of distillation as provided for in Article 29 of Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 for the 2001/2002 wine year. Contracts can be concluded under this tranche for a maximum of 2 million hl of table wine. On the basis of the quantities of wine for which the Member States notified new distillation contracts to the Commission on 22 April 2002, the Commission notes that that limit has been exceeded. The Commission should therefore set a single percentage for acceptance of the quantities notified for distillation and suspend the notification of new contracts,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
1. Contracts concluded and notified to the Commission under Article 63(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1623/2000 on 22 April 2002 shall be accepted for 57,23 % of the wine covered.
2. Notification to the Commission of new contracts under Article 63(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1623/2000 is hereby suspended.
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, 26 April 2002.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1268/2005
of 1 August 2005
amending Regulation (EEC) No 2191/81 on the granting of aid for the purchase of butter by non-profit making institutions and organisations
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 15 thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2191/81 (2) provides for the grant of aid for the purchase of butter by non-profit making institutions and organisations. In view of the reduction in the butter intervention price and the subsequent reduction of aid levels in other butter support schemes, the aid amount should be reduced.
(2)
Given the nature of the final beneficiaries of this scheme, it is necessary to provide for some time to elapse between the entry into force of the Regulation and its application in order to allow beneficiaries to adapt to the new aid level.
(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
In the first subparagraph of Article 2(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2191/81, the amount ‘EUR 80’ is replaced by the amount ‘EUR 60’.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
It shall apply from 1 September 2005.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 1 August 2005.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
1,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COUNCIL DECISION of 14 May 1991 extending to Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria and Romania Decision 90/62/EEC granting the Community guarantee to the European Investment Bank against losses under loans for projects in Hungary and Poland (91/252/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 (1),
Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (2),
Whereas the European Council at its meeting of 28 April 1990 agreed that action within the framework of the G-24 should be extended to the other central and east European countries;
Whereas the Ministers of the G-24 in their meeting on 4 July 1990 welcomed the Commission's action plan, which envisages, among others, loans from the European Investment Bank, hereafter referred to as 'the Bank';
Whereas the arrangements set out in Decision 90/62/EEC (3) for finance by the Bank for projects in Poland and Hungary should be extended to include projects, notably in the field of infrastructure, to be carried out in Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria and Romania;
Whereas the Council has invited the Bank, and the Bank has agreed, to make available loans for projects in Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria and Romania under the guarantee provided in this Decision;
Whereas Decision 90/62/EEC should therefore be amended,
HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS: Sole Article Decision 90/62/EEC is hereby amended as follows:
1. All references to 'Hungary and Poland' shall henceforth be to 'Hungary, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria and Romania'.
2. All references to 'the two countries' shall henceforth be to 'the five countries'. Done at Brussels, 14 May 1991.
|
[
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
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
THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 95 thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission(1),
Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee(2),
Acting in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 251 of the Treaty, in the light of the joint text approved by the Conciliation Committee on 20 December 2000(3),
Whereas:
(1) The Report of the Commission on the Review of Council Directive 90/220/EEC of 23 April 1990 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms(4), adopted on 10 December 1996, identified a number of areas where improvement is needed.
(2) There is a need for clarification of the scope of Directive 90/220/EEC and of the definitions therein.
(3) Directive 90/220/EEC has been amended. Now that new amendments are being made to the Directive, it is desirable, for reasons of clarity and rationalisation, that the provisions in question should be recast.
(4) Living organisms, whether released into the environment in large or small amounts for experimental purposes or as commercial products, may reproduce in the environment and cross national frontiers thereby affecting other Member States. The effects of such releases on the environment may be irreversible.
(5) The protection of human health and the environment requires that due attention be given to controlling risks from the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
(6) Under the Treaty, action by the Community relating to the environment should be based on the principle that preventive action should be taken.
(7) It is necessary to approximate the laws of the Member States concerning the deliberate release into the environment of GMOs and to ensure the safe development of industrial products utilising GMOs.
(8) The precautionary principle has been taken into account in the drafting of this Directive and must be taken into account when implementing it.
(9) Respect for ethical principles recognised in a Member State is particularly important. Member States may take into consideration ethical aspects when GMOs are deliberately released or placed on the market as or in products.
(10) For a comprehensive and transparent legislative framework, it is necessary to ensure that the public is consulted by either the Commission or the Member States during the preparation of measures and that they are informed of the measures taken during the implementation of this Directive.
(11) Placing on the market also covers import. Products containing and/or consisting of GMOs covered by this Directive cannot be imported into the Community if they do not comply with its provisions.
(12) Making GMOs available to be imported or handled in bulk quantities, such as agricultural commodities, should be regarded as placing on the market for the purpose of this Directive.
(13) The content of this Directive duly takes into account international experience in this field and international trade commitments and should respect the requirements of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity. As soon as possible, and in any case before July 2001, the Commission should, in the context of the ratification of the Protocol, submit the appropriate proposals for its implementation.
(14) Guidance on the implementation of provisions related to the definition of the placing on the market in this Directive should be provided by the Regulatory Committee.
(15) When defining "genetically modified organism" for the purpose of this Directive, human beings should not be considered as organisms.
(16) The provisions of this Directive should be without prejudice to national legislation in the field of environmental liability, while Community legislation in this field needs to be complemented by rules covering liability for different types of environmental damage in all areas of the European Union. To this end the Commission has undertaken to bring forward a legislative proposal on environmental liability before the end of 2001, which will also cover damage from GMOs.
(17) This Directive should not apply to organisms obtained through certain techniques of genetic modification which have conventionally been used in a number of applications and have a long safety record.
(18) It is necessary to establish harmonised procedures and criteria for the case-by-case evaluation of the potential risks arising from the deliberate release of GMOs into the environment.
(19) A case-by-case environmental risk assessment should always be carried out prior to a release. It should also take due account of potential cumulative long-term effects associated with the interaction with other GMOs and the environment.
(20) It is necessary to establish a common methodology to carry out the environmental risk assessment based on independent scientific advice. It is also necessary to establish common objectives for the monitoring of GMOs after their deliberate release or placing on the market as or in products. Monitoring of potential cumulative long-term effects should be considered as a compulsory part of the monitoring plan.
(21) Member States and the Commission should ensure that systematic and independent research on the potential risks involved in the deliberate release or the placing on the market of GMOs is conducted. The necessary resources should be secured for such research by Member States and the Community in accordance with their budgetary procedures and independent researchers should be given access to all relevant material, while respecting intellectual property rights.
(22) The issue of antibiotic-resistance genes should be taken into particular consideration when conducting the risk assessment of GMOs containing such genes.
(23) The deliberate release of GMOs at the research stage is in most cases a necessary step in the development of new products derived from, or containing GMOs.
(24) The introduction of GMOs into the environment should be carried out according to the "step by step" principle. This means that the containment of GMOs is reduced and the scale of release increased gradually, step by step, but only if evaluation of the earlier steps in terms of protection of human health and the environment indicates that the next step can be taken.
(25) No GMOs, as or in products, intended for deliberate release are to be considered for placing on the market without first having been subjected to satisfactory field testing at the research and development stage in ecosystems which could be affected by their use.
(26) The implementation of this Directive should be carried out in close liaison with the implementation of other relevant instruments such as Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market(5). In this context the competent authorities concerned with the implementation of this Directive and of those instruments, within the Commission and at national level, should coordinate their action as far as possible.
(27) Concerning the environmental risk assessment for part C, risk management, labelling, monitoring, information to the public and safeguard clause, this Directive should be a point of reference for GMOs as or in products authorised by other Community legislation which should therefore provide for a specific environmental risk assessment, to be carried out in accordance with the principles set out in Annex II and on the basis of information specified in Annex III without prejudice to additional requirements laid down by the Community legislation mentioned above, and for requirements as regards risk management, labelling, monitoring as appropriate, information to the public and safeguard clause at least equivalent to that laid down in this Directive. To this end it is necessary to provide for cooperation with the Community and Member State bodies mentioned in this Directive for the purpose of its implementation.
(28) It is necessary to establish a Community authorisation procedure for the placing on the market of GMOs, as or in products, where the intended use of the product involves the deliberate release of the organism(s) into the environment.
(29) The Commission is invited to conduct a study which should contain an assessment of various options to improve further the consistency and efficiency of this framework, particularly focusing on a centralised authorisation procedure for the placing on the market of GMOs within the Community.
(30) For sectoral legislation, monitoring requirements may have to be adapted to the product concerned.
(31) Part C of this Directive does not apply to products covered by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93 of 22 July 1993 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products(6), provided that it includes an environmental risk assessment equivalent to that provided for by this Directive.
(32) Any person, before undertaking a deliberate release into the environment of a GMO, or the placing on the market of GMOs, as or in products, where the intended use of the product involves its deliberate release into the environment, is to submit a notification to the national competent authority.
(33) That notification should contain a technical dossier of information including a full environmental risk assessment, appropriate safety and emergency response, and, in the case of products, precise instructions and conditions for use, and proposed labelling and packaging.
(34) After notification, no deliberate release of GMOs should be carried out unless the consent of the competent authority has been obtained.
(35) A notifier should be able to withdraw his dossier at any stage of the administrative procedures laid down in this Directive. The administrative procedure should come to an end when a dossier is withdrawn.
(36) Rejection of a notification for the placing on the market of a GMO as or in products by a competent authority should be without prejudice to the submission of a notification of the same GMO to another competent authority.
(37) An agreement should be reached at the end of the mediation period when no objections remain.
(38) Rejection of a notification following a confirmed negative assessment report should be without prejudice to future decisions based on the notification of the same GMO to another competent authority.
(39) In the interests of the smooth functioning of this Directive, Member States should be able to avail themselves of the various provisions for the exchange of information and experience before having recourse to the safeguard clause in this Directive.
(40) In order to ensure that the presence of GMOs in products containing, or consisting of, genetically modified organisms is appropriately identified, the words "This product contains genetically modified organisms" should appear clearly either on a label or in an accompanying document.
(41) A system should be designed using the appropriate committee procedure, for the assignment of a unique identifier to GMOs, taking into account relevant developments in international fora.
(42) It is necessary to ensure traceability at all stages of the placing on the market of GMOs as or in products authorised under part C of this Directive.
(43) It is necessary to introduce into this Directive an obligation to implement a monitoring plan in order to trace and identify any direct or indirect, immediate, delayed or unforeseen effects on human health or the environment of GMOs as or in products after they have been placed on the market.
(44) Member States should be able, in accordance with the Treaty, to take further measures for monitoring and inspection, for example by official services, of the GMOs as or in products placed on the market.
(45) Means should be sought for providing possibilities for facilitating the control of GMOs or their retrieval in the event of severe risk.
(46) Comments by the public should be taken into consideration in the drafts of measures submitted to the Regulatory Committee.
(47) The competent authority should give its consent only after it has been satisfied that the release will be safe for human health and the environment.
(48) The administrative procedure for granting consents for the placing on the market of GMOs as or in products should be made more efficient and more transparent and first-time consent should be granted for a fixed period.
(49) For products for which consent has been granted for a fixed period a streamlined procedure should apply as regards the renewal of consent.
(50) The existing consents granted under Directive 90/220/EEC have to be renewed in order to avoid disparities between consents granted under that Directive and those pursuant to this Directive and in order to take full account of the conditions of consent under this Directive.
(51) Such renewal requires a transitional period during which existing consents granted under Directive 90/220/EEC remain unaffected.
(52) When a consent is renewed, it should be possible to revise all the conditions of the original consent, including those related to monitoring and the time limitation of the consent.
(53) Provision should be made for consultation of the relevant Scientific Committee(s) established by Commission Decision 97/579/EC(7) on matters which are likely to have an impact on human health and/or the environment.
(54) The system of exchange of information contained in notifications, established under Directive 90/220/EEC, has been useful and should be continued.
(55) It is important to follow closely the development and use of GMOs.
(56) When a product containing a GMO, as or in products, is placed on the market, and where such a product has been properly authorised under this Directive, a Member State may not prohibit, restrict or impede the placing on the market of GMOs, as or in products, which comply with the requirements of this Directive. A safeguard procedure should be provided in case of risk to human health or the environment.
(57) The Commission's European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies should be consulted with a view to obtaining advice on ethical issues of a general nature regarding the deliberate release or placing on the market of GMOs. Such consultations should be without prejudice to the competence of Member States as regards ethical issues.
(58) Member States should be able to consult any committee they have established with a view to obtaining advice on the ethical implications of biotechnology.
(59) The measures necessary for the implementation of this Directive are to be adopted in accordance with Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission(8).
(60) The information exchange set up under this Directive should also cover experience gained with the consideration of ethical aspects.
(61) In order to increase the effective implementation of the provisions adopted under this Directive it is appropriate to provide for penalties to be applied by Member States, including in the event of release or placing on the market contrary to the provisions of this Directive, particularly as a result of negligence.
(62) A report to be issued every three years by the Commission, taking into account the information provided by Member States, should contain a separate chapter regarding the socioeconomic advantages and disadvantages of each category of GMOs authorised for placing on the market, which will take due account of the interest of farmers and consumers.
(63) The regulatory framework for biotechnology should be reviewed so as to identify the feasibility of improving further the consistency and efficiency of that framework. Procedures may need to be adapted so as to optimise efficiency, and all options which might achieve that should be considered,
HAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:
PART A
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Article 1
Objective
In accordance with the precautionary principle, the objective of this Directive is to approximate the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States and to protect human health and the environment when:
- carrying out the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms for any other purposes than placing on the market within the Community,
- placing on the market genetically modified organisms as or in products within the Community.
Article 2
Definitions
For the purposes of this Directive:
(1) "organism" means any biological entity capable of replication or of transferring genetic material;
(2) "genetically modified organism (GMO)" means an organism, with the exception of human beings, in which the genetic material has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination;
Within the terms of this definition:
(a) genetic modification occurs at least through the use of the techniques listed in Annex I A, part 1;
(b) the techniques listed in Annex I A, part 2, are not considered to result in genetic modification;
(3) "deliberate release" means any intentional introduction into the environment of a GMO or a combination of GMOs for which no specific containment measures are used to limit their contact with and to provide a high level of safety for the general population and the environment;
(4) "placing on the market" means making available to third parties, whether in return for payment or free of charge;
The following operations shall not be regarded as placing on the market:
- making available genetically modified microorganisms for activities regulated under Council Directive 90/219/EEC of 23 April 1990 on the contained use of genetically modified microorganisms(9) including culture collections,
- making available GMOs other than microorganisms referred to in the first indent, to be used exclusively for activities where appropriate stringent containment measures are used to limit their contact with and to provide a high level of safety for the general population and the environment, the measures should be based on the same principles of containment as laid down in Directive 90/219/EEC,
- making available GMOs to be used exclusively for deliberate releases complying with the requirements laid down in part B of this Directive;
(5) "notification" means the submission of the information required under this Directive to the competent authority of a Member State;
(6) "notifier" means the person submitting the notification;
(7) "product" means a preparation consisting of, or containing, a GMO or a combination of GMOs, which is placed on the market;
(8) "environmental risk assessment" means the evaluation of risks to human health and the environment, whether direct or indirect, immediate or delayed, which the deliberate release or the placing on the market of GMOs may pose and carried out in accordance with Annex II.
Article 3
Exemptions
1. This Directive shall not apply to organisms obtained through the techniques of genetic modification listed in Annex I B.
2. This Directive shall not apply to the carriage of genetically modified organisms by rail, road, inland waterway, sea or air.
Article 4
General obligations
1. Member States shall, in accordance with the precautionary principle, ensure that all appropriate measures are taken to avoid adverse effects on human health and the environment which might arise from the deliberate release or the placing on the market of GMOs. GMOs may only be deliberately released or placed on the market in conformity with part B or part C respectively.
2. Any person shall, before submitting a notification under part B or part C, carry out an environmental risk assessment. The information which may be necessary to carry out the environmental risk assessment is laid down in Annex III. Member States and the Commission shall ensure that GMOs which contain genes expressing resistance to antibiotics in use for medical or veterinary treatment are taken into particular consideration when carrying out an environmental risk assessment, with a view to identifying and phasing out antibiotic resistance markers in GMOs which may have adverse effects on human health and the environment. This phasing out shall take place by the 31 December 2004 in the case of GMOs placed on the market according to part C and by 31 December 2008 in the case of GMOs authorised under part B.
3. Member States and where appropriate the Commission shall ensure that potential adverse effects on human health and the environment, which may occur directly or indirectly through gene transfer from GMOs to other organisms, are accurately assessed on a case-by-case basis. This assessment shall be conducted in accordance with Annex II taking into account the environmental impact according to the nature of the organism introduced and the receiving environment.
4. Member States shall designate the competent authority or authorities responsible for complying with the requirements of this Directive. The competent authority shall examine notifications under part B and part C for compliance with the requirements of this Directive and whether the assessment provided for in paragraph 2 is appropriate.
5. Member States shall ensure that the competent authority organises inspections and other control measures as appropriate, to ensure compliance with this Directive. In the event of a release of GMO(s) or placing on the market as or in products for which no authorisation was given, the Member State concerned shall ensure that necessary measures are taken to terminate the release or placing on the market, to initiate remedial action if necessary, and to inform its public, the Commission and other Member States.
6. Member States shall take measures to ensure traceability, in line with the requirements laid down in Annex IV, at all stages of the placing on the market of GMOs authorised under part C.
PART B
DELIBERATE RELASE OF GMOs FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE THAN FOR PLACING ON THE MARKET
Article 5
1. Articles 6 to 11 shall not apply to medicinal substances and compunds for human use consisting of, or containing, a GMO or combination of GMOs provided that their deliberate release for any purpose other than that of being placed on the market is authorised by Community legislation which provides:
(a) for a specific environmental risk assessment in accordance with Annex II and on the basis of the type of information specified in Annex III without prejudice to additional requirements provided for by the said legislation;
(b) for explicit consent prior to release;
(c) for a monitoring plan in accordance with the relevant parts of Annex III, with a view to detecting the effects of the GMO or GMOs on human health or the environment;
(d) in an appropriate manner for requirements relating to treatment of new items of information, information to the public, information on the results of releases, and exchanges of information at least equivalent to those contained in this Directive and in the measures taken in accordance therewith.
2. Assessment of the risks to the environment presented by such substances and compounds shall be carried out in coordination with the national and Community authorities mentioned in this Directive.
3. Procedures ensuring conformity of the specific environmental risk assessment and equivalence with the provisions of this Directive must be provided for by the said legislation, which must refer to this Directive.
Article 6
Standard authorisation procedure
1. Without prejudice to Article 5, any person must, before undertaking a deliberate release of a GMO or of a combination of GMOs, submit a notification to the competent authority of the Member State within whose territory the release is to take place.
2. The notification referred to in paragraph 1 shall include:
(a) a technical dossier supplying the information specified in Annex III necessary for carrying out the environmental risk assessment of the deliberate release of a GMO or combination of GMOs, in particular:
(i) general information including information on personnel and training,
(ii) information relating to the GMO(s),
(iii) information relating to the conditions of release and the potential receiving environment,
(iv) information on the interactions between the GMO(s) and the environment,
(v) a plan for monitoring in accordance with the relevant parts of Annex III in order to identify effects of the GMO(s) on human health or the environment,
(vi) information on control, remediation methods, waste treatment and emergency response plans,
(vii) a summary of the dossier;
(b) the environmental risk assessment and the conclusions required in Annex II, section D, together with any bibliographic reference and indications of the methods used.
3. The notifier may refer to data or results from notifications previously submitted by other notifiers, provided that the information, data and results are non confidential or these notifiers have given their agreement in writing, or may submit additional information he considers relevant.
4. The competent authority may accept that releases of the same GMO or of a combination of GMOs on the same site or on different sites for the same purpose and within a defined period may be notified in a single notification.
5. The competent authority shall acknowledge the date of receipt of the notification and, having considered, where appropriate, any observations by other Member States made in accordance with Article 11, shall respond in writing to the notifier within 90 days of receipt of the notification by either:
(a) indicating that it is satisfied that the notification is in compliance with this Directive and that the release may proceed; or
(b) indicating that the release does not fulfil the conditions of this Directive and that notification is therefore rejected.
6. For the purpose of calculating the 90 day period referred to in paragraph 5, no account shall be taken of any periods of time during which the competent authority:
(a) is awaiting further information which it may have requested from the notifier, or
(b) is carrying out a public inquiry or consultation in accordance with Article 9; this public inquiry or consultation shall not prolong the 90 day period referred to in paragraph 5 by more than 30 days.
7. If the competent authority requests new information it must simultaneously give its reasons for so doing.
8. The notifier may proceed with the release only when he has received the written consent of the competent authority, and in conformity with any conditions required in this consent.
9. Member States shall ensure that no material derived from GMOs which are deliberately released in accordance with part B is placed on the market, unless in accordance with part C.
Article 7
Differentiated procedures
1. If sufficient experience has been obtained of releases of certain GMOs in certain ecosystems and the GMOs concerned meet the criteria set out in Annex V, a competent authority may submit to the Commission a reasoned proposal for the application of differentiated procedures to such types of GMOs.
2. Following its own initiative or at the latest 30 days following the receipt of a competent authority's proposal, the Commission shall,
(a) forward the proposal to the competent authorities, which may, within 60 days, present observations and at the same time;
(b) make available the proposal to the public which may, within 60 days, make comments; and
(c) consult the relevant Scientific Committee(s) which may, within 60 days give an opinion.
3. A decision shall be taken on each proposal in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 30(2). This decision shall establish the minimum amount of technical information from Annex III necessary for evaluating any foreseeable risks from the release, in particular:
(a) information relating to the GMO(s);
(b) information relating to the conditions of release and the potential receiving environment;
(c) information on the interactions between the GMO(s) and the environment;
(d) the environmental risk assessment.
4. This decision shall be taken within 90 days of the date of the Commission's proposal or of receipt of the competent authority's proposal. This 90 day period shall not take into account the period of time during which the Commission is awaiting the observations of competent authorities, the comments of the public or the opinion of Scientific Committees, as provided for in paragraph 2.
5. The decision taken under paragraphs 3 and 4 shall provide that the notifier may proceed with the release only when he has received the written consent of the competent authority. The notifier shall proceed with the release in conformity with any conditions required in this consent.
The decision taken under paragraphs 3 and 4 may provide that releases of a GMO or of a combination of GMOs on the same site or on different sites for the same purpose and within a defined period may be notified in a single notification.
6. Without prejudice to paragraphs 1 to 5, Commission Decision 94/730/EC of 4 November 1994 establishing simplified procedures concerning the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified plants pursuant to Article 6(5) of Council Directive 90/220/EEC(10) shall continue to apply.
7. Where a Member State decides to make use or not of a procedure established in a decision taken in accordance with paragraphs 3 and 4 for releases of GMOs within its territory, it shall inform the Commission thereof.
Article 8
Handling of modifications and new information
1. In the event of any modification of, or unintended change to, the deliberate release of a GMO or of a combination of GMOs which could have consequences with regard to risks for human health and the environment after the competent authority has given its written consent, or if new information has become available on such risks, either while the notification is being examined by the competent authority of a Member State or after that authority has given its written consent, the notifier shall immediately:
(a) take the measures necessary to protect human health and the environment;
(b) inform the competent authority in advance of any modification or as soon as the unintended change is known or the new information is available;
(c) revise the measures specified in the notification.
2. If information becomes available to the competent authority referred to in paragraph 1 which could have significant consequences with regard to risks for human health and the environment or under the circumstances described in paragraph 1, the competent authority shall evaluate such information and make it available to the public. It may require the notifier to modify the conditions of, suspend or terminate the deliberate release and shall inform the public thereof.
Article 9
Consultation of and information to the public
1. Member States shall, without prejudice to the provisions of Articles 7 and 25, consult the public and, where appropriate, groups on the proposed deliberate release. In doing so, Member States shall lay down arrangements for this consultation, including a reasonable time-period, in order to give the public or groups the opportunity to express an opinion.
2. Without prejudice to the provisions of Article 25:
- Member States shall make available to the public information on all part B releases of GMOs in their territory;
- the Commission shall make available to the public the information contained in the system of exchange of information pursuant to Article 11.
Article 10
Reporting by notifiers on releases
After completion of a release, and thereafter, at any intervals laid down in the consent on the basis of the results of the environmental risk assessment, the notifier shall send to the competent authority the result of the release in respect of any risk to human health or the environment, with, where appropriate, particular reference to any kind of product that the notifier intends to notify at a later stage. The format for the presentation of this result shall be established in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 30(2).
Article 11
Exchange of information between competent authorities and the Commission
1. The Commission shall set up a system of exchange of the information contained in the notifications. The competent authorities shall send to the Commission, within 30 days of its receipt, a summary of each notification received under Article 6. The format of this summary shall be established and modified if appropriate in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 30(2).
2. The Commission shall, at the latest 30 days following their receipt, forward these summaries to the other Member States, which may, within 30 days, present observations through the Commission or directly. At its request, a Member State shall be permitted to receive a copy of the full notification from the competent authority of the relevant Member State.
3. The competent authorities shall inform the Commission of the final decisions taken in compliance with Article 6(5), including where relevant the reasons for rejecting a notification, and of the results of the releases received in accordance with Article 10.
4. For the releases of GMOs referred to in Article 7, once a year Member States shall send a list of GMOs which have been released on their territory and a list of notifications that were rejected to the Commission, which shall forward them to the competent authorities of the other Member States.
PART C
PLACING ON THE MARKET OF GMOs AS OR IN PRODUCTS
Article 12
Sectoral legislation
1. Articles 13 to 24 shall not apply to any GMO as or in products as far as they are authorised by Community legislation which provides for a specific environmental risk assessment carried out in accordance with the principles set out in Annex II and on the basis of information specified in Annex III without prejudice to additional requirements provided for by the Community legislation mentioned above, and for requirements as regards risk management, labelling, monitoring as appropriate, information to the public and safeguard clause at least equivalent to that laid down in this Directive.
2. As far as Council Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93 is concerned, Articles 13 to 24 of this Directive shall not apply to any GMO as or in products as far as they are authorised by that Regulation provided that a specific environmental risk assessment is carried out in accordance with the principles set out in Annex II to this Directive and on the basis of the type of information specified in Annex III to this Directive without prejudice to other relevant requirements as regards risk assessment, risk management, labelling, monitoring as appropriate, information to the public and safeguard clause provided by Community legislation concerning medicinal products for human and veterinary use.
3. Procedures ensuring that the risk assessment, requirements regarding risk management, labelling, monitoring as appropriate, information to the public and safeguard clause are equivalent to those laid down in this Directive shall be introduced, in a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council. Future sectoral legislation based on the provisions of that Regulation shall make a reference to this Directive. Until the Regulation enters into force, any GMO as or in products as far as they are authorised by other Community legislation shall only be placed on the market after having been accepted for placing on the market in accordance with this Directive.
4. During evaluation of the requests for the placing on the market of the GMOs referred to in paragraph 1, the bodies established by the Community under this Directive and by Member States for the purpose of implementing this Directive shall be consulted.
Article 13
Notification procedure
1. Before a GMO or a combination of GMOs as or in products is placed on the market, a notification shall be submitted to the competent authority of the Member State where such a GMO is to be placed on the market for the first time. The competent authority shall acknowledge the date of receipt of the notification and immediately forward the summary of the dossier referred to in paragraph 2(h) to the competent authorities of the other Member States and the Commission.
The competent authority shall without delay examine whether the notification is in accordance with paragraph 2 and shall, if necessary, ask the notifier for additional information.
When the notification is in accordance with paragraph 2, and at the latest when it sends its assessment report in accordance with Article 14(2), the competent authority shall forward a copy of the notification to the Commission which shall, within 30 days of its receipt, forward it to the competent authorities of the other Member States.
2. The notification shall contain:
(a) the information required in Annexes III and IV. This information shall take into account the diversity of sites of use of the GMO as or in a product and shall include information on data and results obtained from research and developmental releases concerning the impact of the release on human health and the environment;
(b) the environmental risk assessment and the conclusions required in Annex II, section D;
(c) the conditions for the placing on the market of the product, including specific conditions of use and handling;
(d) with reference to Article 15(4), a proposed period for the consent which should not exceed ten years;
(e) a plan for monitoring in accordance with Annex VII, including a proposal for the time-period of the monitoring plan; this time-period may be different from the proposed period for the consent;
(f) a proposal for labelling which shall comply with the requirements laid down in Annex IV. The labelling shall clearly state that a GMO is present. The words "this product contains genetically modified organisms" shall appear either on a label or in an accompanying document;
(g) a proposal for packaging which shall comprise the requirements laid down in Annex IV;
(h) a summary of the dossier. The format of the summary shall be established in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 30(2).
If on the basis of the results of any release notified under part B, or on other substantive, reasoned scientific grounds, a notifier considers that the placing on the market and use of a GMO as or in a product do not pose a risk to human health and the environment, he may propose to the competent authority not to provide part or all of the information required in Annex IV, section B.
3. The notifier shall include in this notification information on data or results from releases of the same GMOs or the same combination of GMOs previously or currently notified and/or carried out by the notifier either inside or outside the Community.
4. The notifier may also refer to data or results from notifications previously submitted by other notifiers or submit additional information he considers relevant, provided that the information, data and results are non-confidential or these notifiers have given their agreement in writing.
5. In order for a GMO or combination of GMOs to be used for a purpose different from that already specified in a notification, a separate notification shall be submitted.
6. If new information has become available with regard to the risks of the GMO to human health or the environment, before the written consent is granted, the notifier shall immediately take the measures necessary to protect human health and the environment, and inform the competent authority thereof. In addition, the notifier shall revise the information and conditions specified in the notification.
Article 14
Assessment report
1. On receipt and after acknowledgement of the notification in accordance with Article 13(2), the competent authority shall examine it for compliance with this Directive.
2. Within 90 days after receipt of the notification the competent authority shall:
- prepare an assessment report and send it to the notifier. A subsequent withdrawal by the notifier shall be without prejudice to any further submission of the notification to another competent authority;
- in the case referred to in paragraph 3(a), send its report, together with the information referred to in paragraph 4 and any other information on which it has based its report, to the Commission which shall, within 30 days of its receipt, forward it to the competent authorities of the other Member States.
In the case referred to paragraph 3(b), the competent authority shall send its report, together with the information referred to in paragraph 4 and any other information on which it has based its report, to the Commission no earlier than 15 days after sending the assessment report to the notifier and no later than 105 days after receipt of the notification. The Commission shall, within 30 days of its receipt, forward the report to the competent authorities of the other Member States.
3. The assessment report shall indicate whether:
(a) the GMO(s) in question should be placed on the market and under which conditions; or
(b) the GMO(s) in question should not be placed on the market.
The assessment reports shall be established in accordance with the guidelines laid down in Annex VI.
4. For the purpose of calculating the 90 day period referred to in paragraph 2, any periods of time during which the competent authority is awaiting further information which it may have requested from the notifier shall not be taken into account. The competent authority shall state the reasons in any request for further information.
Article 15
Standard procedure
1. In the cases referred to in Article 14(3), a competent authority or the Commission may ask for further information, make comments or present reasoned objections to the placing on the market of the GMO(s) in question within a period of 60 days from the date of circulation of the assessment report.
Comments or reasoned objections and replies shall be forwarded to the Commission which shall immediately circulate them to all competent authorities.
The competent authorities and the Commission may discuss any outstanding issues with the aim of arriving at an agreement within 105 days from the date of circulation of the assessment report.
Any periods of time during which further information from the notifier is awaited shall not be taken into account for the purpose of calculating the final 45 day period for arriving at an agreement. Reasons shall be stated in any request for further information.
2. In the case referred to in Article 14(3)(b), if the competent authority which prepared the report decides that the GMO(s) should not be placed on the market, the notification shall be rejected. This decision shall state the reasons.
3. If the competent authority which prepared the report decides that the product may be placed on the market, in the absence of any reasoned objection from a Member State or the Commission within 60 days following the date of circulation of the assessment report referred to in Article 14(3)(a) or if outstanding issues are resolved within the 105 day period referred to in paragraph 1, the competent authority which prepared the report shall give consent in writing for placing on the market, shall transmit it to the notifier and shall inform the other Member States and the Commission thereof within 30 days.
4. The consent shall be given for a maximum period of ten years starting from the date on which the consent is issued.
For the purpose of approval of a GMO or a progeny of that GMO intended only for the marketing of their seeds under the relevant Community provisions, the period of the first consent shall end at the latest ten years after the date of the first inclusion of the first plant variety containing the GMO on an official national catalogue of plant varieties in accordance with Council Directives 70/457/EEC(11) and 70/458/EEC(12).
In the case of forest reproductive material, the period of the first consent shall end at the latest ten years after the date of the first inclusion of basic material containing the GMO on an official national register of basic material in accordance with Council Directive 1999/105/EC(13).
Article 16
Criteria and information for specified GMOs
1. A competent authority, or the Commission on its own initiative, may make a proposal on criteria and information requirements to be met for the notification, by way of derogation from Article 13, for the placing on the market of certain types of GMOs as or in products.
2. These criteria and information requirements as well as any appropriate requirements for a summary shall be adopted, after consultation of the relevant Scientific Committee(s), in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 30(2). The criteria and the information requirements shall be such as to ensure a high level of safety to human health and the environment and be based on the scientific evidence available on such safety and on the experience gained from the release of comparable GMOs.
The requirements set out in Article 13(2) shall be replaced by those adopted above, and the procedure set out in Article 13(3), (4), (5) and (6) and Articles 14 and 15 shall apply.
3. Before the procedure laid down in Article 30(2) for a decision on criteria and information requirements referred to in paragraph 1 is initiated, the Commission shall make the proposal available to the public. The public may make comments to the Commission within 60 days. The Commission shall forward any such comments, together with an analysis, to the Committee set up pursuant to Article 30.
Article 17
Renewal of consent
1. By way of derogation from Articles 13, 14 and 15, the procedure set out in paragraphs 2 to 9 shall be applied to the renewal of:
(a) consents granted under part C; and
(b) before 17 October 2006 of consents granted under Directive 90/220/EEC for placing on the market of GMOs as or in products before 17 October 2002,
2. At the latest nine months before the expiry of the consent, for the consents referred to in paragraph 1(a), and before 17 October 2006, for the consents referred to in paragraph 1(b), the notifier under this Article shall submit a notification to the competent authority which received the original notification, which shall contain:
(a) a copy of the consent to the placing on the market of the GMOs;
(b) a report on the results of the monitoring which was carried out according to Article 20. In the case of consents referred to in paragraph 1(b), this report shall be submitted when the monitoring was carried out;
(c) any other new information which has become available with regard to the risks of the product to human health and/or the environment; and
(d) as appropriate, a proposal for amending or complementing the conditions of the original consent, inter alia the conditions concerning future monitoring and the time limitation of the consent.
The competent authority shall acknowledge the date of receipt of the notification and when the notification is in accordance with this paragraph it shall without delay forward a copy of the notification and its assessment report to the Commission, which shall, within 30 days of their receipt, forward them to the competent authorities of the other Member States. It shall also send its assessment report to the notifier.
3. The assessment report shall indicate whether:
(a) the GMO(s) should remain on the market and under which conditions; or
(b) the GMO(s) should not remain on the market.
4. The other competent authorities or the Commission may ask for further information, make comments, or present reasoned objections within a period of 60 days from the date of circulation of the assessment report.
5. All comments, reasoned objections and replies shall be forwarded to the Commission which shall immediately circulate them to all competent authorities.
6. In the case of paragraph 3(a) and in the absence of any reasoned objection from a Member State or the Commission within 60 days from the date of circulation of the assessment report, the competent authority which prepared the report shall transmit to the notifier the final decision in writing and shall inform the other Member States and the Commission thereof within 30 days. The validity of the consent should not, as a general rule, exceed ten years and may be limited or extended as appropriate for specific reasons.
7. The competent authorities and the Commission may discuss any outstanding issues with the aim of arriving at an agreement within 75 days from the date of circulation of the assessment report.
8. If outstanding issues are resolved within the 75 day period referred to in paragraph 7, the competent authority which prepared the report shall transmit to the notifier its final decision in writing and shall inform the other Member States and the Commission thereof within 30 days. The validity of the consent may be limited as appropriate.
9. Following a notification for the renewal of a consent in accordance with paragraph 2, the notifier may continue to place the GMOs on the market under the conditions specified in that consent until a final decision has been taken on the notification.
Article 18
Community procedure in case of objections
1. In cases where an objection is raised and maintained by a competent authority or the Commission in accordance with Articles 15, 17 and 20, a decision shall be adopted and published within 120 days in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 30(2). This decision shall contain the same information as in Article 19(3).
For the purpose of calculating the 120 day period, any period of time during which the Commission is awaiting further information which it may have requested from the notifier or is seeking the opinion of the Scientific Committee which has been consulted in accordance with Article 28 shall not be taken into account. The Commission shall state reasons in any request for further information and inform the competent authorities of its requests to the notifier. The period of time during which the Commission is awaiting the opinion of the Scientific Committee shall not exceed 90 days.
The period of time that the Council takes to act in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 30(2) shall not be taken into account.
2. Where a favourable decision has been taken, the competent authority which prepared the report shall give consent in writing to the placing on the market or to the renewal of the consent, shall transmit it to the notifier and shall inform the other Member States and the Commission thereof within 30 days following the publication or notification of the decision.
Article 19
Consent
1. Without prejudice to requirements under other Community legislation, only if a written consent has been given for the placing on the market of a GMO as or in a product may that product be used without further notification throughout the Community in so far as the specific conditions of use and the environments and/or geographical areas stipulated in these conditions are strictly adhered to.
2. The notifier may proceed with the placing on the market only when he has received the written consent of the competent authority in accordance with Articles 15, 17 and 18, and in conformity with any conditions required in that consent.
3. The written consent referred to in Articles 15, 17 and 18 shall, in all cases, explicitly specify:
(a) the scope of the consent, including the identity of the GMO(s) to be placed on the market as or in products, and their unique identifier;
(b) the period of validity of the consent;
(c) the conditions for the placing on the market of the product, including any specific condition of use, handling and packaging of the GMO(s) as or in products, and conditions for the protection of particular ecosystems/environments and/or geographical areas;
(d) that, without prejudice to Article 25, the notifier shall make control samples available to the competent authority on request;
(e) the labelling requirements, in compliance with the requirements laid down in Annex IV. The labelling shall clearly state that a GMO is present. The words "This product contains genetically modified organisms" shall appear either on a label or in a document accompanying the product or other products containing the GMO(s);
(f) monitoring requirements in accordance with Annex VII, including obligations to report to the Commission and competent authorities, the time period of the monitoring plan and, where appropriate, any obligations on any person selling the product or any user of it, inter alia, in the case of GMOs grown, concerning a level of information deemed appropriate on their location.
4. Member States shall take all necessary measures to ensure that the written consent and the decision referred to in Article 18, where applicable, are made accessible to the public and that the conditions specified in the written consent and the decision, where applicable, are complied with.
Article 20
Monitoring and handling of new information
1. Following the placing on the market of a GMO as or in a product, the notifier shall ensure that monitoring and reporting on it are carried out according to the conditions specified in the consent. The reports of this monitoring shall be submitted to the Commission and the competent authorities of the Member States. On the basis of these reports, in accordance with the consent and within the framework for the monitoring plan specified in the consent, the competent authority which received the original notification may adapt the monitoring plan after the first monitoring period.
2. If new information has become available, from the users or other sources, with regard to the risks of the GMO(s) to human health or the environment after the written consent has been given, the notifier shall immediately take the measures necessary to protect human health and the environment, and inform the competent authority thereof.
In addition, the notifier shall revise the information and conditions specified in the notification.
3. If information becomes available to the competent authority which could have consequences for the risks of the GMO(s) to human health or the environment, or under the circumstances described in paragraph 2, it shall immediately forward the information to the Commission and the competent authorities of the other Member States and may avail itself of the provisions in Articles 15(1) and 17(7) where appropriate, when the information has become available before the written consent.
When the information has become available after the consent has been given, the competent authority shall within 60 days after receipt of the new information, forward its assessment report indicating whether and how the conditions of the consent should be amended or the consent should be terminated to the Commission which shall, within 30 days of its receipt, forward it to the competent authorities of the other Member States.
Comments or reasoned objections to further placing on the market of the GMO or on the proposal for amending the conditions of the consent shall, within 60 days following the circulation of the assessment report, be forwarded to the Commission which shall immediately forward them to all competent authorities.
The competent authorities and the Commission may discuss any outstanding issues with the aim of arriving at an agreement within 75 days from the date of circulation of the assessment report.
In the absence of any reasoned objection from a Member State or the Commission within 60 days following the date of circulation of the new information or if outstanding issues are resolved within 75 days, the competent authority which prepared the report shall amend the consent as proposed, shall transmit the amended consent to the notifier and shall inform the other Member States and the Commission thereof within 30 days.
4. So as to ensure its transparency, the results of the monitoring carried out under part C of the Directive shall be made publicly available.
Article 21
Labelling
1. Member States shall take all necessary measures to ensure that at all stages of the placing on the market, the labelling and packaging of GMOs placed on the market as or in products comply with the relevant requirements specified in the written consent referred to in Articles 15(3), 17(5) and (8), 18(2) and 19(3).
2. For products where adventitious or technically unavoidable traces of authorised GMOs cannot be excluded, a minimum threshold may be established below which these products shall not have to be labelled according to the provision in paragraph 1. The threshold levels shall be established according to the product concerned, under the procedure laid down in Article 30(2).
Article 22
Free circulation
Without prejudice to Article 23, Member States may not prohibit, restrict or impede the placing on the market of GMOs, as or in products, which comply with the requirements of this Directive.
Article 23
Safeguard clause
1. Where a Member State, as a result of new or additional information made available since the date of the consent and affecting the environmental risk assessment or reassessment of existing information on the basis of new or additional scientific knowledge, has detailed grounds for considering that a GMO as or in a product which has been properly notified and has received written consent under this Directive constitutes a risk to human health or the environment, that Member State may provisionally restrict or prohibit the use and/or sale of that GMO as or in a product on its territory.
The Member State shall ensure that in the event of a severe risk, emergency measures, such as suspension or termination of the placing on the market, shall be applied, including information to the public.
The Member State shall immediately inform the Commission and the other Member States of actions taken under this Article and give reasons for its decision, supplying its review of the environmental risk assessment, indicating whether and how the conditions of the consent should be amended or the consent should be terminated, and, where appropriate, the new or additional information on which its decision is based.
2. A decision shall be taken on the matter within 60 days in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 30(2). For the purpose of calculating the 60 day period, any period of time during which the Commission is awaiting further information which it may have requested from the notifier or is seeking the opinion of the Scientific Committee(s) which has/have been consulted shall not be taken into account. The period of time during which the Commission is awaiting the opinion of the Scientific Committee(s) consulted shall not exceed 60 days.
Likewise, the period of time the Council takes to act in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 30(2) shall not be taken into account.
Article 24
Information to the public
1. Without prejudice to Article 25, upon receipt of a notification in accordance with Article 13(1), the Commission shall immediately make available to the public the summary referred to in Article 13(2)(h). The Commission shall also make available to the public assessment reports in the case referred to in Article 14(3)(a). The public may make comments to the Commission within 30 days. The Commission shall immediately forward the comments to the competent authorities.
2. Without prejudice to Article 25, for all GMOs which have received written consent for placing on the market or whose placing on the market was rejected as or in products under this Directive, the assessment reports carried out for these GMOs and the opinion(s) of the Scientific Committees consulted shall be made available to the public. For each product, the GMO or GMOs contained therein and the use or uses shall be clearly specified.
PART D
FINAL PROVISIONS
Article 25
Confidentiality
1. The Commission and the competent authorities shall not divulge to third parties any confidential information notified or exchanged under this Directive and shall protect intellectual property rights relating to the data received.
2. The notifier may indicate the information in the notification submitted under this Directive, the disclosure of which might harm his competitive positionand which should therefore be treated as confidential. Verifiable justification must be given in such cases.
3. The competent authority shall, after consultation with the notifier, decide which information will be kept confidential and shall inform the notifier of its decisions.
4. In no case may the following information when submitted according to Articles 6, 7, 8, 13, 17, 20 or 23 be kept confidential:
- general description of the GMO or GMOs, name and address of the notifier, purpose of the release, location of release and intended uses;
- methods and plans for monitoring of the GMO or GMOs and for emergency response;
- environmental risk assessment.
5. If, for whatever reasons, the notifier withdraws the notification, the competent authorities and the Commission must respect the confidentiality of the information supplied.
Article 26
Labelling of GMOs referred to in Article 2(4), second subparagraph
1. The GMOs to be made available for operations referred to under Article 2(4), second subparagraph, shall be subject to adequate labelling requirements in accordance with the relevant sections of Annex IV in order to provide for clear information, on a label or in an accompanying document, on the presence of GMOs. To that effect the words "This product contains genetically modified organisms" shall appear either on a label or in an accompanying document.
2. The conditions for the implementation of paragraph 1 shall, without duplicating or creating inconsistencies with existing labelling provisions laid down in existing Community legislation, be determined in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 30(2). In doing so, account should be taken, as appropriate, of labelling provisions established by Member States in accordance with Community legislation.
Article 27
Adaptation of Annexes to technical progress
Sections C and D of Annex II, Annexes III to VI, and section C of Annex VII shall be adapted to technical progress in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 30(2).
Article 28
Consultation of Scientific Committee(s)
1. In cases where an objection as regards the risks of GMOs to human health or to the environment is raised by a competent authority or the Commission and maintained in accordance with Article 15(1), 17(4), 20(3) or 23, or where the assessment report referred to in Article 14 indicates that the GMO should not be placed on the market, the relevant Scientific Committee(s) shall be consulted by the Commission, on its own initiative or at the request of a Member State, on the objection.
2. The relevant Scientific Committee(s) may also be consulted by the Commission, on its own initiative or at the request of a Member State, on any matter under this Directive that may have an adverse effect on human health and the environment.
3. The administrative procedures laid down in this Directive shall not be affected by paragraph 2.
Article 29
Consultation of Committee(s) on Ethics
1. Without prejudice to the competence of Member States as regards ethical issues, the Commission shall, on its own initiative or at the request of the European Parliament or the Council, consult any committee it has created with a view to obtaining its advice on the ethical implications of biotechnology, such as the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies, on ethical issues of a general nature.
This consultation may also take place at the request of a Member State.
2. This consultation is conducted under clear rules of openness, transparency and public accessibility. Its outcome shall be accessible to the public.
3. The administrative procedures provided for in this Directive shall not be affected by paragraph 1.
Article 30
Committee procedure
1. The Commission shall be assisted by a committee.
2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Articles 5 and 7 of Decision 1999/468/EC shall apply, having regard to the provisions of Article 8 thereof.
The period laid down in Article 5(6) of Decision 1999/468/EC shall be set at three months.
3. The committee shall adopt its own rules of procedure.
Article 31
Exchange of information and reporting
1. Member States and the Commission shall meet regularly and exchange information on the experience acquired with regard to the prevention of risks related to the release and the placing on the market of GMOs. This information exchange shall also cover experience gained from the implementation of Article 2(4), second subparagraph, environmental risk assessment, monitoring and the issue of consultation and information of the public.
Where necessary, guidance on the implementation of Article 2(4), second subparagraph, may be provided by the committee established under Article 30(1).
2. The Commission shall establish one or several register(s) for the purpose of recording the information on genetic modifications in GMOs mentioned in point A No 7 of Annex IV. Without prejudice to Article 25, the register(s) shall include a part which is accessible to the public. The detailed arrangements for the operation of the register(s) shall be decided in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 30(2).
3. Without prejudice to paragraph 2 and point A No 7 of Annex IV,
(a) Member States shall establish public registers in which the location of the release of the GMOs under part B is recorded.
(b) Member States shall also establish registers for recording the location of GMOs grown under part C, inter alia so that the possible effects of such GMOs on the environment may be monitored in accordance with the provisions of Articles 19(3)(f) and 20(1). Without prejudice to such provisions in Articles 19 and 20, the said locations shall:
- be notified to the competent authorities, and
- be made known to the public
in the manner deemed appropriate by the competent authorities and in accordance with national provisions.
4. Every three years, Member States shall send the Commission a report on the measures taken to implement the provisions of this Directive. This report shall include a brief factual report on their experience with GMOs placed on the market in or as products under this Directive.
5. Every three years, the Commission shall publish a summary based on the reports referred to in paragraph 4.
6. The Commission shall send to the European Parliament and the Council, in 2003 and thereafter every three years, a report on the experience of Member States with GMOs placed on the market under this Directive.
7. When submitting this report in 2003, the Commission shall at the same time submit a specific report on the operation of part B and part C including an assessment of:
(a) all its implications, particularly to take account of the diversity of European ecosystems and the need to complement the regulatory framework in this field;
(b) the feasibility of various options to improve further the consistency and efficiency of this framework, including a centralised Community authorisation procedure and the arrangements for the final decision making by the Commission;
(c) whether sufficient experience has accumulated on the implementation of part B differentiated procedures to justify a provision on implicit consent in these procedures and on part C to justify the application of differentiated procedures; and
(d) the socioeconomic implications of deliberate releases and placing on the market of GMOs.
8. The Commission shall send to the European Parliament and the Council every year, a report on the ethical issues referred to in Article 29(1); this report may be accompanied, if appropriate, by a proposal with a view to amending this Directive.
Article 32
Implementation of the Cartagena Protocol on biosafety
1. The Commission is invited to bring forward as soon as possible and in any case before July 2001 a legislative proposal for implementing in detail the Cartagena Protocol on biosafety. The proposal shall complement and, if necessary, amend the provisions of this Directive.
2. This proposal shall, in particular, include appropriate measures to implement the procedures laid down in the Cartagena Protocol and, in accordance with the Protocol, require Community exporters to ensure that all requirements of the Advance Informed Agreement Procedure, as set out in Articles 7 to 10, 12 and 14 of the Cartagena Protocol, are fulfilled.
Article 33
Penalties
Member States shall determine the penalties applicable to breaches of the national provisions adopted pursuant to this Directive. Those penalties shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.
Article 34
Transposition
1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 17 October 2002. They shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof.
When Member States adopt these measures they shall contain a reference to this Directive or shall be accompanied by such reference on the occasion of their official publication. The methods of making such a reference shall be laid down by the Member States.
2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the texts of the main provisions of domestic law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.
Article 35
Pending notifications
1. Notifications concerning placing on the market of GMOs as or in products received pursuant to Directive 90/220/EEC, and in respect of which the procedures of that Directive have not been completed by 17 October 2002 shall be subject to the provisions of this Directive.
2. By 17 January 2003 notifiers shall have complemented their notification in accordance with this Directive.
Article 36
Repeal
1. Directive 90/220/EEC shall be repealed on 17 October 2002.
2. References made to the repealed Directive shall be construed as being made to this Directive and should be read in accordance with the correlation table in Annex VIII.
Article 37
This Directive shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
Article 38
This Directive is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 12 March 2001.
|
[
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2121/2001
of 29 October 2001
setting the amounts of aid for the supply of rice products from the Community to the Canary Islands
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1601/92 of 15 June 1992 introducing specific measures in respect of certain agricultural products for the benefit of the Canary Islands(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1450/2001(2), and in particular Article 3 thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 1601/92, the requirements of the Canary Islands for rice are to be covered in terms of quantity, price and quality by the mobilisation, on disposal terms equivalent to exemption from the levy, of Community rice, which involves the grant of an aid for supplies of Community origin. This aid is to be fixed with particular reference to the costs of the various sources of supply and in particular is to be based on the prices applied to exports to third countries.
(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2790/94(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1620/1999(4), lays down common detailed rules for implementation of the specific arrangements for the supply of certain agricultural products, including rice, to the Canary Islands.
(3) As a result of the application of these detailed rules to the current market situation in the rice sector, and in particular to the rates of prices for these products in the European part of the Community and on the world market, the aid for supply to the Canary Islands should be set at the amounts given in the Annex.
(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
Pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 1601/92, the amount of aid for the supply of rice of Community origin under the specific arrangements for the supply of the Canary Islands shall be as set out in the Annex hereto.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 November 2001.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 29 October 2001.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1250/2005
of 29 July 2005
fixing the export refunds 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 organisation of the market in cereals (1), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 provides that the difference between quotations or prices on the world market for the products listed in Article 1 of that Regulation and prices for those products within the Community may be covered by an export refund.
(2)
The refunds must be fixed taking into account the factors referred to in Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 of 29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules under Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 on the granting of export refunds on cereals and the measures to be taken in the event of disturbance on the market for cereals (2).
(3)
The refund applicable in the case of malts must be calculated with amount taken of the quantity of cereals required to manufacture the products in question. The said quantities are laid down 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 these rules to the present situation on markets 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 Management Committee for Cereals has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its chairman,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The export refunds on malt listed in Article 1(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 shall be as set out in the Annex hereto.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 August 2005.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 29 July 2005.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION
of 29 April 2009
on the clearance of the accounts of the paying agencies of Member States concerning expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) for the 2008 financial year
(notified under document number C(2009) 3219)
(2009/373/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (1), and in particular Articles 30 and 33 thereof,
After consulting the Fund Committee,
Whereas:
(1)
Under Article 30 of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, the Commission, on the basis of the annual accounts submitted by the Member States, accompanied by the information required for the clearance of accounts and a certificate regarding the integrality, accuracy and veracity of the accounts and the reports established by the certification bodies, clears the accounts of the paying agencies referred to in Article 6 of the said Regulation.
(2)
Pursuant to Article 16 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 883/2006 of 21 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 as regards the keeping of accounts by the paying agencies, declarations of expenditure and revenue and the conditions for reimbursing expenditure under the EAGF and the EAFRD (2) account is taken for the 2008 financial year of expenditure incurred by the Member States between 16 October 2007 and 15 October 2008.
(3)
The Commission has checked the information submitted by the Member States and it has communicated to the Member States before 31 March 2009 the results of its verifications, along with the necessary amendments.
(4)
The annual accounts and the accompanying documents permit the Commission to take, for certain paying agencies, a decision on the completeness, accuracy and veracity of the annual accounts submitted. Annex I lists the amounts cleared by Member State and the amounts to be recovered from or paid to the Member States.
(5)
The information submitted by certain other paying agencies requires additional inquiries and their accounts cannot be cleared in this Decision. Annex II lists the paying agencies concerned.
(6)
Pursuant to Article 33(8) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, 50 % of the financial consequences of non-recovery of irregularities shall be borne by the Member State concerned if the recovery of those irregularities has not taken place prior to the closure of a rural development programme within four years of the primary administrative or judicial finding, or within eight years if the recovery is taken to the national courts, or on the closure of the programme if those deadlines expire prior such closure. Article 33(4) of the said Regulation obliges Member States to submit to the Commission, together with the annual accounts, a summary report on the recovery procedures undertaken in response to irregularities. Detailed rules on the application of the Member States' reporting obligation of the amounts to be recovered are laid down in Commission Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 (3). Annex III to the said Regulation provides the table that had to be provided in 2009 by the Member States. On the basis of the tables completed by the Member States, the Commission should decide on the financial consequences of non-recovery of irregularities older than four or eight years respectively. This Decision is without prejudice to future conformity decisions pursuant to Article 33(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005.
(7)
Pursuant to Article 33(7) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, after closure of a rural development programme Member States may decide not to pursue recovery. Such a decision may only be taken if the costs already and likely to be incurred total more than the amount to be recovered or if the recovery proves impossible owing to the insolvency, recorded and recognised under national law, of the debtor or the persons legally responsible for the irregularity. If that decision has been taken within four years of the primary administrative or judicial finding, or within eight years if the recovery is taken to the national courts, 100 % of the financial consequences of the non-recovery should be borne by the Community budget. In the summary report referred to in Article 33(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 the amounts for which the Member State decided not to pursue recovery and the grounds for the decision are shown. These amounts are not charged to the Member States concerned and are consequently to be borne by the Community budget. This Decision is without prejudice to future conformity decisions pursuant to Article 33(5) of the said Regulation.
(8)
In accordance with Article 30(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, this Decision does not prejudice decisions taken subsequently by the Commission excluding from Community financing expenditure not effected in accordance with Community rules,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
With the exception of the paying agencies referred to in Article 2, the accounts of the paying agencies of the Member States concerning expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) in respect of the 2008 financial year, are hereby cleared.
The amounts which are recoverable from, or payable to, each Member State under each rural development programme pursuant to this Decision, including those resulting from the application of Article 33(8) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, are set out in Annex I.
Article 2
For the 2008 financial year, the accounts of the Member States' paying agencies in respect of expenditure per Rural Development programme financed by the EAFRD, set out in Annex II, are disjoined from this Decision and shall be the subject of a future clearance of accounts Decision.
Article 3
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 29 April 2009.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COUNCIL DECISION
of 26 July 2004
concerning the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and Bosnia and Herzegovina on security procedures for the exchange of classified information
(2004/731/EC)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Articles 24 and 38 thereof,
Having regard to the recommendation from the Presidency,
Whereas:
(1)
At its meeting on 27 and 28 November 2003, the Council decided to authorise the Presidency, assisted by the SG/HR, to open negotiations, in accordance with Articles 24 and 38 of the Treaty on European Union, with certain third States, in order for the European Union to conclude with each of them an Agreement on security procedures for the exchange of classified information.
(2)
Following this authorisation to open negotiations, the Presidency, assisted by the SG/HR, negotiated an Agreement with Bosnia and Herzegovina on security procedures for the exchange of classified information.
(3)
The Agreement should be approved,
HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Article 1
The Agreement between the European Union and Bosnia and Herzegovina on security procedures for the exchange of classified information is hereby approved on behalf of the European Union.
The text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.
Article 2
The President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person empowered to sign the Agreement in order to bind the European Union.
Article 3
This Decision shall take effect on the date of its adoption.
Article 4
This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Done at Brussels, 26 July 2004.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Decision
of 25 January 2001
deferring for certain transportable pressure equipment the date of implementation of Council Directive 1999/36/EC
(notified under document number C(2001) 139)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2001/107/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Directive 1999/36/EC of 29 April 1999 on transportable pressure equipment(1), and in particular Article 17(2) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) There are no detailed technical specifications and adequate references to the relevant European standards have not been added to the Annexes to Council Directive 94/55/EC of 21 November 1994 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States with regard to the transport of dangerous goods by road(2), as last amended by Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council 2000/61/EC(3), and to Council Directive 96/49/EC of 23 July 1996 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States with regard to the transport of dangerous goods by rail(4), as last amended by Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council 2000/62/EC(5), for the pressure drums, cylinder racks and tanks referred to in Article 2 of Directive 1999/36/EC. Consequently, the date of implementation of the directive on this transportable pressure equipment should be deferred.
(2) Article 18 of Directive 1999/36/EC provides that, during a transitional period of 24 months as from the implementation of this Directive, Member States must authorise the placing on the market and putting into service of transportable pressure equipment which complies with the regulations in force within their territory before 1 July 2001. Consequently, the date of expiry of that period should also be referred.
(3) The measures provided for in this Decision are in line with the opinion of the Committee referred to in Article 15 of Directive 1999/36/EC,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
Pursuant to Article 17(2) of Directive 1999/36/EC, the date of implementation of the said Directive is hereby deferred to 1 July 2003 for pressure drums, cylinder racks and tanks.
Article 2
Member States shall authorise the placing on the market and putting into service of the equipment referred to in Article 1 which complies with the regulations in force within their territory before 1 July 2003 until 24 months from that date and shall authorise the subsequent putting into service of such equipment placed on the market prior to that date.
Article 3
The Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 25 January 2001.
|
[
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1982/98 of 17 September 1998 amending Regulation (EC) No 2571/97 on the sale of butter at reduced prices and the granting of aid for cream, butter and concentrated butter for use in the manufacture of pastry products, ice-cream and other foodstuffs
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 of 27 June 1968 on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1587/96 (2), and in particular Articles 6(6) and 12(3) thereof,
Whereas Commission Regulation (EC) No 2571/97 (3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1550/98 (4), lays down a time limit of four months for the processing and incorporation into final products of the products referred to in Article 1; whereas, in view of the fact that the level of aid applications has stabilised, the time limit laid down for incorporation into final products should be extended to five months;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Milk and Milk Products,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
In Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 2571/97, 'four months` is replaced by 'five months`.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
It shall apply to quantities awarded from the 17th invitation to tender onward.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 17 September 1998.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 192/2001
of 30 January 2001
amending Regulation (EC) No 2342/1999 laying down detailed rules for premium schemes in the beef and veal sector
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), and in particular Article 4(8), Article 13(5) and the second indent of Article 50 thereof,
Whereas:
(1) For the purposes of the extensification payment provided for in Article 32 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2342/1999 of 28 October 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal as regards premium schemes(2), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2733/2000(3), the holding's stocking density factor is established in particular on the basis of the number of male bovine animals, cows and heifers present on the holding in the calendar year concerned. Because of the difficult situation on the beef and veal market resulting from the sharp drop in demand due in particular to disaffection on the part of consumers worried by the increase in the recorded number of bovine spongiform encephalopathy cases, the livestock is remaining on the production unit longer than normal. These animals are taken into account when establishing the holding's stocking density and producers can accordingly find themselves ineligible for the extensification payment, a situation running counter to the intended aim.
(2) In order to avoid penalising producers in these exceptional circumstances, a corrective flat-rate coefficient should therefore be applied for a limited period to the number of livestock units (LUs) recorded on the holding for the period in question when establishing the stocking density factor, provided that this exceptional market situation is shown to be having an impact on the length of time the animals are kept on the holding without this being a deliberate betrayal of the principle of extensification.
(3) Article 42 of Regulation (EC) No 2342/1999 lays down the rules on the allocation year for animals covered in particular by the special premium. Because of the difficult situation on the beef and veal market resulting from the sharp drop in demand due in particular to disaffection on the part of consumers worried by the increase in the recorded number of bovine spongiform encephalopathy cases, livestock slaughter and exports continue to be severely curtailed or have stopped altogether and producers have had the planned slaughter or export of their animals in 2000 postponed to 2001. Because of this exceptional situation, producers in those Member States that have decided to grant the special premium at the moment of slaughter or export in accordance with Article 8 of the above Regulation will not receive the special premium in 2000, an outcome contrary to the measure's intended aim.
(4) Provision should therefore be made to allow producers who have had slaughter or export postponed until 2001 to lodge, for a limited period, an application for a special premium in respect of 2000.
(5) In view of these developments, this Regulation must come into force immediately.
(6) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Beef and Veal,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Regulation (EC) No 2342/1999 is amended as follows:
1. The following paragraph 12 is added to Article 32:
"12. In the period between 15 October 2000 and 15 March 2001 inclusive, for the purposes of applying this Article the number of LUs recorded on the holding shall be multiplied by a coefficient of 0,8.
This measure shall apply if it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Member State that, because of the exceptional market situation, the animals are being kept longer on the holding than is normally the case."
2. The following third paragraph is inserted into Article 42:"Notwithstanding the preceding paragraphs and Article 35(1), where a special premium is granted under one of the options provided for in Article 8, if the animal is slaughtered between 1 January and 28 February 2001 and if the premium application for that animal is lodged no later than 15 March 2001 in respect of the 2000 calendar year, at the producer's request the allocation year shall be 2000 and the amount of the premium shall be that valid on 31 December 2000."
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, 30 January 2001.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
1
] |
*****
COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 3443/89
of 14 November 1989
amending Regulation (EEC) No 2347/87 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on mechanical wrist-watches originating in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88 of 11 July 1988 on protection against dumped or subsidized imports from countries not members of the European Economic Community (1), and in particular Article 12 thereof,
Having regard to the proposal presented by the Commission after consultation within the Advisory Committee as provided for under the above Regulation,
Whereas Article 1 (3) of Regulation (EEC) No 2347/87 (2), as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 486/88 (3), mistakenly provides that the free-at-Community-frontier price, not cleared through customs, shall be lowered by 1 % for each month by which payment is actually deferred; whereas, in a formula used regularly in other such Regulations imposing anti-dumping duties, the abovementioned price is increased or reduced by 1 % for each month by which the payment period is lengthened or shortened; whereas that Regulation should be amended so that its wording corresponds to that of other such Regulations;
Whereas this amendment is not such that it will affect the five-year period of application of the measure adopted under Regulation (EEC) No 2347/87,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Article 1 (3) of Regulation (EEC) No 2347/87 is hereby replaced by the following:
'3. The free-at-Community-frontier price, not cleared through customs, shall be deemed net if the terms and conditions of sale provide that payment shall be made within 30 days of the date of dispatch; it shall be increased or decreased by 1 % for each month by which this period is lengthened or shortened.'
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, 14 November 1989.
|
[
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1351/2006
of 13 September 2006
fixing a single allocation coefficient to be applied to the tariff quota for corn under Regulation (EC) No 573/2003
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 573/2003 of 28 March 2003 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Decision 2003/18/EC as regards the concessions in the form of Community tariff quotas on certain cereal products originating in Romania and amending Regulation (EC) No 2809/2000 (2), and in particular Article 2(3) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
Regulation (EC) No 573/2003 has opened an annual tariff quota of 149 000 tonnes of corn (serial number 09.4767) for 2006/07.
(2)
The quantities applied for on Monday 11 September 2006 in accordance with Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 573/2003 exceed the quantities available. The extent to which licences may be issued should therefore be determined and a single allocation coefficient laid down to be applied to the quantities applied for,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Each application for an import licence in respect of the ‘Romania’ quota for corn lodged and sent to the Commission on Monday 11 September 2006 in accordance with Article 2(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 573/2003 shall be accepted at a rate of 2,85706 % of the quantities applied for.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 14 September 2006.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 13 September 2006.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1289/2002
of 15 July 2002
determining the world market price for unginned cotton
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Protocol 4 on cotton, annexed to the Act of Accession of Greece, as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1050/2001(1),
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1051/2001 of 22 May 2001 on production aid for cotton(2), and in particular Article 4 thereof,
Whereas:
(1) In accordance with Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1051/2001, a world market price for unginned cotton is to be determined periodically from the price for ginned cotton recorded on the world market and by reference to the historical relationship between the price recorded for ginned cotton and that calculated for unginned cotton. That historical relationship has been established in Article 2(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1591/2001 of 2 August 2001(3). Where the world market price cannot be determined in this way, it is to be based on the most recent price determined.
(2) In accordance with Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1051/2001, the world market price for unginned cotton is to be determined in respect of a product of specific characteristics and by reference to the most favourable offers and quotations on the world market among those considered representative of the real market trend. To that end, an average is to be calculated of offers and quotations recorded on one or more European exchanges for a product delivered cif to a port in the Community and coming from the various supplier countries considered the most representative in terms of international trade. However, there is provision for adjusting the criteria for determining the world market price for ginned cotton to reflect differences justified by the quality of the product delivered and the offers and quotations concerned. Those adjustments are specified in Article 3(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1591/2001.
(3) The application of the above criteria gives the world market price for unginned cotton determined hereinafter,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The world price for unginned cotton as referred to in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1051/2001 is hereby determined as equalling EUR 22,632/kg.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 16 July 2002.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 15 July 2002.
|
[
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2727/1999
of 20 December 1999
introducing prior Community surveillance of imports of certain iron and steel products covered by the ECSC and EC Treaties originating in certain third countries
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 3285/94 of 22 December 1994 on common rules for imports and repealing Regulation (EC) No 518/94(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2315/96(2), and in particular Article 11 thereof,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 519/94 of 7 March 1994 on common rules for imports from certain third countries and repealing Regulations (EEC) No 1765/82, (EEC) No 1766/82 and (EEC) No 3420/83(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1138/98(4), and in particular Article 9(1) thereof,
Consultations having taken place within the committees set up under the Regulations referred to above,
Whereas:
(1) by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2845/98(5), imports into the Community of certain iron and steel products covered by the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community and the Treaty establishing the European Community were subject to a priori Community surveillance;
(2) in accordance with the provisions of Regulations (EC) No 3285/94 and (EC) No 519/94, products covered by the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community are subject to the common rules for imports and it is therefore necessary that the arrangements for Community surveillance measures in respect of ECSC products be adopted in accordance with the provisions of those Regulations;
(3) since the beginning of 1998 the steel market has been seriously disturbed by the consequences of the financial and economic crisis that began in South East Asia;
(4) available economic indicators show the following trends:
(A) Production. In 1998, production of crude steel in the Community remained with 160 million tonnes at the same level as in 1997. It slowed down between January and September 1999 by approximately 5,8 %. The increase in imports of certain finished steel products in the first semester, the rather slow recovery in individual consuming sectors, the high level of stocks and a further reduction of exports should result in a 1999 crude steel production of about 155 million tonnes. It is expected to increase slightly in 2000, since consumption is expected to increase compared with 1999;
(B) Imports. Imports of ECSC products into the Community from all third countries amounted to 18,3 million tonnes in 1998, 50 % above 1997. During the first six months of 1999, imports of ECSC products amounted to 9 million tonnes, a decrease of 12 % compared with the same period in 1998. Imports of flat products decreased by 29 %, long products increased by 20 % and semi-finished products by 8 %;
(C) Exports. Exports of ECSC products decreased by 20 % to 16,8 million tonnes in 1998 compared with 1997. In the first six months of 1999, exports of ECSC products amounted to 7,2 million tonnes, an average decrease of 16 % compared with the same period in 1998. For 1999 as a whole, the Community is likely to become for the second year in row a net importer of steel products. In 1997, the Community had a net surplus of 8,5 million tonnes and in 1998 it had a net deficit of 1,5 million tonnes;
(D) Similar trends apply to certain steel products covered by the EC Treaty: in 1998, production of steel tubes and pipes increased by 1,5 % compared with 1997; imports of steel tubes and pipes increased by an average of 17 % in 1998 compared with 1997; for the first six months of 1999, imports of steel tubes and pipes decreased by an average of 11 % compared with the same period in 1998, but over the same period exports decreased by 32 %;
(5) the Community's external trade statistics are not available within the periods established by Commission Regulation No 840/96(6) and whereas it is necessary that this problem should be addressed urgently;
(6) the interests of the Community require that imports of certain steel products should be subject to prior Community surveillance in order to provide statistical information permitting rapid analysis of import trends;
(7) the completion of the internal market requires that the formalities to be accomplished by Community importers be identical wherever the goods may be cleared;
(8) release for free circulation of the products covered by this Regulation should be made subject to presentation of a surveillance document meeting uniform criteria;
(9) that document should on simple application by the importer, be endorsed by the authorities of the Member States within a certain period but without the importer thereby acquiring any right to import; the document should therefore be valid only during such period as the import rules remain unchanged;
(10) the surveillance documents issued for the purposes of Community surveillance must be valid throughout the Community, regardless of the Member State of issue;
(11) the Member States and the Commission should exchange the information resulting from Community surveillance as fully as possible;
(12) the issue of surveillance documents, while subject to standard conditions at Community level, is to be the responsibility of the national authorities;
(13) it should be recalled that the delivery of a surveillance document for certain iron and steel products is subject to presentation of an export document in accordance with arrangements established within the framework of double-checking agreements with certain third countries, and whereas the present Regulation does not apply to the products originating in those countries which are subject to such a double-checking system,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
1. From 1 January 2000, the release for free circulation in the Community of iron and steel products covered by the ECSC and EC Treaties listed in Annex I shall be subject to prior Community surveillance in accordance with Articles 11 and 12 of Regulation (EC) No 3285/94 and Articles 9 and 10 of Regulation (EC) No 519/94. This applies to imports originating in all non-member countries other than in respect of products originating in countries of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA), in countries which are parties to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA), and in Turkey. Products which are subject to a double-checking surveillance agreement established between a non-member country and the Community shall be subject to the conditions established by that agreement and not to the present Regulation.
2. The classification of the products covered by this Regulation is based on the tariff and statistical nomenclature of the Community (hereinafter called the "Combined Nomenclature", or in abbreviated form "CN"). The origin of the products covered by this Regulation shall be determined in accordance with the rules in force in the Community.
Article 2
1. The release for free circulation in the Community of the products referred to in Article 1 shall be subject to presentation of a surveillance document issued by the relevant authorities of a Member State.
2. The surveillance document referred to in paragraph 1 shall be issued automatically by the competent authority in the Member States, without charge for any quantities requested, within five working days of presentation of an application by any Community importer, wherever established in the Community. This application shall be deemed to have been received by the competent national authority no later than three working days after submission, unless it is proven otherwise.
3. A surveillance document issued by one of the authorities listed in Annex II shall be valid throughout the Community.
4. The surveillance document shall be made out on a form corresponding to the model at Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 3285/94(7). The importer's application shall include the following elements:
(a) the name and full address of the applicant (including telephone and fax numbers, and possible identification number used by the competent national authorities) and VAT registration number, if subject to VAT;
(b) if applicable, the name and full address of the declarant or representative of the applicant (including telephone and fax numbers);
(c) the full name and address of the exporter;
(d) the exact description of the goods, including
- their trade name,
- the Combined Nomenclature (CN) code(s),
- the country of origin,
- the country of consignment;
(e) the net weight, expressed in kg and also quantity in the unit prescribed where other than net weight, by Combined Nomenclature heading;
(f) the cif value of the goods in euro at the Community frontier by Combined Nomenclature heading;
(g) whether the products concerned are seconds or of substandard quality(8);
(h) the proposed period and place of customs clearance;
(i) whether the application is a repeat of a previous application concerning the same contract;
(j) the following declaration, dated and signed by the applicant with the transcription of his name in capital letters:
"I, the undersigned, certify that the information provided in this application is true and given in good faith, and that I am established in the Community."
The importer shall also submit a copy of the contract of sale or purchase and of the pro forma invoice. If so requested, for example in cases where the goods are not directly purchased in the country of production, the importer shall present a certificate of production issued by the producing steel mill.
5. Surveillance documents may be used only for such time as arrangements for liberalisation of imports remain in force in respect of the transactions concerned. Without prejudice to possible changes in the import regulations in force or decisions taken in the framework of an agreement or the management of a quota:
- the period of validity of the surveillance document is hereby fixed at four months,
- unused or partly used surveillance documents may be renewed for an equal period.
6. The importer shall return surveillance documents to the issuing authority at the end of their period of validity.
7. The competent authorities may, under the conditions fixed by them, allow the submission of declarations or requests to be transmitted or printed by electronic means. However, all documents and evidence must be available to the competent authorities.
8. The surveillance document may be issued by electronic means as long as the customs offices involved have access to this document across a computer network.
Article 3
1. A finding that the unit price at which the transaction is effected varies from that indicated in the surveillance document by less than 5 % in either direction or that the total quantity of the products presented for import exceeds the quantity given in the surveillance document by less than 5 % shall not preclude the release for free circulation of the products in question.
2. Applications for surveillance documents and the documents themselves shall be confidential. They shall be restricted to the competent authorities and the applicant.
Article 4
1. The Member States shall communicate to the Commission:
(a) on as regular and up-to-date a basis as possible and at least by the last day of each month, details of the quantities and values (calculated in euro) for which surveillance documents have been issued;
(b) within six weeks of the end of each month, details of imports during that month, in accordance with Article 26 of Regulation No 840/96.
The information provided by Member States shall be broken down by product, CN code and by country.
2. The Member States shall give notification of any anomalies or cases of fraud which they discover and, where relevant, the basis on which they have refused to grant a surveillance document.
Article 5
Any notices to be given hereunder shall be given to the Commission of the European Communities and shall be communicated electronically within the integrated network set up for this purpose, unless for imperative technical reasons it is necessary to use other means of communication temporarily.
Article 6
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
This Regulation shall apply from 1 January to 31 December 2000.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 20 December 1999.
|
[
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 526/94 of 9 March 1994 derogating from Regulation (EEC) No 1858/93 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 as regards the aid scheme to compensate for loss of income from marketing in the banana sector
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 of 13 February 1993 on the common organization of the market in bananas (1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3518/93 (2), and in particular Articles 14 and 30 thereof,
Whereas Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1858/93 (3) introduces detailed rules relating to the grant of advances and, in Article 4 (3), the obligation to lodge a security together with the application for the advance; whereas the amount of the security is dependent on the level of advances set for a given year; whereas the advances depend on the definitive amount of compensatory aid granted for the marketing of bananas during the preceding year;
Whereas the definitive amount of compensatory aid for the second half of 1993 has not yet been adopted; whereas, therefore, as regards the first application for an advance for 1994 which operators have to submit by 10 March at the latest, a derogation should be introduced providing that the security may be lodged later but in any case prior to payment of that first advance;
Whereas this Regulation must enter into force on the day of its publication in order to be fully effective;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Bananas,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
By derogation from Article 4 (3) of Regulation (EEC) No 1858/93, the security relating to the first application for an advance for Community bananas marketed during January and February 1994 shall be lodged prior to payment of that advance.
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, 9 March 1994.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION
of 24 April 2007
relating to the aid measure implemented by Belgium in support of Inter Ferry Boats (C 46/05 (ex NN 9/04 and ex N 55/05))
(notified under document C(2007) 1180)
(Only the Dutch and French texts are authentic)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2009/608/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 establishing the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,
After having invited the interested parties to present their observations in accordance with the aforementioned Articles,
Whereas:
1. PROCEDURE
1.1. Cases NN 9/04 and N 55/05
(1)
By letter of 12 August 2003, registered as received by the European Commission on 20 August 2003 (TREN/A(03)27718), the Belgian authorities notified, under Article 88(3) of the Treaty, the rescue and restructuring measures introduced by Société Nationale des Chemins de Fer Belges (SNCB) for its subsidiary Inter Ferry Boats (IFB) in the form of a framework agreement concluded on 7 April 2003.
(2)
On 13 October 2003 (D (03)17546), the Commission asked the Belgian authorities to provide further information. A bilateral meeting on this subject was held with the Belgian authorities on 12 December 2003. At this meeting, the IFB restructuring plan was submitted to the Commission.
(3)
The Belgian authorities replied to the Commission’s letter by letter of 7 January 2004, registered as received by the Commission on 13 January 2004 (TREN/A (04)10708). This letter stated that the measures notified had been introduced. Consequently, the case was registered as NN 9/04. A second meeting was held on 30 April 2004. The Belgian authorities sent the additional documents requested by the Commission at this meeting by letter of 15 June 2004, registered as received by the Commission on 21 June 2004 (TREN/A(04)23691).
(4)
By letter of 26 January 2005 (D(05)100339), the Commission asked the Belgian authorities to provide further information. This was sent by letter of 25 March 2005, registered as received by the Commission on 30 March 2005 (TREN/A(05)7712).
(5)
By letter of 28 January 2005 (SG(2005)A1133), the Belgian authorities informed the Commission of SNCB’s intention to further increase IFB’s capital, this not being provided for in the agreements notified on 12 August 2003. The Commission recorded this case as notification N 55/05.
(6)
By letter of 29 March 2005 (D(05)106199), the Commission asked the Belgian authorities to provide further information. This was sent by letter of 28 April 2005, registered as received by the Commission on 3 May 2005 (SG(2005)A(05)4155).
(7)
By letter of 31 May 2005 (D(05)111096), the Commission asked the Belgian authorities to provide further information. This was sent by letter of 30 June 2005, registered as received by the Commission on 1 July 2005 (TREN/A(05)16598).
(8)
A meeting between the Commission and the Belgian authorities was held on 16 September 2005. At the meeting, the Commission asked the Belgian authorities to provide it with further information. This was sent by email on 21 October 2005, registered as received by the Commission on 24 October 2005 (TREN/A(05)27067).
1.2. Case C 46/05
(9)
By letter of 7 December 2005, the Commission informed Belgium of its decision to initiate the procedure provided for in Article 88(2) of the Treaty in respect of the measures in question.
(10)
The Commission’s decision to initiate the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (1). The Commission called on interested parties to present their comments on the measure in question. The Commission has not received comments from interested third parties on this subject.
(11)
Belgium replied to the letter informing it that the procedure had been initiated by letter of 14 February 2006, registered as received by the Commission on 15 February 2006 as TREN/A/13934. It withdrew its notification of 28 January 2005 in the same letter.
(12)
The meetings between the Commission and the Belgian authorities took place on 1 June 2006 and 25 July 2006. The Belgian authorities provided additional information to the Commission by letter of 29 June 2006, registered as received by the Commission the same day as TREN/A/25806, by letter of 20 September 2006, registered the same day as TREN/A/32665, and by emails sent on 16 and 21 November 2006, registered as TREN/A/37638 and TREN/A/37981.
(13)
By letter of 30 November 2006, received by the Commission on 5 December 2006 and registered as TREN/A/39219, the Belgian authorities forwarded a letter from Mr Karel Vinck which concerned the current file. The Belgian authorities sent this letter in support of their argument that SNCB’s decisions in this matter were not attributable to Belgium, but solely to SNCB.
(14)
By letter of 5 February 2007 (D (07)302095), the Commission asked the Belgian authorities to provide further information. Belgium sent this information by letter of 6 February 2007, registered as received by the Commission on 7 February 2007 (A(07)24246), by letter of 8 February 2007, registered as received by the Commission on 9 February 2007 (A(07)23613), by letter of 13 February 2007, registered as received by the Commission on 15 February 2007 (A(07)24201), and by letter of 15 February 2007, registered as received by the Commission on 16 February 2007 (A(07)24362).
(15)
By letter of 15 March 2007 (D (07)306248), and at a meeting held on 16 March 2007, the Commission asked the Belgian authorities to provide further information. Belgium sent this information by letter of 30 March 2007, registered as received by the Commission the same day (A (07)28411).
2. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE RESCUE AND RESTRUCTURING MEASURES
2.1. The parties to the framework agreement on the rescue and restructuring of IFB
2.1.1. IFB
2.1.1.1. Description of the company
(16)
IFB is a limited liability company incorporated under Belgian law. SNCB holds 89,03 % of the share capital. The other shareholders are CNC Transports, a 93,8 % subsidiary of SNCF (7,41 %), ICF (2,08 %), and EWS (English Welsh and Scottish Railway - 1,22 %).
(17)
IFB was set up on 1 April 1998 by the merger of the following three companies: Ferry Boats SA, Interferry SA and the ‘rail’ division of Edmond Depaire Ltd. As shown by Belgium by means of an extract from the register of companies, this merger was a takeover, during the course of which Ferry Boats SA took over Interferry SA; the rail division of Edmond Depaire was subsequently incorporated in the merged entity. IFB has therefore taken over the legal personality of Ferry Boats, which was set up in 1923.
(18)
IFB mainly pursues two types of activity, logistics for rail transport and combined transport (IFB Logistics) and the operation of continental combined transport terminals (IFB Terminals). The firm’s activities have been described in detail in points 16 to 29 of the letter initiating the formal investigation.
(19)
To these activities must be added the holdings and subsidiaries which IFB has or had in Belgium and abroad in companies operating maritime and continental terminals and in transport companies. These holdings and subsidiaries have been described in detail in points 30 et seq. of the letter initiating the formal investigation. Belgium has informed the Commission that certain factual information contained in that letter was either not entirely correct or that the situation had since changed. The factual changes which have occurred since the letter initiating the investigation was sent are described in the subsequent points. For all other matters, see the decision initiating the investigation procedure (points 30 to 49).
(20)
IFB’s holdings in the terminals in Belgium. IFB withdrew from the terminal in Zeebrugge. Point 39 of the letter initiating the investigation procedure states that it has sold its shares in the investment group OCHZ. In reality, IFB has sold its shares to Hesse-Noord Natie, with which it jointly operates the terminal.
(21)
Point 41 of the letter initiating the investigation procedure states that IFB owns a 16,76 % share of the company Dry Port Mouscron-Lille. Belgium has informed the Commission that, following an increase in the company’s additional capital on 29 June 2006, in which IFB did not participate, and the entry of a private investor, DELCATRANS, in the company’s capital, its holding has been reduced to 11,07 %
(22)
IFB’s holdings in the terminals in France. IFB sold its 30 % shareholding in the company Nord France Terminal International OU (hereinafter NFTI-ou) to CMA-CGM in autumn 2006. Following this transaction, IFB has a shareholding of only 2 % in CNC Transports, since renamed Naviland Cargo.
2.1.1.2. Markets concerned and IFB’s market shares
(23)
The Commission established in the decision initiating the procedure (points 50 to 54) that, for IFB Logistics’ activities, it was necessary to distinguish between two different product markets: the shipping activities and the logistics activities. These markets have been defined as national markets and IFB Logistics’ market share has been calculated as between 2 % and 5 %.
(24)
As regards the terminals market, the decision initiating the procedure (points 55 to 59) distinguishes between the continental terminals and the maritime terminals. In the meantime IFB has disposed of all its shareholdings in the maritime terminals. Neither the interested parties nor Belgium have contested the definition contained in the decision initiating the procedure.
(25)
The rail freight market is an ancillary market of these two markets. Since 2003, it has been open for the transportation of international freight to and from Belgium, as provided for in Council Directive 91/440/EEC of 29 July 1991 on the development of the Community’s railways (2). This opening-up of international freight was supplemented by the opening-up of the national freight market on 1 January 2007, as provided for in Directive 91/440/EEC and implemented in Belgium by Royal Decree of 13 December 2005.
2.1.2. SNCB
(26)
SNCB was set up by the Belgian Act of 23 July 1926 establishing the Société Nationale des Chemins de Fer Belges (3). Since 14 October 1992 (4), it has been an autonomous public undertaking and a public limited company (5).
(27)
Belgium reformed SNCB’s structure on 1 January 2005. It was divided into three distinct companies, namely:
-
SNCB Holding, a holding company which owns 100 % of the shareholding in the other two companies, these being:
-
Infrabel, the railway infrastructure operator, and
-
the new SNCB, the railway company in charge of transport services.
The Belgian State owns 100 % of the share capital in SNCB Holding.
(28)
The management bodies of SNCB are the Management Board, the Executive Committee and the Chief Executive. The Management Board is composed of 10 members, including the Chief Executive. The directors are appointed by the King, by decree debated in the Council of Ministers.
(29)
The Belgian Government is represented on the Management Board by a Government Commissioner. The Government Commissioner can call upon the Belgian authorities in order to revoke a decision of the Management Board relating to any matter not connected to the fulfilment of public service assignments if that decision ‘is prejudicial to […] the implementation of public service duties’ (Article 23, paragraph 2, of the Act).
2.2. The financial difficulties encountered by IFB in 2001 and 2002
(30)
It is necessary first of all to analyse the reasons which caused these financial difficulties, and then to describe the reactions of the IFB’s and SNCB’s directors.
2.2.1. The financial difficulties
(31)
The principal reason for IFB’s difficulties reside in the financial difficulties encountered by its holdings in France, all situated in the port of Dunkerque, in 2001 and 2002. The financial difficulties also concerned the activities of ‘IFB Logistics’ and ‘IFB Terminals’, which suffered losses in 2002.
(32)
As indicated in diagram 1, the total amount of IFB’s losses in the 2002 financial year was EUR 110 million. EUR 12,2 million concerned operating losses before adjustment of the accounts at the level of IFB Logistics (EUR 4,7 million) and IFB Terminals (EUR 7,5 million). To this is added an operating loss of EUR 1,2 million at the level of the holding in OCHZ. These losses, totalling EUR 13,4 million, constitute 12 % of the total losses. The balance of the losses in 2002, EUR 96,6 million, stemmed from reductions in value and provisions within the context of the necessary adjustment of the accounts following the problems which the company had encountered in France and Belgium. 75 % of these reductions in value and provisions stemmed from IFB’s holdings. Of this proportion, 76 % concerned the holdings in France.
Diagram 1
Breakdown of losses in 2002
(EUR million)
2.2.2. The response from IFB and SNCB management
(33)
Since the end of 2000, IFB has no longer paid the invoices sent to it by SNCB for the provision of its train services. In 2001 and especially in 2002, IFB continued this practice, which SNCB tolerated. Thus, at the end of January 2003 IFB found itself with unpaid SNCB invoices with a total value of EUR 63 million. The non-payment of these invoices explains why IFB was able to survive despite serious financial difficulties.
(34)
On 21 May 2002, IFB’s Management Board found that, following the losses sustained since the end of 2000, capital funds had fallen to less than half of the share capital. As provided for in Article 633 of the Belgian Companies Code, IFB convened an extraordinary general meeting of IFB shareholders.
(35)
During the course of this meeting, SNCB, as the majority shareholder stated its commitment to support IFB for the operational expenses by the means of a cash advance of EUR 2,5 million. This commitment by SNCB was approved by SNCB’s Management Board. On the basis of this commitment, the shareholders decided provisionally to continue with IFB’s operations and requested that IFB’s Management Board draw up a complete restructuring plan, including the subsidiaries and the management of the terminals.
(36)
The SNCB’s Management Board, at its meeting on 19 July 2002, summarised the situation of its subsidiary IFB. IFB’s Chief Executive described the group’s situation; the Management Board then took the following decision: ‘The Board agrees to a contribution of EUR 2,5 million which is required to ensure cash flow requirements and to guarantee the continuity of IFB until the end of October 2002 (this amount constitutes an advance on a likely increase in capital).’
(37)
During the second half of 2002, following approval by the Management Board, the cash advance of EUR 2 500 000 was transferred by SNCB to IFB, according to the following timetable:
-
6.8.2002: transfer of EUR 1 000 000,
-
17.9.2002: transfer of EUR 1 000 000,
-
30.9.2002: transfer of EUR 500 000.
(38)
This advance bore interest at a rate of 3,1 %; it was fully repaid in July 2003. Repayment was in two stages:
-
on 15 July 2003, IFB repaid EUR 1 500 000 of this sum, plus interest of EUR 40 422,04;
-
on 23 July 2003, the balance of EUR 1 000 000, plus interest of EUR 26 883,35, was repaid by IFB to SNCB.
(39)
On 19 September 2002, IFB’s Chief Executive instructed two auditors to compile a special report in order to evaluate the financial state of the company. In light of the conclusions of this report, submitted to IFB on 4 December 2002 and subsequently to SNCB, on 20 December 2002 SNCB’s Management Board gave its consent in principle to underwrite an increase in IFB’s capital. On 24 December 2002, the Extraordinary General Meeting of Shareholders (‘EGM’) of IFB likewise accepted this proposal.
(40)
IFB’s senior management, with the aid of consultants McKinsey, drew up a restructuring plan for IFB. This plan, which is described in detail in points 73 to 86 of this decision, was approved by IFB’s Management Board on 23 March 2003.
(41)
The management of the two companies (IFB and SNCB) subsequently finalised the details for the rescue and restructuring of IFB in a ‘framework agreement on the restructuring of IFB’, which was signed by the two companies on 7 April 2003. At a second EGM, IFB shareholders agreed to continuing IFB’s activities on the basis of this framework agreement.
2.3. The rescue and restructuring measures in the ‘framework agreement on the restructuring of IFB’ of 7 April 2003
(42)
Article 2 of the framework agreement stipulates that implementation of the measures agreed between the parties will be in two phases, namely a rescue period and a period of restructuring.
2.3.1. Terms and conditions governing the rescue measures
(43)
Article 3 of the framework agreement provides for the following rescue measures:
-
the granting of a recoverable advance of EUR 5 million,
-
the granting of a credit facility up to a maximum of EUR 15 million, and
-
the granting of a provisional extension for the payment of IFB’s debts of EUR 63 million in relation to SNCB.
(44)
The duration of these measures was limited to 12 months; however, they were tacitly extended by mutual agreement by the parties until the date of the increase in capital.
(45)
The interest rate on the recoverable advance and the sums deducted against the credit facility is equivalent to the reference interest rate applied by the Commission for State aid. The interest is capitalised, and payment is made at the same time as the payment of the debts due.
(46)
The debts of EUR 63 million are subject to conventional late payment interest of 5,4 %. The interest is capitalised and paid at the same time as the payment of the principal debt.
(47)
The interest owed to SNCB by IFB for the debts and the credit facility was EUR 2,2 million in 2002, EUR 3,9 million in 2003, EUR 4,7 million in 2004, and EUR 5,2 million in 2005, and will be EUR 4,4 million in 2006.
(48)
Article 7 of the agreement provides that IFB relinquishes the time-barring of its debts to SNCB.
(49)
This set of measures was implemented as of the signing of the framework agreement, on 7 April 2003. However, IFB did not make use of the recoverable advance.
2.3.2. Terms and conditions governing the restructuring measures
(50)
Article 4 of the framework agreement, ‘Terms governing the package of measures “restructuring measures”’, is worded as follows:
‘The Parties confirm their intention to implement the following measures insofar as they conform to a restructuring plan approved by their two Boards of Directors, by the Belgian State and if necessary by the EC, and subject to the approval of IFB’s shareholders:
-
The conversion into capital of a recoverable advance of EUR 5 million,
-
The conversion into capital of the credit facility for a maximum amount deducted of EUR 15 million […],
-
The conversion into capital of debts of […] EUR 63 million,
-
Potentially and on the condition that the two parties are in agreement on the matter, an additional increase in capital […]’.
(51)
The implementation of this increase in capital is subject to a condition precedent, provided for in Article 5 of the framework agreement, namely Commission approval in the light of State aid rules. Article 5 is worded as follows:
‘The commitments entered into by SNCB […] are subject to the following condition precedent. The parties will ask the Belgian State to notify the EC of this framework agreement as swiftly as possible. The parties will also ask The Belgian State, in the event that the EC has good reason to consider within the context of this communication that the [framework agreement] includes the granting of State aid (as referred to in Article 87 of the EC Treaty, to notify the [framework agreement] under Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty. In order to enable the EC to adopt a position, [the framework agreement] will at all events not be implemented within a period of 15 working days from the date of notification to the EC. If [the framework agreement] is considered by the EC to be global State aid, it will not be implemented until the EC has explicitly or implicitly approved the aid concerned and, where appropriate, subject to the limits and according to the conditions set out in the approval provision.
Should the EC consider [the framework agreement] partially or totally to constitute State aid, and in the event that and insofar as this aid is declared incompatible with the common market, the parties would then discuss in good faith the feasibility of any additional measures requested in respect of IFB, but with no obligation to implement these additional or adjusted measures if the circumstances in which the aid must be given are considered to be absolutely unjustified.’
(52)
Belgian civil law provides that, once the condition precedent is fulfilled, the agreement is valid retroactively.
(53)
In their reply to the initiating letter, the Belgian authorities informed the Commission that the capital increase will be made exactly as agreed between the parties in the framework agreement, if the Commission approves it. It will be EUR 95,3 million, made up as follows:
(EUR)
Conversion into capital of the credit facility
15 million
Conversion into capital of IFB’s debts to SNCB
63 million
Conversion into capital of the interest accumulated for the credit facility and debts in the years 2002 to 2006 (only partly for 2006)
17,3 million
Total
95,3 million
(54)
The Belgian authorities informed the Commission that the increase will not concern the total amount of interest accumulated in 2006, in order to ensure that IFB’s debt to equity ratio corresponds to the average level of its competitors, and is not greater. It also no longer includes the recoverable advance, since IFB has not made use of this facility.
(55)
In their reply to the letter initiating the procedure, the Belgian authorities also informed the Commission that they were withdrawing the notification of 28 January 2005, in which they had informed the Commission of SNCB’s and IFB’s intention, in addition to what was provided for in Article 4 of the framework agreement, to proceed with an increase in additional capital of EUR 5 million by a contribution in kind of a 47 % shareholding in the company TRW (6) by SNCB.
(56)
The restructuring plan provided for in Article 4 was communicated to the Commission at a meeting with the Belgian authorities on 12 December 2003. Its implementation commenced from 2003, and it was completed at the beginning of 2005.
(57)
The restructuring plan comprised two parts, which correspond to two different strategies concerning on the one hand the group’s French subsidiaries and on the other hand the Belgian activities of IFB. The strategy selected for France is the complete divestiture of its shareholdings, whereas the strategy selected for Belgium is the restructuring of the company with a view to continuing its operations.
2.3.2.1. The divestiture of the subsidiaries operating the terminals in France
(58)
As explained in this decision and, in more detail, in points 30 onwards in the letter initiating the procedure, IFB pursued a strategy of divestiture of its French subsidiaries. This policy was achieved by selling the shareholding in NFTI-ou in November 2006.
(59)
The total cost of divestiture of the IFB subsidiaries in France amounted to EUR 39,1 million. The following table reproduces the allocation of these costs in relation to the five subsidiaries. The net borrowing requirements and the figures concerning the various companies are explained in further detail in the following points.
Divestiture of french shareholdings: Summary of costs incurred
(in M EUR)
ACIMAR
NFTI-ou
IFB FRANCE
DPD
TOTAL INVESTMENTS
Capital depreciation on debts
3,9
0,8
2,8
7,5
Capital depreciation on investments
16,7
0,1
5,1
22,0
Capital increase
1,7
1,7
Total cost
3,9
18,5
0,9
7,9
31,1
Interest due on 30.6.2006
+7,7
Current account fluctuation 9.2002 - 12.2002
+0,5
Capital appreciation on SSTD sale
-0,2
Total cost of divestiture of French investments
39,1
(a) Net borrowing requirement
(60)
The table has been based on the accounting Statements of 27 September 2002. They distinguish between the following amounts:
-
A sum of EUR 31,1 million corresponding to the capital losses on debts, capital losses on shareholdings together with the increase in capital of NFTI-ou of EUR 1,7 million;
-
A sum of EUR 7,7 million in outstanding interest corresponding to the amount of interest accumulated between the end of 2002 and 30 June 2006 on behalf of the recoverable advance and the extension for payment which served to finance the divestiture;
-
A sum of EUR - 0,2 million corresponding to the capital appreciation on the sale of SSTD;
-
A sum of EUR 0,5 million corresponding to the difference between the accounting statements of 27 September 2002 and the amount of the actual capital depreciation accounted for on 31 December 2002.
(61)
This last sum of EUR 0,5 million corresponds to the flow of funds between IFB’s French shareholdings and IFB between 27 September 2002 and the end of 2002 and must be included in the table in order to be able to reconcile the actual capital depreciation accounted for at the end of 2002 with the total requirement calculated on the basis of the situation on 27 September 2002. As regards the IFB’s borrowing requirement, there is no reason to take account of this amount; IFB’s borrowing requirement relative to the divestiture of its French shareholdings is therefore EUR 38,6 million.
(62)
The borrowing requirement for the divestiture of IFB’s shareholdings in France has been financed by SNCB. IFB utilised EUR 30,9 million of its financial headroom obtained by the granting of the provisional credit facility of EUR 15 million and by the provisional non-recovery of the existing debts of the order of EUR 63 million to finance the divestiture. EUR 7,7 million of finance correspond to interest due for this sum by virtue of the framework agreement of 7 April 2003, which provides that the interest is not paid until the time of the payment of the principle debt (or converted into capital at the same time as the principal debt).
(b) Acimar
(63)
The company Acimar achieves its total turnover from a transport contract with the company Arcelor. This contract expired on 31 December 2005; at the time of the IFB audit in the second half of 2002, the contract was generating annual losses […] (7). Since attempts to renegotiate this contract with Arcelor have failed, SNCB has decided to file for Acimar’s bankruptcy, and to seek legal redress. IFB has non-recoverable debts in respect of Acimar of EUR 3,9 million, which constitute the cost of divestiture.
(c) NFTI-ou
(64)
As regards NFTI-ou, which was a company controlled jointly by IFB and Port Autonome de Dunkerque (Port of Dunkerque Authority), and operated the terminals in the port of Dunkerque, SNCB opted for divestiture by selling its shareholding.
(65)
IFB’s shareholding in NFTI-ou required IFB, under the terms of a letter of intent, to finance a share of the losses corresponding to its shareholding in the company. Furthermore, IFB guaranteed security for a bank loan to the company with […], which had a value of EUR 2,9 million.
(66)
In order to divest its shareholding in the company, IFB negotiated with Port Autonome de Dunkerque the lifting of the commitments resulting from the letter of intent. In return, IFB contributed to an increase in the capital of NFTI-ou, this having become necessary to allow the company to continue operating, amounting to EUR 1,7 million, and conceded part of its share capital to Port Autonome de Dunkerque for the nominal cost of EUR 1. Following this operation, IFB held only 30 % of the share capital.
(67)
IFB and Port Autonome de Dunkerque subsequently sought and found a buyer, CMA-CGM, for the IFB shares […]. Taking the selling price into consideration, the total cost of divestiture for IFB was EUR 18,5 million, comprising EUR 1,7 million for the increase in capital and EUR 16,7 million for the depreciation in capital realised by the shareholding.
(d) IFB France
(68)
IFB France, which subsequently became AGEP, was sold to NFTI-ou […] which represented a depreciation in capital of EUR 0,1 million. Since IFB divested itself of NFTI-ou at the same time, the transfer to NFTI-ou resulted in the divestiture by sale of IFB France. Before the sale, IFB was obliged to abandon its debts on IFB France totalling EUR 0,8 million. The total cost of divestiture of IFB France was therefore EUR 0,9 million.
(e) Dry Port Dunkerque
(69)
IFB’s shareholding in Dry Port Dunkerque was characterised by the same features as its shareholding in NFTI-ou: a letter of intent obliged IFB to make good the company’s operating losses.
(70)
IFB divested this shareholding by liquidation and by selling some of its assets, namely its 8,6 % shareholding in NFTI-ou held by Dry Port Dunkerque. Here, contrary to the situation in NFTI-ou, IFB’s partners could not insist that the company should continue in business.
(71)
IFB could not realise its debts on Dry Port Dunkerque (EUR 2,8 million), and had to accept the capital depreciation of its shareholding (EUR 5,1 million). The total cost of the liquidation was therefore EUR 7,9 million.
(f) SSTD
(72)
The company SSTD is a profitable company. Following the loss of its main client and in view of the strategic decision to exit the French market, IFB decided to sell it at the beginning of 2005, which generated a small profit.
2.3.2.2. The restructuring plan for the continuation of activities in Belgium
(73)
IFB drafted a plan with consultants McKinsey for the restructuring of IFB’s activities in Belgium. This restructuring plan was in two parts:
-
Restructuring of ‘IFB Logistics’,
-
Restructuring of ‘IFB Terminals’.
The essential idea behind this plan is to limit the activities of IFB to its core business, that is to say the logistics activities and the operation of the terminals in Belgium, and to divest and sell the activities which are not essential to the economic viability of the core business. It is necessary to outline the financial results of the restructuring, together with the various measures taken to accomplish these results (general measures, measures relating to the logistics activity, measures relating to the terminal activity, investments).
(a) Financial results of the restructuring
(74)
After adjustments for depreciation, reductions in value and provisions for risk and charges (operational cash flow), the restructuring plan anticipated the following financial results which were largely confirmed by the results obtained:
(EUR million)
2004
2005
2006 (1st half)
Total during the restructuring period
Projected operational cash flow
3,9
4,3
2,35
10,550
Resulting operational cash flow
4,875
3,079
2,475
10,429
(75)
The projections for the IFB financial results were based essentially on the following elements, of which IFB was aware at the time the restructuring plan was adopted:
-
Centralisation of ‘Railbarge’ traffic on one terminal, and a perceptible increase in volumes. The centralisation of ‘Railbarge’ traffic allows optimisation of the operational model, and an increase in revenue, as handling undertaken there up till then by third parties could be integrated into the group. Furthermore, IFB gained an important new client, CSAV, which envisaged placing orders for a volume of 50 000 TEU from 2004;
-
Significant reduction in both personnel and maintenance costs. These measures are outlined in more detail in points 78 to 83 of this decision;
-
A new agreement concerning the operation of the rail terminal at Cirkeldyck, which allowed the provision of important synergies with the adjacent terminal MSC Home Terminal;
-
An increase in volume at the terminal in Muizen, following a new contract entered into with Unilog;
-
Very positive general projections for the intermodal transport market, which has undergone spectacular growth since the start of the year 2000.
(b) Measures taken toward restructuring
(76)
The conclusion of a new collective labour agreement at company level and changes to the working regulations enabled a higher rate of activity to be achieved (the number of working days per annum was increased by 13 with effect from 1 January 2004) at a lower cost (pay for weekend work and team work was reduced with effect from 1 October 2003).
(77)
The administrative and commercial services were centralised in Berchem, which enabled the site in Ghent to be closed and the capacity of the one in Zeebrugge to be reduced.
(78)
These measures contributed to limiting the personnel required in order to reduce IFB’s general overheads by around EUR 2,55 million per annum (8) in total. IFB reduced its personnel from 210 FTE (9) in September 2002 to 175 FTE at the beginning of 2006, which represents a reduction of 17 %. These reductions can be presented in detail as follows:
-
For the directly operated terminals (except subsidiaries), personnel was reduced from 110 FTE in September 2002 to 96 FTE at the beginning of 2006, a reduction of 13 %,
-
As regards the logistics activities of IFB, personnel was reduced from 60 FTE in September 2002 to 49 FTE at the beginning of 2006, a reduction of 19 %,
-
Personnel assigned to ‘sales and marketing’ and other central support functions (finance, human resources, etc.) was reduced from 40 FTE in September 2002 to 31 FTE at the beginning of 2006, a reduction of 23 %.
(79)
The restructuring plan provided for the following 10 measures, which were intended to allow an improvement of EUR 5,7 million.
Measures
Benefit
1.
Effect of the reduction in the wages bill
[…]
2.
Consultancy and outsourcing
[…]
3.
Reductions in value and exceptional depreciation
[…]
4.
Handover of the non-profitable branches in the North European Network
[…]
5.
Loss of volume of conventional traffic
[…]
6.
Recovery of wagons maintenance provisions
[…]
7.
Increase in intermodal
[…]
8.
Revision of Railbarge contract (price increase and product re-engineering)
[…]
9.
Increase in commissions for representation (agent)
[…]
10.
Reduction in general overheads
[…]
(80)
While carrying out the restructuring plan, which was completed at the end of 2004, two additional measures were taken:
-
For the terminal at Cirkeldijck, the price of handling was increased,
-
In general, traffic was analysed and, as a consequence, re-directed in consultation with the clients.
(81)
The restructuring of the ‘IFB Terminal’ activities, which was completed in 2005, required seven measures, which are described in further detail in points 103 to 107 in the decision initiating the procedure.
(82)
In addition to the measures initially anticipated, IFB Logistics completed an in-depth analysis of its rail products, which revealed the existence of several unprofitable products, which IFB has since ceased to offer.
(83)
For other products, this analysis demonstrated the need for improvements in the technical plan. These improvements were made, notably in the intermodal container transport sector.
(84)
The restructuring of Mainhub together with the restructuring of Zomerweg involved the need for new investments […], essentially for investments in renewals […] as well as miscellaneous investments, […].
2.4. Description of the reasons which led to the initiation of the procedure on 7 December 2005
(85)
In its notification, Belgium considered that the measures in question did not constitute State aid, as they were not attributable to Belgium, and, in any case, SNCB had behaved like a private investor in a market economy.
(86)
The Commission had doubts as to whether the granting of a payment extension for the existing debts of EUR 63 million and their conversion, together with the conversion of the interest of EUR 11 million pertaining to them, into share capital constitutes State aid. Its doubts concerned whether SNCB’s conduct could be attributed to its owner, The Belgian State, and whether SNCB has behaved as a private investor in a market economy would have done.
(87)
The Commission also has doubts as to whether the granting of a recoverable advance of EUR 5 million and the granting of a credit facility of EUR 15 million, the conversion of the credit facility of EUR 15 million and the interest of EUR 2,5 million pertaining to it into share capital, and the contribution in kind of EUR 5 million of new share capital, consisting of SNCB’s shareholding in TRW, constitute State aid.
(88)
Inasmuch as this aid constitutes cash aid, the Commission doubts that it can be declared to be compatible with the common market as rescue aid, as it has been granted for a period of more than 12 months.
(89)
The Commission had some doubts as to whether the aid package could be declared to be compatible with the common market as restructuring aid.
(90)
Its doubts concerned the respective applicability at the time of the 1999 (10) Community guidelines for State aid for the rescue and restructuring of businesses in difficulty (hereinafter the 1999 guidelines) and the 2004 (11) Community guidelines concerning State aid for the rescue and restructuring of businesses in difficulty (hereinafter the 2004 guidelines), whether the measures taken were sufficient to mitigate, as far as possible, the unfavourable consequences of the aid on competitors, whether the aid was limited to a strict minimum and whether IFB’s own contribution to the restructuring aid was sufficient.
(91)
Belgium sent its comments by letter of 14 February 2006, which was supplemented by letters of 29 June 2006, 20 September 2006, 16 November 2006 and 21 November 2006.
(92)
In its reply, Belgium repeated its position that the measures in question do not constitute aid, as they are not attributable to the Belgian State, and because SNCB as a private investor would have done in a market economy.
(93)
Belgium then considered that if the measures in question constituted State aid, they should be analysed on the basis of the 1999 guidelines for rescue and restructuring aid, and not on the basis the 2004 guidelines. Furthermore, Belgium considered that the measures are compatible with the common market as rescue and restructuring aid.
3. BELGIUM’S COMMENTS
(94)
Belgium’s position can be summarised as follows.
3.1. Belgium’s observations on the procedure
(95)
In their reply, the Belgian authorities informed the Commission that they had reservations regarding the length of the examination. They believe they have legitimate expectations as to the legality of provisionally maintaining the rescue measures until the Commission takes a final decision on the restructuring plan.
(96)
The communications of 12 August 2003 (registered by the Commission as NN 9/04) and 28 January 2005 (registered by the Commission as N 55/05) are, according to the Belgian authorities, intended to provide the Commission with all information needed to check whether or not SNCB’s measures in support of IFB constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty. According to the Belgian authorities, it is only if the measures concerned were deemed to be State aid that the Commission would have been (and would be) required to consider the communications as notifications under Article 88(3) of the Treaty.
(97)
The Belgian authorities consider, more particularly, that the communication of 12 August 2003 did not concede that the rescue and restructuring measures in support of IFB constituted State aid or therefore that the rescue measures could be regarded as non-notified State aid. The Belgian authorities consider that the measures were not subject to the obligation of prior notification and to the requirement not to be put into effect within the meaning of Article 88(3) of the Treaty.
(98)
The Belgian authorities made a similar statement regarding the communication of 28 January 2005 in which Belgium informed the Commission about an additional capital increase of EUR 5 million.
3.2. Absence of ‘State aid’ within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty
3.2.1. Absence of State resources
(99)
Belgium considers that neither the rescue measures nor the restructuring measures granted to IFB were financed from State resources. SNCB is said to have financed these measures exclusively from its own resources, without mobilising State resources in any way.
(100)
According to Belgium, the fact that SNCB is a public undertaking within the meaning of Article 2 of Commission Directive 80/723/EEC of 25 June 1980 on the transparency of financial relations between Member States and public undertakings as well as on financial transparency within certain undertakings (12) is not sufficient to establish that the measures in question, which had been financed by SNCB, were financed from State resources. Belgium considers that it is necessary to distinguish between, on the one hand, SNCB’s own resources, which arise from revenues generated by its activities and, on the other hand, the funds allocated by the State for SNCB’s public service responsibilities. Since the funds allocated by the State were not sufficient to finance the expenses incurred in connection with such responsibilities in their entirety, Belgium concludes that there is no possibility that State resources were used by SNCB to finance measures to support IFB.
(101)
Belgium considers that SNCB’s capital is not at the disposal of the Belgian authorities, but is used for SNCB’s business purposes. As a consequence, Belgium considers that it is not ‘at the disposal of the public authorities’, as required by the Stardust Marine (13) ruling.
(102)
Finally, Belgium considers that any reduction in SNCB’s own funds owing to the measures granted to IFB would not have entailed any ‘loss’ for the State (14), since the resources would in no way have otherwise had to be transferred to the State budget.
3.2.2. Absence of liability on the part of the Belgian State
(103)
As regards the granting of a cash advance of EUR 2,5 million in the second half of 2002, the Belgian authorities consider that SNCB’s decision to grant this advance is not attributable to the Belgian State.
(104)
Belgium puts forward the following arguments to demonstrate its non-liability:
-
The SNCB’s strategic decision to restructure IFB, rather than allowing it to go bankrupt, was taken independently by SNCB’s executive committee. In particular, IFB’s future was not the subject of the studies commissioned at the end of 2001 by the Belgian Government for the company ABX, nor of the decisions concerning ABX which the Belgian Council of Ministers adopted in 2002,
-
The decision to grant an advance to IFB had been taken by SNCB’s executive committee. Belgium admits that the executive committee decided to submit this measure to the SNCB’s Management Board, but considers that the granting of this cash advance did not require approval by SNCB’s Management Board since, by virtue of the delegation of authority of the Management Board to the executive committee, the latter was empowered to bind SNCB for amounts up to EUR 2,5 million,
-
This advance did not form part of a restructuring plan or other plan or measure which had been submitted to the Belgian State or in respect of which any consultation had taken place with the Belgian State,
-
Other factors such as the relatively small size of the advance and its provisional nature equally confirm the conclusion that the granting of this advance can not be attributed to the Belgian State.
(105)
As regards the non-payment of SNCB’s invoices by IFB, the Belgian authorities consider that SNCB’s Management Board were not informed of the fact the IFB was no longer settling SNCB’s invoices until December 2002, i.e. when it had decided in principle to increase IFB’s capital.
(106)
The Belgian authorities consider furthermore that the action or lack of action by the Management Board, by the executive committee and by the Chief Executive are not attributable to the Belgian State, either before or after the conclusion of the framework agreement. They argue that there is no involvement of the Belgian State whatsoever (in the sense of the ‘Stardust Marine’ case-law) in SNCB’s decision-making process concerning the taking of measures in respect of IFB.
(107)
According to the Belgian authorities, the measures taken by SNCB in respect of IFB are measures concerning an SNCB subsidiary which does not itself undertake public tasks and which is no longer associated with the performance of public tasks by SNCB. IFB’s activities are therefore solely commercial activities, outside of any public tasks. Thus, still according to the Belgian authorities, they are not subject to State control as the Belgian authorities are required to respect SNCB’s independence as regards matters which are not public tasks.
(108)
As regards the role of the Government Commissioner, the Belgian authorities say that the IFB file was never submitted to them and that, therefore, they were not competent to intervene, given that the Government Commissioner did not express comments at any stage on the measures taken in respect of IFB and that he also did not intend to take any action whatsoever. Furthermore, they maintain that they did not intervene in any way in SNCB’s decision-making process concerning IFB, or during the period preceding the conclusion of the framework agreement, or during the subsequent period.
(109)
As regards the three items identified by the Commission in the letter initiating the procedure (points 143 to 150), namely the submission of the restructuring plan for approval by the Belgian State, the press articles demonstrating a strong influence by the Belgian Government on SNCB during the year 2003, and the scope, contents and the terms of the framework agreement, the Belgian authorities consider that these factors are not sufficient to establish responsibility in the sense of the Stardust Marine case-law.
(110)
regards the approval of the restructuring plan by the Belgian State, the Belgian authorities consider that this provision of the framework agreement did not in any way aim to grant the Belgian authorities such competence as to be able to judge the contents of the restructuring plan, but was inspired by the fact that SNCB wanted the restructuring plan, like the framework agreement, to be communicated to the Commission.
(111)
As regards the press articles, the Belgian Government considers that these do not contain any indication of intervention by the Belgian Government in this case, for the following reasons:
-
In the article which appeared in La Libre Belgique on 19 May 2003, SNCB’s press department explains that the Commission had not yet been asked to give the green light for the IFB case, since ‘the federal authority still has to speak’. According to the Belgian Government, these comments refer exclusively to the ‘communication’ of the measures in support of IFB by the Belgian State to the Commission,
-
In the article which appeared in La Libre Belgique on 18 December 2002 (in the version published on the website www.cheminots.be), Mr Karel Vinck is quoted as follows: ‘A sufficient financial headroom is required for the management of the company’. According to the Belgian authorities, this statement exclusively concerns the fulfilment of SNCB’s public tasks, and expresses the idea that the Belgian authorities are competent to agree objectives to be achieved for the fulfilment of the public tasks with SNCB by means of the legal instrument of the management contract, but that the achievement of these objectives is the responsibility and falls within the competence of SNCB’s Management Board.
(112)
Finally, the Belgian authorities sent the Commission a written statement by Mr Karel Vinck, Chief Executive of SNCB at the time of the events, confirming the absence of any involvement of the Belgian authorities in the granting, by SNCB to IFB, of the rescue and restructuring measures which are the subject of this dossier. Such a letter, signed by Mr Vinck on 17 November 2006, was received by the Commission on 5 December 2006.
(113)
As regards the scope, contents and terms of the framework agreement, the Belgian authorities repeat their position that, even if the restructuring measures are important for the future of IFB, the Belgian authorities do not have the power of approval, authority to control the basis issue, or the right to be consulted in this case.
3.2.3. Principle of a private investor in a market economy
(114)
Belgium considers that, following the reasoning developed by the Commission in the ABX Logistics (15) decision, the Commission should analyse separately, on the one hand, the funds which SNCB awarded to IFB to finance the divestiture of its French subsidiaries and, on the other hand, the funds which SNCB granted to IFB to finance the pursuit of its activities in Belgium.
3.2.3.1. Divestiture of French shareholdings
(115)
In the ABX Logistics decision, the Commission is said to have confirmed that, since ABX France was not in a position to support the costs of disinvestment itself, SNCB would be acting as would a ‘private investor in a market economy’ in taking charge of these costs.
(116)
Belgium considers the same conclusion applies as regards the cost of divestiture, for IFB, of its French shareholdings. It is attempting to show that, for each one of these companies, IFB opted for the least expensive method.
(117)
As regards Acimar, Belgium has provided the following table:
Acimar - judicial administration followed by liquidation
Financial situation in 2002
(in EUR million)
2001
2002
Turnover
EBT
Total balance (31.12)
Net worth (31.12)
Cost of alternatives
(in EUR million)
Performance of contract
Judicial administration
Cash drain 1.1.2003-31.12.2005
Capital depreciation debts 31.12.2002
Total
-14,7
-3,9
Comments
-
The attempts of the business during the year 2002 to obtain a revision of the contractual conditions failed; the duration of the contract was until 31.12.2005.
-
The performance of the contract implied an important annual cash drain.
-
In these circumstances, a request for judicial settlement was the least expensive solution.
-
During the settlement period, the operating losses were financed by the client.
-
Acimar ceased trading on 1.9.2003.
(118)
As regards NFTI-ou, Belgium has provided the following table:
NFTI-ou - Handover
Financial situation in 2002
(in EUR million)
2001 (16)
2002
Turnover
EBT
Total balance (31.12)
Net worth (31.12)
Cost of alternatives
(in EUR million)
Continued
Partial sale
Increase in capital + repayment to ING credit
Settlement plan
Actual cash drain (CH annual of EUR - 3,7 million) (100 % letter of intent)
Capital depreciation of shareholding
Capital depreciation of debts 31.12.2002
Sale price (EUR 1) - 30 % shareholding
Total
-36,2
-18,5
Comments
-
On the basis of a ‘letter of intent’, IFB was obliged to make contributions to the current account.
-
IFB guaranteed security for a bank loan to NFTIou for which repayment has been requested by ING.
-
In these circumstances, IFB negotiated with the other shareholder, the Independent Port of Dunkerque (PAD):
-
An increase in the capital of NFTIou part of which was underwritten by IFB,
-
The release of IFB from its commitments issued in the letter of intent, and PAD’s commitment to seek a buyer for the balance of IFB’s shareholding in NFTIou, by means of the transfer of a nominal sum to PAD for a part of IFB’s shareholding in NFTIou to be reduced to 30 % (including the shareholding in DPD).
-
The sale of the remaining 30 % shareholding is currently in progress.
(119)
Belgium informed the Commission that filing for bankruptcy for NFTI-ou had never been envisaged, given that the continuation of business by NFTI-ou offered the prospect of profitability. According to Belgium, the sale of IFB’s shareholding of 30 % to CMA-CGM on 2 November 2006 […] and the full recovery of the sums awarded in the form of advances to the current account demonstrate the viability of this company.
(120)
As regards IFB France, which subsequently became AGEP, Belgium has provided the following table:
IFB France (AGEP) - Cession a NFTI-ou
Financial situation in 2002
(in EUR million)
2001
2002
Turnover
EBT
Total balance (31.12)
Net worth (31.12)
Cost of alternatives
(in EUR million)
Liquidation
Transfer NFTI-ou
Relinquishing of debts
Capital depreciation on shareholding
Capital appreciation on completion of asset transfer
Asset deficiency (14 FTE)
Total
-1,7
-0,8
Comments
-
Faced with the risk of forced liquidation or of voluntary liquidation, IFB negotiated with PAD the transfer of title of IFB France to NFTI-ou by the means of the abandonment of debt by IFB.
-
The liquidation of the company would have led to greatly increased costs (capital depreciation on shareholdings, risk of coverage of liabilities as representing founder and/or sole director).
(121)
As regards Dry Port Dunkerque, Belgium has provided the following table:
Dry Port Dunkerque (DPD) - Liquidation with partial sale
Financial situation in 2002
(in EUR million)
2001
2002
Turnover
EBT
Total balance (31.12)
Net worth (31.12)
Cost of alternatives
(in EUR million)
Continued
Liquidation with partial sale of assets
Actual cash drain (Actual CH of EUR - 0,5 million) (100 % lettrer of intent)
Capital depreciation of debts
Capital depreciation of shareholding
Total
-10,4
-7,9
Comments
-
A letter of intent obliges IFB to make contributions to the current account in order to cover the operational losses of DPD.
-
After the divestiture in NFTI-ou, a buyer for the shareholding in DPD was sought but could not be found.
-
IFB negotiated the volontary liquidation of DPD, by means of a nominal sum for the shareholding of 8,6 % in NFTI-ou.
(122)
As regards SSTD, Belgium provided the following table:
SSTD: Cession
Context:
-
IFB owns a shareholding of 50 %.
-
SSTD had profitable activities which continued until the beginning of 2005.
-
At the end of 2004, SSTD lost its main client (representing 40 % of its turnover).
-
This loss led to the decision to sell the shareholding in SSTD.
-
The sale of the shareholding was intervened at the beginning of 2005 and was completed with a negligible capital appreciation (positive but negligible impact on the borrowing requirements).
(123)
The Belgian authorities concluded that IFB chose the least costly solution as regards the French subsidiaries.
3.2.3.2. Restructuring and continuation of IFB’s activities in Belgium
(124)
As regards the financing of the restructuring and the continuation of IFB’s activities in Belgium, Belgium considered that SNCB also behaved as an informed private creditor/investor in a market economy would have done, as the financial result of the alternative - the cessation of activities in Belgium - would have been, for SNCB, much less attractive and much more costly.
(125)
Belgium presented the following calculations to illustrate the alleged cost of the liquidation of IFB’s activities in Belgium and the alleged cost of remaining in business, subject to the capital increase.
(a) Net cost to SNCB if IFB had gone bankrupt in 2003
(126)
Belgium determined IFB’s net current value from IFB’s balance sheet of 31 December 2002. According to the Belgian authorities, the value of IFB’s fixed assets which could theoretically have been realised if IFB had filed for bankruptcy in January 2003 included tangible fixed assets and financial fixed assets (shareholdings).
(127)
For the tangible fixed assets, Belgium retained an amount of EUR 6,9 million. To justify this calculation, Belgium refers to the study ‘Bankruptcy auctions: costs, debt recovery, and firm survival’ (17), which concludes that the rate of recovery of the bundle of debts in a bankruptcy scenario is on average 33 %. When calculating the assets recovered, Belgium applied this rate to the tangible fixed assets which appeared in IFB’s balance sheet totalling EUR 20,9 million (excluding the fixed assets under construction of EUR 1,9 million, for which a zero rate of recovery was used).
(128)
For the financial fixed assets (shareholdings), Belgium assumed a value of EUR 1,9 million, which corresponds to their complete accounting value on the IFB balance sheet on 31 December 2002.
(129)
For the current assets, Belgium proposed the following value estimates:
-
IFB’s commercial debts: these concern a total of EUR 25,6 million of which EUR 18 million are considered to have been collected, which corresponds to a rate of recovery of 70 % for the short term debts. This rate is based on the average determined in the study ‘Liquidation of Ormet Corporation’ (18),
-
Other IFB debt: this involves a total of EUR 7 million of which EUR 4,5 million are considered to have been to be collected. The amount of EUR 7 million can be broken down into EUR 2,5 million of debts for the subsidiaries DPD and OCHZ, and EUR 4,5 million in VAT. A rate of recovery of 100 % is assumed for the VAT debt, and a rate of recovery of 0 % for the two subsidiaries,
-
Liquid assets and accruals and deferred payments: this involves a total of EUR 6,4 million which is considered to have been recovered in its entirety.
(130)
The application of this set of rates of recovery gives rise to a total recovery of EUR 37,5 million on the assumption of the bankruptcy/liquidation of IFB, as indicated in diagram 2.
Diagram 2
Recovery of assets
(EUR million)
(131)
Furthermore, the Belgian authorities deducted the amount of the recovery which could be expected for IFB’s liabilities. These liabilities rose to a total of EUR 76,9 million, not counting the debts of EUR 63 million in respect of SNCB for unpaid invoices from the period 2000-02. They are detailed below:
(a)
Social liability: an estimated total of EUR 2,9 million for the IFB workforce, after subtraction of SNCB personnel seconded to IFB;
(b)
Taxes, salaries and social security: a total of EUR 1,4 million due but not paid (taken from the balance sheet of 1 January 2003;
(c)
Provisions and deferred taxes: a sum of EUR 34,7 million has been retained, from a total of EUR 40,8 million recorded from liabilities on the balance sheet of 31 December 2002. This variance is explained by the following items which would not have been a liability in the event of the liquidation of IFB:
-
maintenance of terminals: EUR 3,3 million,
-
maintenance of logistics operation: EUR 0,9 million,
-
provisions for personnel restructuring: EUR 1,9 million,
(d)
IFB’s financial debt totalling EUR 15 million. The financial debt of EUR 15 million, contracted with credit institutions […], was guaranteed by IFB’s commercial receivables. For this reason, and with regard to the preservation of SNCB’s credit in the banking market, it is clear that this debt would also have been repaid to the credit institutions before the eventual repayment of SNCB’s receivables;
(e)
The commercial debt to bodies other than SNCB, totalling EUR 22,9 million.
On the basis of the above calculations, the IFB’s net asset value for SNCB, excluding debts to SNCB, would have been EUR - 39,4 million, i.e. the value of the assets recovered (EUR 37,5 million) from which the total sum of the commitments to be honoured due to liabilities (EUR 76,9 million) is subtracted, excluding debts to SNCB.
(132)
The Belgian authorities consider that, in the event of liquidation, in order to avoid significant damage to its commercial reputation, SNCB would have absorbed the cost of IFB’s negative net asset value. In this respect, they emphasise that most of IFB’s creditors are also clients, suppliers, creditors, debtors or partners of SNCB.
(133)
Moreover, the cessation of the IFB’s activities, again according to the Belgian Government, would have give rise to a major social liability for SNCB, which can be estimated at 530 FTE (full time equivalents) (19). These 530 FTE are made up as follows:
-
On the one hand, some 50 of SNCB’s personnel seconded to IFB who would have had to return SNCB in the event of bankruptcy,
-
On the other hand, around 480 FTE of SNCB whose employment depended on IFB remaining in business. This estimate is obtained from the following calculation. IFB’s share of the total turnover of SNCB’s Freight division is 8,1 %. This ratio, when applied to the total number of SNCB personnel employed directly or indirectly by the Freight division on 31.12.2002, indicates that around 609 FTE depend upon IFB being in business. Of these 609 FTE, it has been assumed that 129, or 21 %, would be able to retain a job despite IFB’s bankruptcy, as a result of SNCB’s specific initiatives to regain a share of the traffic previously generated by IFB. This ratio of 21 % corresponds to the number of Sabena jobs which could be saved by launching SN Brussels Airlines in the aftermath of Sabena’s bankruptcy.
(134)
The Belgian Government considers that, since SNCB was at the time finalising its business plan ‘MOVE 2007’, which foresaw the shedding of 10 000 jobs, almost a quarter of its personnel, between 2003 and 2007, the opportunity to reassign personnel rendered redundant as a result of the cessation of IFB’s activities was practically zero as regards both seconded personnel returning to SNCB or personnel linked to the Freight activity remaining with SNCB.
(135)
Consequently, the Belgian Government proposed to add the cost of the surplus staff thus generated for SNCB to the direct cost of the negative net value of IFB, at least during the five-year period from 2003 to 2007. With a total average salary of EUR 46 200 per FTE per annum […], the total cost of this social liability would therefore be EUR 122,4 million.
(136)
In order to justify this calculation, Belgium first of all explained that the SNCB personnel made redundant due to the cessation of IFB’s activities could not be laid off, given that these personnel have the status of ‘statutory employee’ (20).
(137)
Following the meeting of 1 June 2006, the Belgian authorities sent the Commission a less pessimistic scenario for the calculation of the net value and social liability which would have been borne by SNCB in the event of the liquidation of IFB. This scenario proposes the following two changes:
-
SNCB would not have paid the total bundle of debts, but only those of creditors which were […], suppliers […] or partners […] of SNCB; on this assumption, the sum of IFB’s liability which would have been paid by SNCB would have been EUR 13 million […],
-
The IFB buyer would have largely continued to use SNCB’s services; on this assumption 79 % of the 609 FTE employed by SNCB and assigned as indirect support for IFB would have been able to keep their job; on this assumption, the additional social cost to be borne by SNCB would have been limited to EUR 41,1 million (this last sum corresponds to the salary costs of the 50 FTE seconded by SNCB to IFB along with 21 % of the 609 FTE referred to above).
(138)
The total cost which would have been borne by SNCB in the event of the liquidation of IFB in these two scenarios, as estimated by the Belgian authorities, is represented in the following table:
Net cost - sums retained in the response
Difference in the ‘optimistic’ hypotheses
Net cost - adjusted sums
Total asset value
64,6
64,6
Non-recovered assets
-27,1
-27,1
Social costs
-2,9
-2,9
Taxes, salaries and social security
-1,4
-1,4
Provisions and deferred taxes
-34,7
-34,7
Priority loans and other financial debt
-15
-15
Non-SNCB commercial debt
-22,9
9,9
-13
Recovery value
-39,4
-29,5
Social liability to the SNCB
- 122,4
81,3
-41,1
Net cost for SNCB of filing for bankruptcy by IFB
- 161,8
-70,6
(b) Valuation of IFB in a business-as-usual scenario
(139)
Belgium proposed to calculate IFB’s value in a ‘business-as-usual’ scenario according to the ‘discounted cash flows’ or ‘DCF’ method. The parameters used for this analysis are as follows.
(140)
The 10-year DCF analysis is based on IFB’s balance sheet of 31 December 2002, and on the restructuring plan drawn up in February-March 2003, including projections to the end of 2005. For the year 2006, when the restructuring of IFB brought about the stabilisation of the business, the trading profit had been set at 3,2 % of turnover. From 2006, the working assumption is an annual growth of 3 % of turnover which, at a constant margin, leads to a pre-tax rate of profit growth of 3 %. The resulting discounted cash flows are compounded to a weighted average cost of capital (WACC) of 8 %. The value of the terminals has been calculated on the assumption of a continuing annual growth of 3 %.
(141)
These calculations lead to valuation of the business at around EUR 29,1 million (excluding shareholdings and provisions), as shown in diagram 4.
Diagram 4
Value of ifb based on discounted cash flows - Assumptions and results
(EUR million)
(142)
According to the Belgian Government, an analysis based on multiples (dependent on the results obtained in 2005) confirms the valuation obtained on the basis of the DCF method. The ‘multiples’ valuation (with more cautious multiples than the sector averages) indicates a value for the business of around EUR 28,7 million, as shown in diagram 5.
Diagram 5
Value of the ifb business
(EUR million)
(143)
The Belgian Government considers that the actual results obtained by IFB in the years 2003, 2004 and 2005 also confirm that the DCF valuation, and the assumptions upon which it is based, were realistic.
(144)
The Belgian Government considers that IFB’s shareholdings, namely the EUR 1,9 million entered as assets in IFB’s balance sheet of 31 December 2002, should be added to IFB’s value as calculated excluding provisions and shareholdings.
(145)
IFB’s total value, including the shareholdings, was therefore EUR 31 million on 31 December 2002.
(146)
Still according to the Belgian Government, the value of provisions, estimated at EUR 34,2 million (21), along with the financial debt amounting to EUR 15 million, should be deducted from this value of the business.
(147)
This results in a net value of EUR - 18,2 million for the SNCB shareholding in IFB in the business-as-usual scenario. This calculation is illustrated in diagram 6.
(148)
As in the preceding estimate of the cost borne by SNCB in the event of the liquidation of IFB, the above calculations do not take account of the debts of EUR 63 million resulting from the unpaid invoices during the period between 2000 and 2002.
Diagram 6
Evaluation of the investment option, January 2003
(EUR million)
(c) Comparison of the two scenarios and conclusion
(149)
Based on the Belgian Government’s analysis, the two scenarios would give the following results:
-
The net cost to SNCB of the bankruptcy and liquidation of IFB would be a net loss of EUR 161,8 million (reduced to EUR 70,6 million in the revised estimate),
-
The decision to invest EUR 15 million to allow IFB to remain in business would lead to a considerable reduction in the loss of value for SNCB, which would therefore be no more than EUR 18,2 million, a gain of EUR 143,6 million compared with the scenario of bankruptcy and liquidation (EUR 52,4 million compared with the revised estimate).
(150)
Consequently, the Belgian Government considers that SNCB, in agreeing the measures in question, had behaved as a private investor in a market economy would have done.
3.2.4. Absence of distortion of competition
(151)
Finally, Belgium considers, as regards the part of the measures serving to finance the divestment of the French subsidiaries, that an amount of aid which is strictly limited to the actual costs incurred following the cessation of business cannot be considered to distort competition. That part of the financing would therefore not be covered by the scope of Article 87(1) for this reason.
3.3. Compatibility of the rescue measures with the guidelines
3.3.1. IFB is not a newly created business
(152)
Belgium considers that since IFB was founded in 1923 and has, by means of a merger by takeover, acquired a company, along with a branch of activity in 1998 (see description in part 2 of this decision), there can be no doubt that IFB has had legal personality for more than 80 years and cannot therefore be considered a ‘newly created business’.
3.3.2. The rescue measures are compatible with the 1999 guidelines
(153)
According to the Belgian Government, the fact that the duration of the rescue measures is more than 12 months would not have the effect of ruling out the possibility of their being compatible with the common market on the basis of the 1999 guidelines. Belgium considers that SNCB maintained the rescue measures with the sole aim of covering the period necessary for the Commission to take the final decision in this case.
(154)
Since point 24 of the 1999 guidelines provides that authorisation of the rescue measures remains valid until the Commission rules on the restructuring plan, the Belgian authorities request the Commission not to invoke the duration of its own approval procedure for the rescue measures in order to contest the duration of the continuation of these measures, and to approve the rescue measures, on the basis of point 24 of the 1999 guidelines.
(155)
The Belgian authorities consider that the suspension of the capital increase pending examination by the Commission necessarily means the continuation, as a provisional and precautionary measure, of the payment period which IFB is allowed within the framework of the rescue measures, as the sole alternative would have been voluntary liquidation. Finally, according to the Belgian authorities, during the course of its examination, the Commission had never have expressed any reservation regarding the provisional continuation of the rescue measures.
3.3.3. The restructuring measures are compatible with the 1999 guidelines
3.3.3.1. Applicability of the 1999 guidelines
(156)
Belgium considers that SNCB’s commitment to underwrite the increase in capital of IFB should be analysed within the context of the 1999 guidelines and not those of 2004.
(157)
In order to justify this point of view, Belgium maintains that the two conditions established by the Commission in point 240 of the decision initiating the procedure for the applicability of the 1999 guidelines are met. As a reminder, in point 240 of the decision initiating the procedure, the Commission concluded, as regards the interpretation of points 102 to 104 of the 2004 guidelines for this case, that ‘if SNCB decides not to award the new asset to IFB, and if the evidence is forthcoming that SNCB was engaged in converting its receivables into capital before the publication of the 2004 guidelines, the Commission would have to examine in its final decision the aid granted to IFB by the SNCB on the basis of the 1999 guidelines’.
(158)
As regards the first condition, Belgium observes that, in its reply to the letter initiating the procedure, it had retracted the increase in capital notified on 28 January 2005, and that consequently, the first condition was fulfilled.
(159)
As regards the second condition, Belgium considers that there can be no doubt that the increase in capital of IFB currently proposed would be put into effect as agreed by the parties, under the condition precedent of the Commission’s agreement, in the framework agreement of 7 April 2003.
(160)
In order to underline this point, the Belgian authorities draw the Commission’s attention to:
-
Point 4 of the preamble to the framework agreement of 7 April 2003, which confirms that the Management Board of SNCB has already approved the underwriting of an increase in capital of IFB,
-
Article 4 of the same contract, which confirms the reciprocal intention of both parties to proceed with an increase in capital of IFB.
(161)
As regards the second point, the Belgian authorities draw attention to the fact that, under Belgian law (the law applicable to the framework agreement), a contract arises from the sole consensus of the contracting parties, and that in this case, Article 4 of the framework agreement expressly confirms without any ambiguity the consensus of SNCB and IFB to proceed with an increase in capital of IFB by converting SNCB’s receivables from IFB into capital retroactively to 7 April 2003.
(162)
The Belgian authorities point out that, under Belgian law, obligations which are subject to a condition precedent remain fully binding, and the implementation of the condition precedent has a retroactive effect on the contract which takes effect from the date of signature.
3.3.3.2. Measures to limit the adverse effects on competition as much as possible
(163)
The Belgian authorities emphasise that the IFB’s market shares are well below 10 % of the markets involved in this case. Consequently, they consider that the anti-competitive effects resulting from the State aid involved cannot be considered to be significant. They point out notably that, by virtue of point 36 of the 1999 guidelines, ‘if the firm’s [beneficiary of the aid’s] share of the relevant market is negligible, it should be considered that there is no undue distortion of competition’ (22), and that, for the application of Article 81(1) EC, the Commission considers the anti-competitive effects of agreements concluded by businesses having market shares smaller than 10 % to be insignificant (23).
(164)
As regards the activities of IFB Logistics and IFB Terminal more particularly, the Belgian authorities make the following comments.
(165)
The mitigating measures on the freight transhipment market. The Belgian Government observes that IFB’s share of the terminals market in the Antwerp region is less than 7 %, and that during the period 2002-2005 the terminals market in this region experienced a rate of growth of 10,7 % per annum on average, whereas the volumes transported by IFB increased by only 4,1 % per annum on average.
(166)
The Belgian Government added that, by implementing the restructuring plan, IFB had considerably reduced its transhipment capacity, as described in part 2 of the initiating letter (points 25 to 29). With regard to the circumstance that, with the exception of the DPD terminal, all of the assets sold are still in operation today, the Belgian authorities consider that the takeovers are to be considered as real and substantial compensatory measures. According to the Belgian Government, the set of takeovers would represent a reduction in IFB’s capacity from 1,5 million TEU in 2002 to 1,1 million TEU at the end of 2005, i.e. a reduction of 27 %.
(167)
The Belgian authorities added that the implementation of the restructuring plan by IFB has not been accompanied by pricing measures which had the aim or effect of increasing IFB’s market share. They observe that IFB increased its prices by an average of 4,2 % (24), whereas the industrial annual rate of inflation was 1,9 %.
(168)
The mitigating measures on the logistics market. The initiating letter considers (paragraphs 258-260) that the measures ‘proposed’ did not concern the logistics market, and that IFB had been able to increase its volume in this market. The Belgian authorities put forward five arguments to show that sufficient mitigating measures have been taken in the logistics market.
(169)
First, IFB had taken measures which have led to a reduction in its capacity in the logistics market. The total number of wagons of which IFB is the owner or which are subject to a long-term lease fell from 744 units in 2002 (25) to 377 units at the beginning of 2006 (26). This is a reduction of 49 %.
(170)
The reduction in IFB’s logistics capacity also resulted from the fact that IFB’s shareholding in the company CNC (now Naviland Cargo) weakened, from 10 % in 2002 to 2 % currently.
(171)
Second, the Belgian authorities consider that IFB’s share of the logistics market is well below 5 %, if the geographical extent of this market is limited to Belgian territory. It is appropriate then, by virtue of point 36 of the guidelines, to ask whether the anti-competitive effects resulting from State aid in this case can be considered to be perceptible. According to the Belgian authorities, IFB cannot be considered to be capable of exercising a perceptible influence on the competitive element of the logistics market. For the same reason, it was difficult, according to the Belgian Government, to consider the distortions of competition resulting from the aid from which IFB benefited as perceptible, and so only very limited measures appear necessary in order to limit unfavourable consequences for IFB’s competitors.
(172)
Third, the Belgian authorities propose to put into perspective the development of IFB’s logistics activity in order to respond radically to the Commission's assertion that IFB had been ‘able to increase its volume in this market in a significant way’ during the period in question. According to the Belgian authorities, the following facts had to be taken into account:
-
For the combined (intermodal) transport sector, the volumes transported by IFB experienced annual growth in the order of 9,9 % during the period 2002-05, which is less than the average annual growth of 12 % observed in the ARA region for the same period,
-
In the conventional transport sector, IFB is a totally marginal player, even assuming that the market is restricted to Belgium. IFB’s share, both in volume and value, is less than 1 %.
(173)
In addition, the origin of IFB’s turnover in growth in its logistics activity, according to the Belgian Government, is to be found to some extent in the growth of the ‘bulk’ sub-sector (bulk transport). In 2003, IFB’s turnover on bulk was only EUR 3,3 million. In 2004, IFB obtained two bulk transport contracts of significant volume. Firstly, a contract for the transport of coal […] which generated a turnover […] in 2004 and […] in 2005. Secondly, a contract for the bulk transport of aggregates which yielded an increase in turnover […] in 2004 and […] in 2005. IFB achieved a profit margin on these two contracts, which adequately confirms the absence of anti-competitive practices on the part of IFB.
(174)
Fourth, the Belgian Government considers that IFB’s opening-up of its terminals to competitors in the logistics market is also to be considered as an important mitigating measure.
(175)
Fifth, the Belgian Government considers that the limited distortions of competition which could be considered to result from the restructuring aid to IFB are further reduced by the following factors:
-
The liberalisation of rail freight transport in Belgium. The Belgian authorities, in compliance with the applicable European rules, opened this market to competition (from March 2003 for international transport, followed by total liberalisation on 1 January 2007) (27). This opening-up did not fail to have an effect, as shown by the activities of the companies DLC and, more recently, Fret SNCF. In its decision N 386/04, Fret SNCF, the Commission considered such liberalisation to be a compensatory measure for competitors,
-
Several other competitors of SNCB/IFB (among which are Rail4Chem, Railion Nederland, TrainSport, DFG, EWS, Connex and ACTS) have already received or in all probability will receive their operating licences shortly,
-
The SNCB (B-Cargo) already currently provides traction services to IFB’s competitors, whether suppliers of combined (intermodal) transport such as companies as HUPAC, CNC (Naviland Cargo), Conliner, Danzas/DHL Express Cargo and ICF, or suppliers of ‘forwarding’ services such as Transfesa, K+N, Nauta, NTR, Panalpina, Rail&Sea, Railog, Chemfreight, Rhenania, TMF, Gondrand, RME Chem, RME fret and East Rail Expedition,
-
As the Commission noted in its decision in case N 386/04, Fret SNCF, the conditions between rail and road are not identical, to the detriment of rail.
(176)
According to the Belgian Government, the liberalisation measures have led to substantial capacity increases in the logistics market, as shown by the activities of IFB’s competitors during the period 2003-2005. According to the Belgian Government, competition concentrated on the intermodal sector, where five of IFB’s competitors launched a total of 12 new links in this period.
3.3.3.3. Limitation of the increase in capital to the minimum
(177)
According to the Belgian Government, SNCB and IFB carried out an in-depth analysis of IFB’s capital requirements on the basis of the results as at 31 December 2005 and the forecasts for the year 2006. The aim was to allow IFB to pursue its activities in the freight transhipment and logistics markets with a level of solvency comparable to its competitors in these markets.
(178)
In relation to the information communicated before the decision initiating the procedure (see points 265 to 269), SNCB and IFB have compiled additional information about the average level of solvency of, on the one hand, IFB’s competitors operating terminals and, on the other hand, of transport companies in competition with IFB. The levels of solvency (which must be understood as the relationship between capital base and total balance sheet) of the companies in question are set out in Diagram 16.
Diagram 16
Level of solvency - sample of comparable companies, 2004 (*)
(179)
Diagram 16 shows that the median level of solvency of the terminal operators is 56,6 %, whereas the median level of solvency of the transport companies is 20,4 %. Since IFB is active in both sectors, IFB’s level of solvency, as a function of the ‘benchmarks’ referred to, should be less than 35,6 %. This last percentage has been calculated by weighting IFB’s operational fixed assets in the following way:
-
42 % of IFB’s operational fixed assets (measured by their net accounting value, that is to say after amortisations and depreciation) are allocated to the terminals activities,
-
58 % of IFB’s operational fixed assets are allocated to the transport (logistics) activity.
(180)
The Belgian authorities made the observation that IFB’s target level of solvency is also in line with the actual level of solvency of companies such as Gosselin (38,9 %) and Hupac (34,9 %), which, like IFB, combine the operation of terminals with logistics activities.
(181)
Based on IFB’s target level of solvency IFB of 35,6 % and a total debt of EUR 128,1 million (estimate as at 30 June 2006), the increase in capital of IFB, according to the Belgian authorities’ calculations, should therefore imply a conversion of debt into capital of at least EUR 95,3 million.
3.3.3.4. IFB’s own contribution
(182)
According to the Belgian authorities, SNCB’s total contribution to the restructuring of IFB is EUR 95,3 million, i.e. the forecast amount of additional capital. The sums committed to the French part of the group should be subtracted from this amount, i.e. EUR 39,1 million. The balance, i.e. EUR 56,2 million, therefore represents SNCB’s contribution to the restructuring of the group’s non-French activities.
(183)
Later, the Belgian authorities specify that the borrowing requirements for IFB’s non-French activities for the restructuring period (from 1 January 2003 to 30 June 2006), were EUR 106,3 million. Of these requirements, EUR 56,2 million will be covered by SNCB and EUR 50,1 million by means of IFB’s own resources. IFB’s contribution to the total cost of restructuring its activities in Belgium will be 47,1 %.
(184)
The following table shows the financing details:
Finance requirements and sources
(Assuming the conversion of receivables of EUR 63 million constitutes a ‘cost’ of restructuring.)
(EUR 1000)
Restructured division
French divestitures
Total
Period: 1.1.2003-30.6.2006
A.
FINANCE REQUIREMENTS
A.1.
Restructuring costs
A.1.1.
Gross operating loss (‘cash drain’) excluding the effect of productivity gains
-27 916
-27 916
(equivalent to the gross operating loss in 2002; pro rata for 6 months in 2006
A.1.2.
Exceptional charges
-32
-32
A.2.
Capital requirements during restructuring
A.2.1.
Variation in working capital (additional)
-7 865
-8 000
-16 685
A.2.2.
Investments in renewal in non-financial fixed assets
-6 611
-6 611
A.2.3.
Investments in financial fixed assets (shareholdings)
- 782
-1 700
-2 482
A.3.
Repayment of debts and interest
A.3.1.
In favour of creditors (financiers) other than the SNCB
A.3.1.1.
Interest payments
-2 351
-2 351
A.3.1.2.
Repayment of financial debts
-16 559
-16 559
A.3.2.
In favour of the SNCB
A.3.2.1.
Repayment of debt prior to 2003
-33 200
-29 800
-66 000
A.3.2.2.
Payment of interest accumulated from 31.6.2005 on debt prior to 2003
-6 800
-5 200
-11 000
A.3.2.3.
Payment of interest accumulated from 31.6.2005 on credit facility
-2 200
- 300
-2 500
A.3.2.4.
Payment of interest from second half of 2005 and first half of 2006
-3 100
-2 100
-6 200
A.4.
Taxes (accrual from 1999 tax year)
-77
-77
Total of requirements A.1 + A.2+ A.3 + A.4
- 106 313
-47 100
- 153 413
B
FINANCE SOURCES
B.1.
Financed by the SNCB
B.1.1.
Credit facility (to be subsequently converted into capital)
13 300
1 700
15 000
B.1.2.
Additional capital (over and above the conversion of the credit facility
42 920
37 380
90 300
Total SNCB contribution (subtotal B.1)
56 220
39 080
95 300
B.2.
Financed by IFB’ s own resources
B.2.1.
Productivity gains:
B.2.1.1.
Partial or total disappearance of gross operating loss in column A.1.1
26 167
26 167
B.2.1.2.
Gross operating surplus in 2004, 2005 and 2006
10 429
10 429
B.2.2.
Financial receipts
1 368
1 368
B.2.3.
Variation in requirement and working capital (reduction)
2 687
2 687
B.2.4.
Sale of non-financial fixed assets (essentially the OCHZ terminal in 2004)
4 771
4 771
B.2.5.
Sale of financial fixed assets (shareholdings)
1 267
8 020
9 287
B.2.6.
Financial debts entered into with credit institutions
3 300
3 300
B.2.7.
Exceptional receipts
1 105
1 105
Total IFB contribution (subtotal B.2)
50 093
8 020
58 113
Total of sources (B.1 + B.2)
106 313
47 100
153 413
Financed by the SNCB as a % of the total
52,9 %
Financed by IFB as a % of the total
47,1 %
OWN CONTRIBUTION
PRIVATE INVESTOR
(185)
Belgium provides the following details on this table.
(186)
The financing requirements cover the following categories:
-
Direct costs of restructuring (section A.1): these costs comprise principally the cumulative gross operating loss (‘cash drain’), without taking account of the productivity gains. If the productivity gains which IFB achieved during the implementation of its restructuring plan are not taken into account, the gross operating loss in 2003, 2004 and 2005 would be the same as in 2002, that is to say an annual sum of EUR 8 million to be financed, as shown in the table below. The financing requirement for 2006 has been limited to half of this sum, on the assumption of an increase in capital on 30 June 2006. Totalled over the entire period of restructuring, the gross operating loss which IFB would have incurred in the absence of productivity gains is EUR 27,9 million,
(EUR million)
2002
2003
2004
2005
Forecast
2006
Budget
(up to 30.6)
Period 2003 to 30.6.2006
cumulative
Operating profit
(47 357)
(2 960)
5 740
3 007
1 213
+ Amortisations and reductions in value of fixed assets
6 286
5 139
2 585
1 605
802
+ Reductions in value of current assets
6 433
(258)
(1 851)
(554)
0
+ Provisions
26 662
(4 670)
(1 599)
(980)
460
Gross operating profit
(7 976)
(2 749)
4 875
3 079
2 475
7 680
Gross operating loss (‘cash drain’) excluding the effect of gains in productivity
(7 976)
(7 976)
(7 976)
(3 988)
(27 916)
-
Capital requirements during restructuring (variations in working capital requirements and investments during restructuring, section A.2): these costs consist of necessary investments during the restructuring period. An increase in working capital was necessary in order to finance the works in progress, to absorb the difference between receivables and commercial debts and to maintain sufficient liquidity. Investments in renewals of tangible fixed assets were necessary for the continuation of IFB’s activities during the implementation of the restructuring plan. They were not aimed at expanding IFB’s capacity but were rather investments in renewal of assets which had come to the end of their life cycle and were entirely amortised, together with various investments such as vehicles, computers, minor building renovations etc. The investment of EUR 0,6 million in financial fixed assets in 2004 was linked to the restructuring of the subsidiary IFB Maritime Germany: IFB Maritime Germany was taken over by Haeger & Schmidt International and the shareholding in RKE owned by Haeger & Schmidt International was transferred to IFB,
-
Repayment of debts and interest (section A.3): apart from interest and repayment of financial debts to credit institutions, this category accounts for interest and repayment of debts to SNCB. The debt of EUR 33,2 million is the portion of the debt of EUR 63 million which does not relate to the French subsidiaries. The interest of EUR 1,4 million payables in 2006 is the interest which does not form part of the increase in capital (in order to minimise the increase in capital). The other interest (for a total of EUR 9,7 million) forms part of the increase in capital. All this interest is interest on the debts linked to IFB’s non-French activities,
-
Taxes (section A.4): the taxes paid in 2004 are an accrual from the 1999 tax year.
(187)
According to Belgium, these finance requirements were partly covered by IFB and partly by SNCB. As regards IFB’s contribution (section B.2), Belgium provided the following additional information:
-
During the restructuring period, IFB achieved important gains in productivity (see section B.2.1). These achievements improved the gross operating profit, as a result of which the loss in 2002 disappeared partially in 2003 and entirely in 2004, 2005 and 2006. Furthermore, a surplus was made in 2004 and 2005, which should also be the case in 2006. These achievements confirm the forecasts made on the basis of the data possessed by the company IFB during the development of the restructuring plan (see points 74 and 75 of this decision),
-
Various financial revenues (section B.2.2): these account for EUR 1,4 million. These financial revenues arise from interest which IFB was able to accumulate on its bank accounts. These revenues were foreseeable at the time of the restructuring plan, as they correspond to the ‘Euribor’ interest for the sums which IFB could reasonably expect to see in its accounts in view of the forecasts in its restructuring plan,
-
Extraordinary revenues (section B.2.8): these account for EUR 1,1 million. These extraordinary revenues arise from capital appreciation which IFB was able to achieve from the sale of 263 EAOS wagons […]. In 2003, during the preparation of the restructuring plan, this capital appreciation was foreseeable, as the market for EAOS wagons was experiencing important growth due to the increased demand for this type of wagon in Eastern Europe,
-
In 2004 and 2005, IFB freed up around EUR 2,7 million by lowering its working capital requirement (section B.2.3),
-
IFB financed the restructuring costs partly by the sale of assets (sections B.2.4 and B.2.5). Besides the sale of various assets of relatively limited importance, this part of the contribution principally consisted of divestiture in 2004 of assets utilised at the OCHZ terminal. The co-ownership rights (50 %) of these assets utilised by OCHZ were ceded […] (see line B.2.4 in 2004) and IFB recovered an additional sum of EUR 0,9 million in working capital from OCHZ (see line B.2.5 for 2004),
-
in 2003, IFB obtained a bank loan for a sum of EUR 2 million from ING Bank (see line B.2.6). In 2006, IFB financed the purchase of ‘reach stackers’ by means of an external loan of EUR 1,3 million,
(188)
Belgium considers that it has contributed to the restructuring plan from its own resources, as required by the 1999 guidelines.
4. ASSESSMENT
4.1. Evaluation of the aid character of the rescue and restructuring measures
(189)
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’.
4.1.1. Aid granted by the State or through State resources
(190)
The first question to be considered is whether SNCB’s financial support for IFB was ‘granted by a State or through State resources’. According to the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities in Stardust Marine (28), this criterion is fulfilled if, on the one hand, it concerns State resources, and if, on the other hand, their granting is attributable to the State, that is to say Belgium.
4.1.1.1. State resources
(191)
The Commission notes that SNCB is a public undertaking within the meaning of Article 2 of Directive 80/723/EEC: the Belgian State owns 100 % of the share capital of SNCB, and the Management Board, along with the Chief Executive, are appointed by the King, by decree debated in the Council of Ministers. Thus, the criteria in Article 2(2)(a) and (c) of that Directive are fulfilled.
(192)
In this context, ‘… it should be recalled that it has already been established in the case-law of the Court that Article 87(1) EC covers all the financial means by which the public authorities may actually support undertakings, irrespective of whether or not those means are permanent assets of the public sector. Therefore, even if the sums corresponding to the measure in question are not permanently held by the Treasury, the fact that they constantly remain under public control, and therefore available to the competent national authorities, is sufficient for them to be categorised as State resources’ (29).
(193)
Consequently, the Commission estimated in its letter initiating the procedure (points 136 to 138) that the sums put at IFB’s disposal must be categorised as State resources.
(194)
Belgium contests the fact that all the resources at SNCB’s disposal constitute State resources. The Commission responds to the three arguments by Belgium as follows:
(195)
The proposed distinction between SNCB’s resources allocated to public service assignments and the resources allocated to commercial activities is not relevant in the light of the Stardust Marine ruling. In effect, this ruling concerns the resources of a public bank, which demonstrates well that the resources of a public undertaking allocated to commercial activities can constitute State resources.
(196)
The argument that SNCB’s capital is not at the disposal of Belgium, but allocated to the social aims of SNCB cannot be accepted either. The fact that Belgium owns 100 % of SNCB’s capital, that this remains under continuous public control and that the State could at any moment decide to privatise SNCB, demonstrates that the capital of this company is at the disposal of the Belgian State. Furthermore, the Commission notes that the Belgian State appoints the administrators of the Management Board, together with the Chief Executive, which bestows upon it a certain control over the business.
(197)
The argument that the measures granted to IFB by SNCB do not lead to any loss of the Belgian State’s capital is factually incorrect: as Belgium is the owner of SNCB, any bad investment which diminishes the SNCB’s value also diminishes the Belgian State’s capital.
(198)
The Commission therefore concludes that the measures examined were financed by State resources.
4.1.1.2. Imputability
(199)
As regards the imputability of the State measures concerned, the Stardust Marine ruling states that ‘… the mere fact that a public undertaking is under State control is not sufficient for measures taken by that undertaking, such as the financial support measures in question here, to be imputed to the State. It is also necessary to examine whether the public authorities must be regarded as having been involved, in one way or another, in the adoption of those measures. …’ (30).
(200)
It is therefore clear from the case-law of the Court of Justice that the criterion of imputability to the State must be examined by the Commission on a case-by-case basis. The Court of Justice admits that as a general rule, ‘… it will be very difficult for a third party, precisely because of the privileged relations existing between the State and a public undertaking, to demonstrate in a particular case that aid measures taken by such an undertaking were in fact adopted on the instructions of the public authorities.’ According to the same case-law, ‘… it must be accepted that the imputability to the State of an aid measure taken by a public undertaking may be inferred from a set of indicators arising from the circumstances of the case and the context in which that measure was taken’ (31).
(201)
The Court of Justice then clarifies which criteria may be utilised to demonstrate imputability:
‘The imputability to the State of an aid measure taken by a public undertaking may be inferred from a set of indicators arising from the circumstances of the case and the context in which that measure was taken. In that respect, the Court has already taken into consideration the fact that the body in question could not take the contested decision without taking account of the requirements of the public authorities (see, in particular, Van der Kooy, paragraph 37) or the fact that, apart from factors of an organic nature which linked the public undertakings to the State, those undertakings, through the intermediary of which aid had been granted, had to take account of directives issued by a Comitato Interministeriale per la Programmazione Economica (CIPE) (Case C-303/88 Italy v Commission, cited above, paragraphs 11 and 12; Case C-305/89 Italy v Commission, cited above, paragraphs 13 and 14).
Other indicators might, in certain circumstances, be relevant in concluding that an aid measure taken by a public undertaking is imputable to the State, such as, in particular, its integration into the structures of the public administration, the nature of its activities and the exercise of the latter on the market in normal conditions of competition with private operators, the legal status of the undertaking (in the sense of its being subject to public law or ordinary company law), the intensity of the supervision exercised by the public authorities over the management of the undertaking, or any other indicator showing, in the particular case, an involvement by the public authorities in the adoption of a measure or the unlikelihood of their not being involved, having regard also to the compass of the measure, its content or the conditions which it contains’ (32).
(202)
In the letter initiating the procedure (points 140 to 150), as regards the imputability of the measure the Commission distinguished between the period prior to the conclusion of the framework agreement on 7 April 2003 and the period subsequent to this contract. In view of Belgium’s observations, it would appear more appropriate to distinguish between three different periods:
-
the period prior to 19 July 2002 (date of the decision by SNCB’s Management Board to approve the granting of a cash advance and to accept that an increase in capital for IFB was ‘probable’),
-
the period between 19 July 2002 and 20 December 2002 (date of the decision by SNCB’s Management Board to approve the principle of an increase in IFB’s capital and authorising the executive committee to negotiate the framework contract of 7 April 2003),
-
the period subsequent to 20 December 2002.
(203)
As regards the period prior to this decision of the Management Board, the question is whether the tolerance demonstrated by SNCB’s management (Management Board) in not requiring payment from IFB for transport services from 2000 onward, is attributable to the Belgian State. In its letter initiating the procedure (points 141 to 142), the Commission expressed doubts as to whether the decision to accept the systematic non-payment of invoices during the period from the end of 2000 to the beginning of 2003 had been taken without the intervention of the Belgian authorities.
(204)
According to the Belgian Government’s response, SNCB’s Management Board was not informed of this practice until 19 July 2002; the Government Commissioner was informed at the same time. The Commission has not received any observations from third parties.
(205)
In records of the proceedings in the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate of 6 March 2002, 24 January 2002 and 28 February 2002, the Commission found comments about IFB, within the context of the members’ and senators’ wider debate on the opening up of the rail market and the ABX case. Consequently, it asked the Belgian Government to send it the studies by Boston Consulting Group and Team Consult which were referred to during these discussions, along with the Belgian Government’s decision of 22 February 2002, which was also discussed.
(206)
Analysis of these documents has not revealed any indication of influence by the Belgian Government on SNCB’s decisions concerning the future of IFB.
(207)
Therefore, the question is whether the tolerance of the management of a public undertaking, as described in point 203 of this decision, may be imputed to the Belgian State, when there is no evidence of any specific intervention on the part of the administration as the situation emerged.
(208)
According to the 1993 Act establishing SNCB as a joint stock company under public law, SNCB’s management, that is to say the Chief Executive and the members of the executive committee, manage the business autonomously, without the intervention of the public authorities. Therefore, in the absence of concrete evidence of State intervention in the management of the IFB case, the Commission must conclude that the decision by SNCB’s management to tolerate the non-payment of IFB’s invoices during the period from the end of 2000 to July 2002 is not imputable to the Belgian State.
(209)
Since 19 July 2002, SNCB’s Management Board, among whom the Government Commissioner who represents Belgium’s interests on SNCB’s Management Board, has known that IFB had not been paying its invoices since the end of 2000, and approved the granting of an advance of EUR 2,5 million to IFB during the second half of 2002.
(210)
In this respect, the Commission must verify if the criteria established by the Stardust Marine case-law allows this decision by SNCB’s Management Board to be imputed to Belgium. In other words, it is a question of verifying in this particular case if the presence of the Government Commissioner on the Management Board, despite his lack of any concrete intervention in the measure in question, allows the decision to be imputed to the Belgian State in any case. According to the facts at the Commission’s disposal neither the examination of the dossier, nor the third party observations resulted in evidence suggesting that the Belgian Government sought to influence the decision by the Management Board of 19 July 2002. The SNCB, being an autonomous public undertaking, which has the status of a public limited company in law, enjoys management independence in relation to Belgium. As regards the presence of the Government Commissioner on SNCB’s Management Board, the Commission notes that the commissioner’s role was limited (see also the Audit Office report on this subject (33):): The Government Commissioner could only intervene with regard to the decision of 19 July 2002 if it was likely to prejudice the implementation of SNCB’s public service duties. In view of the amount of the aid (EUR 2,5 million) and the nature of the aid (cash advance, with interest), it has to be concluded that the decision was not such as to prejudice the implementation of SNCB’s public service duties.
(211)
The Commission concludes that, in view of these factors, the granting of an advance of EUR 2,5 million to IFB by SNCB to maintain commercial activity without any link to public service is not imputable to the Belgian State.
(212)
The Commission concludes that this case does not contain any evidence in terms of the involvement of the public administration, the nature of the activities concerned or their status which would allow the Management Board’s decision of 19 July 2002 to grant an advance of EUR 2,5 million to IFB to be imputed to the Belgian State.
(213)
On 20 December 2002, the Management Board decided to finalise a framework agreement with IFB, which had to include rescue measures as well as restructuring measures and increase IFB’s capital.
(214)
Analysis of the case by the Commission in its letter initiating the procedure (points 143 to 150) revealed three specific indications of the imputability to the Belgian State of these rescue and restructuring measures in support of IFB. These indications were:
-
The submission of the restructuring plan to the Belgian State for approval,
-
The press articles demonstrating strong influence of the Belgian Government on SNCB during the year 2003,
-
The scope, contents and conditions of the framework agreement of 7 April 2003.
(215)
In their reply to the letter initiating the procedure, the Belgian authorities contested that these three indications were sufficient to establish the imputability of the measures to the State within the meaning of the Stardust Marine case-law. Below the Commission repeats the contents of the indications, and explains why the Belgian Government’s arguments could not be accepted.
(a) Approval by public authorities (point 56 of the Stardust Marine ruling)
(216)
In its rulings on Van der Kooy (34), Italy/Commission (35) and Commission/France (36), the Court of Justice decided as to the imputability of aid from the fact that the granting of aid had been submitted for the approval of the public authorities. In the Van der Kooy ruling, this factor alone sufficed to establish imputability; in the Italy/Commission and Commission/France, approval was combined with other elements which showed the influence of central government (37). The Space Park Development GmbH decision, which was the first decision by the Commission applying the Stardust Marine ruling, equally inferred the imputability of aid from the fact that the loan in question must been approved by the Bremen authorities (38). Consequently, the submission of a measure to the Member State for approval constitutes an indication of imputability.
(217)
In the case in question, Article 2 of the framework agreement obliges the Boards of Directors of SNCB and the IFB to submit their restructuring plan to the Belgian State for approval (39). This therefore constitutes initial evidence of imputability to the Belgian State of SNCB’s decision to restructure IFB.
(218)
The Belgian Government emphasises that, in contrast to the provisions of the framework agreement, SNCB and IFB did not finally submit the restructuring plan for the approval of the Belgian Government, as that would have violated SNCB’s commercial independence.
(219)
As already explained in the letter initiating the procedure (points 146 and 147), this de facto situation does not render this indication of imputability inoperative: the two parties to the contract, SNCB and IFB, would likely not have included such a clause in the contract, if there was no influence by the Belgian Government to that effect.
(220)
The fact that the Belgian Government claims that it was not formally consulted about the restructuring does not suffice to exclude any informal influence of the Belgian Government during the preparation of the framework agreement of 7 April 2003, nor to exclude approval. As the Court of Justice stated in its Stardust Marine ruling, ‘… it will, as a general rule, be very difficult for a third party, precisely because of the privileged relations existing between the State and a public undertaking, to demonstrate in a particular case that aid measures taken by such an undertaking were in fact adopted on the instructions of the public authorities’. Therefore, the simple fact that the contract concluded between the parties provides for approval by the Belgian State, is a strong indication of the implication of the Belgian Government.
(221)
In its reply to the letter initiating the procedure, the Belgian Government explains that the clause contained in Article 2 of the framework agreement does not concern the restructuring plan itself, but the communication by means of which Belgium was going to notify the Commission of the framework agreement.
(222)
The Commission considers that this argument is unconvincing: if the parties to the framework agreement had had mere notification by Belgium to the Commission in mind, they would have expressly written so in Article 2 of the agreement. The interpretation proposed by the Belgian Government is contrary to the letter of the agreement.
(223)
Consequently, the Commission concludes that Article 2 of the agreement implies the approval of measures by the Belgian authorities and constitutes an indication of imputability of the measures in question to the Belgian State.
(b) Press articles
(224)
The additional evidence of intervention by the Belgian Government in this case is also to be found in press articles (40). Thus, an article which appeared in La Libre Belgique of 19 May 2003 (41) quotes SNCB’s press department, which explains that Belgium had still not notified the Commission of the rescue measures on 19 May 2003, whereas the framework agreement had been signed on 7 April 2003, by the fact that ‘the federal authority is [was] to have its say’. In an article which appeared in March 2003 on the website www.cheminots.be, Karel Vinck, at the time the Chief Executive of SNCB, was quoted on the subject of the ABX and IFB cases as follows: ‘He demands sufficient financial headroom for the management of the company.’ That allows the interpretation that SNCB’s management considered that the State was intervening too much in these cases.
(225)
Belgium refutes this implication. As regards the article in La Libre Belgique, it emphasises, as in Article 2 of the framework agreement, that the federal authority only had something to say about the Belgian Government’s communication to the Commission, by means of which the framework agreement was notified. The text of the press article and SNCB’s press release is clear. If SNCB’s press department had wanted to say that the Belgian Government only had to approve a text for communication to the Commission, it would have indicated that the problem to be resolved was purely a problem of form, and not one of substance.
(226)
As regards the points made by Karel Vinck, the Belgian authorities consider that these were limited to the management of the public service assignments. This does not appear very credible, as he was interviewed on the subject of the ABX and IFB files, which, as the Belgian Government itself recognised, concern SNCB’s commercial activities, and not the public service assignments.
(c) Scope, contents, conditions of the framework agreement
(227)
In a more general manner, the Commission recalls the aforementioned point 56 of the Stardust Marine ruling which states that ‘any other indicator showing, in the particular case, an involvement by the public authorities in the adoption of a measure or the unlikelihood of their not being involved, having regard also to the compass of the measure, its content or the conditions which it contains’ must be taken into account to establish the imputability of a measure to the Member State, with the result that the scope, the content, and the conditions of the framework agreement constitute additional indications of imputability.
(228)
Belgium refutes this third suggestion, repeating that SNCB would be completely autonomous in taking all these decisions, with the exception of the management of the public services.
(229)
The Commission considers that the 1993 Act which regulates SNCB’s status as a joint stock company under public law certainly gives SNCB independence for its commercial activities. However, the Commission recalls that the Government Commissioner is present at every meeting of the Executive Committee, and can refer a matter to the Belgian authorities in order to revoke a decision made by the Management Board relating to a matter which is not concerned with the fulfilment of public service assignments if that decision is prejudicial to […] the implementation of public service duties.
(230)
As already explained, the Commission considers that the decision to grant a cash advance of EUR 2,5 million could not be subject to appeal by the Government Commissioner as, due to its amount and its nature, it could not be prejudicial to the implementation of public service duties.
(231)
The assessment must be different for the decision to invest nearly EUR 100 million in a company on the verge of bankruptcy. That decision should lead the Government Commissioner to intervene, or at least to inform the Belgian authorities so that they could intervene formally or informally, as he did for example in 2000 for the investments in the Italian branch of ABX.
(232)
Consequently, the Commission considers that, taken together with the presence and the powers of the Government Commissioner, the scope, the contents and the conditions of the framework agreement also constitute evidence of imputability.
(d) Conclusion
(233)
Consequently, the Commission concludes that the measures in question are imputable to the Belgian State as regards the period subsequent to the decision by SNCB’s Management Board of 20 December 2002.
(234)
It is therefore necessary to analyse whether the measures taken by SNCB concerning IFB from 20 December onwards conferred an advantage upon the beneficiary, or if, on the contrary, SNCB behaved like an informed investor in a market economy.
4.1.2. Advantage to the aid recipient applying the principle of an informed investor in a market economy
(235)
It is necessary to analyse whether the decision by SNCB’s Management Board of 20 December 2002 to increase IFB’s capital by the conversion of credits due, and to award the rescue measures, which led to SNCB’s signature, on 7 April 2003, of the framework agreement with IFB, created an economic advantage for IFB, or if this decision was the result of an assessment by a private investor in a market economy.
(236)
Since SNCB’s decision not to request any further payment of its invoices to IFB from the end of 2000 until December 2002 and SNCB’s decision to award an advance of EUR 2,5 million are not imputable to Belgium, there is no longer any need to analyse these decisions in detail.
(237)
For information, the rescue measures consist of:
-
The granting of a payment extension for debts of EUR 63 million,
-
The granting of a credit facility of EUR 15 million,
-
The granting of a recoverable advance of EUR 5 million.
(238)
The restructuring measures consisted of the divestiture of the subsidiaries in France and the restructuring and continuation of activities in Belgium. The financing of these measures was initially ensured by the rescue measures, the restructuring plan providing that this finance would be secured by the conversion of the subsequent debts into capital stock:
-
The conversion of debts of EUR 63 million for which a payment extension had been granted into capital stock,
-
The conversion of the credit facility of EUR 15 million into capital stock,
-
The conversion of the capitalised interest on the payment extension and on the credit facility into capital stock.
(239)
In order to establish whether SNCB behaved as a private investor in a market economy would have done, it is necessary to assess whether, in similar circumstances, a private investor of a size comparable to SNCB, finding itself in a situation comparable to that of SNCB, would have acted in the same way (42).
(240)
The Court of Justice stated that, while the conduct of a private investor is not necessarily that of an ordinary investor placing capital funds with a view to their profitability in the shorter or longer term, it must, at least, be that of a private holding, or a group of private businesses pursuing a structural, global or sector policy, and guided by the prospects of profitability in the longer term (43). The Court stated that the Commission is obliged to ‘conduct a complete analysis of all the factors pertinent to the contested action and in its context’ in order to know whether the State acted as an informed investor in a market economy would have done (44).
(241)
In its reply to the letter initiating the procedure, Belgium considers that SNCB’s decision to request IFB to divest the group’s French subsidiaries, and also SNCB’s decision to request IFB to restructure and continue with its activities in Belgium correspond to decisions which a private investor in a market economy would have taken.
(242)
The Commission however considers that the pertinent question is not to know whether IFB, in divesting its subsidiaries in France and restructuring and continuing its activities in Belgium, acted in the same way as an investor in a market economy, but to know whether SNCB’s decision to finance these two measures is a decision that a private investor would have taken.
(243)
In 2002/2003, SNCB therefore had to decide whether it was cheaper overall to finance the restructuring of IFB (which involved the divestiture of the subsidiaries in France and the continuation of activities in Belgium) or to file for IFB’s bankruptcy. The Commission’s consistent practice is to consider that a private investor would have continued a subsidiary’s activities, if a comparison between the costs of liquidation of the subsidiary and the costs of restructuring the subsidiary showed that the costs of liquidation exceeded the costs of restructuring (45).
(244)
It is appropriate to establish first of all the cost to SNCB of each one of these two scenarios, i.e. the restructuring and the liquidation of IFB.
4.1.2.1. Cost of restructuring IFB
(245)
In the first scenario, SNCB commits EUR 95,3 million to the financing of the restructuring of IFB by waiving the recovery of receivables which are converted into capital. On completion of the restructuring, it owns 100 % of a business the value of which is estimated to be EUR 31 million, but having EUR 34,2 million in provisions, and EUR 15 million of financial debts (excluding debts to SNCB), and therefore having a net enterprise value of EUR - 18 million. The Commission considers these estimates, based on recognised methods, to be realistic.
(246)
The Commission notes therefore that, if IFB had been sold, SNCB would only have been able to obtain a negative sale price.
4.1.2.2. Hypothetical cost of the liquidation of IFB
(247)
In the second scenario, SNCB also waives the recovery of its EUR 95 million of receivables. Belgium estimates furthermore that, based on information available at the time of the finalisation the framework agreement of 7 April 2003, the liquidation of IFB’s Belgian activities would have obliged SNCB to bear an additional cost of between EUR 70,6 and EUR 161,8 million. This amount would correspond to the sums which could normally have been recovered by the liquidation of assets (EUR 37,5 million), from which the costs brought about by the liquidation of IFB’s liabilities (EUR 67 to EUR 76,9 million) and the cost of SNCB personnel made redundant (EUR 41,1 to EUR 122,4 million) following the cessation of IFB’s activities are deducted.
(248)
The Commission does not agree with this analysis. First of all, it contests that SNCB would have had to meet the total cost of IFB’s liabilities. Furthermore, it contests the amount of the additional cost calculated by Belgium.
(249)
Contrary to what Belgium claims, the fact that IFB has negative net assets (value of the recovery of assets, minus the value of the current liabilities) does not mean that, in the event of bankruptcy, SNCB would have had to bear the corresponding excess liabilities. The Commission points out that, in principle, a company like IFB responds to its obligations with its own capital assets. The shareholders’ responsibility for the company’s obligations does not normally go beyond the latter’s capital stock and therefore does not affect the individual capital of the various shareholders. It is only in exceptional cases and under very strict conditions that certain national legislation allows the possibility for third parties to have recourse to the shareholders (46).
(250)
In the hypothetical case of IFB’s bankruptcy, SNCB would therefore have lost its capital stock, but it would not have had to repay the other IFB creditors. A priori, the cost of IFB’s bankruptcy to SNCB, acting as a shareholder, would therefore have been zero, and not the EUR 29,5 to EUR 39,4 million as maintained by the Belgian authorities.
(251)
In its decision-making process, the Commission recognises, however, that a business placed in SNCB’s situation would have been obliged to support some costs in capacities other than that of shareholder (47). In this case, costs are notably as follows:
-
As a creditor, SNCB will lose its receivables from IFB, at least in proportion to its share in IFB’s liabilities not covered by the assets; the Commission can accept that, taking SNCB’s role in IFB’s liquidation into account, this risk could be assessed as being up to the total amount of receivables held by SCNB in IFB, i.e. EUR 95 million,
-
The Commission would be able to accept that, in order to save its reputation, it would have been advisable for SNCB, as the parent company, to take back some of the unpaid debts to IFB’s suppliers who are also suppliers to SNCB.
(252)
It is necessary therefore to estimate the maximum amount which SNCB would have been led to bear in this capacity. In this respect, Belgium itself estimates that the additional costs borne by SNCB in this capacity ought not to exceed EUR 13 million. In reality, the actual additional costs could have been less, as IFB’s creditors would have first of all recovered part of their receivables from IFB’s liquidation, and would only have been recompensed by SNCB for the amount of the balance. This amount of EUR 13 million can therefore be considered to be a maximum limit.
(253)
The Commission considers that in principle a private investor in a market economy, who has to decide between financing of the restructuring of its subsidiary and its bankruptcy, might be minded to take into account the cost of a reduction in its personnel, if that reduction in personnel were a direct and inevitable consequence of the bankruptcy of its subsidiary.
(254)
Belgium concludes that IFB’s bankruptcy would have left SNCB with an overstaffing situation of 530 employees, 50 of whom were seconded to IFB, and 480 of whom were employees within SNCB in areas dependent upon the IFB’s activities. The reduction of SNCB’s personnel by 530 employees would have led to costs of EUR 122,4 million, which is EUR 230 000 per employee. The details of this calculation are explained in part 3 of this decision.
(255)
The Commission considers that it is not realistic to consider that SNCB would only have been able to recover 21 % of the traffic previously generated by IFB. First of all, as Belgium recognised in its reply to the decision initiating the procedure, the markets in which IFB is active are booming (11 % growth for freight transhipment, 12 % growth for combined transport). Consequently, it would appear probable that IFB’s competitors would have purchased IFB’s assets in order to continue its activities.
(256)
Under this assumption, the purchaser of IFB would have needed rail freight transport services. In view of SNCB’s very strong position in the international transport market for goods leaving Belgium, and its monopoly (until 1 January 2007) of the national goods transport market within Belgium, the Commission considers that the buyer of IFB would have chosen SNCB as its rail carrier, at least for a significant part of its requirements. Consequently, even under the assumption of IFB’s bankruptcy, SNCB would have been able to recover a very large proportion of the rail traffic generated by IFB.
(257)
Furthermore, the Commission observes that the rail transport markets are in growth. Consequently, it would appear reasonable to assume that SNCB would have grown at the same rate as the market, which would have allowed it to reintegrate the 50 employees released from IFB as needs arose.
(258)
In conclusion, the Commission considers that Belgium has not convincingly demonstrated that SNCB would have had an overstaffing situation of 480 employees under the assumption of IFB’s bankruptcy, and that it would not have been able to reintegrate the 50 employees seconded to IFB.
(259)
On the basis of information communicated by Belgium, the Commission considers that, in the second scenario, SNCB (as in the first scenario) would also waive the recovery of its debts up to a maximum of EUR 95,3 million and beyond this, bear a maximum cost of EUR 13 million.
4.1.2.3. Conclusion
(260)
With SNCB waiving its receivables from IFB up to EUR 95,3 million in both scenarios, Belgium has not demonstrated that, by opting for the first scenario (financing of the restructuring), resulting in SNCB owning a business with a negative value estimated at EUR - 18 million, SNCB has made an informed economic choice as opposed to the second scenario of liquidation, in which the only proven additional costs within the context of this procedure are estimated to be a maximum of EUR 13 million.
(261)
The Commission concludes that Belgium has not demonstrated that SNCB acted like a private investor in a market economy by taking the decision, imputable to the Belgian State, to finance the restructuring and the continuation of IFB’s activities in Belgium and the divestiture of IFB’s activities in France.
4.1.3. Distortion of competition and effect on transactions between Member States
(262)
The Commission must analyse the market situation concerned and the market sectors of the beneficiaries of this market, together with the impact which the financial support would have on competition (48).
(263)
In this case, the financial support was awarded to a business active in markets open to competition, which is in a situation of competition with other operators in several Member States, as demonstrated in section 2 of this decision. The financial support therefore distorts or threatens to distort competition and threatens to affect or does affect transactions between Member States.
(264)
In its letter replying to the initiating of the procedure, the Belgian Government contests the claim that the two criteria in Article 87(1) are fulfilled, as the Commission has not presented any proof establishing such distortions of competition.
(265)
The Commission draws the Belgian authorities’ attention to the fact that Article 87(1) makes reference to a threat of distortion. Consequently, the Commission does not have to supply proof of a distortion of competition, but must explain in a convincing manner the risk of such distortions, which it has done in the letter initiating the procedure (points 212 and 213) and in this decision.
4.1.4. Conclusion: existence of State aid
(266)
In conclusion, the Commission considers that the financing of the restructuring of IFB (in Belgium) by SNCB and the cessation of its activities in France, in the form of conversion into capital of debts of EUR 95,3 million, constitutes State aid.
4.2. Compatibility of the aid
(267)
Article 87(3)(c) EC provides that ‘the following may be considered to be compatible with the common market: aid to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas, where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest.’
(268)
The aid awarded by Belgium through SNCB could be compatible with the common market by virtue of Article 87(3)(c) as interpreted by the Commission in its 1999 and 2004 guidelines.
4.2.1. Compatibility as rescue aid
(269)
Only measures consisting of cash aid may be compatible as rescue aid. In this case, the cash aids are the granting of a payment extension, the credit facility and the recoverable advance.
(270)
Firstly, the question arises as to which version of the guidelines is applicable. The last version of these guidelines came into force on 10 October 2004. Point 7 thereof, ‘date of application and duration’, states:
‘102.
The Commission will apply these guidelines with effect from 10 October until 9 October 2009.
103.
Notifications registered by the Commission prior to 10 October 2004 will be examined in the light of the criteria in force at the time of the notification.
104.
The Commission will examine the compatibility with the common market of any rescue or restructuring aid granted without its authorisation and therefore in breach of Article 88(3) of the Treaty on the basis of these guidelines if some or all of the aid is granted after their publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. In all other cases it will conduct the examination on the basis of the guidelines which apply at the time the aid is granted.’
(271)
The cash aid was granted on 7 April 2003 by the conclusion of a framework agreement between IFB and SNCB. This grant took place without prior notification to the European Commission and therefore in violation of Article 88(3) of the Treaty. The assessment of its compatibility as rescue aid will therefore be based on the 1999 guidelines.
(272)
Point 23 of the 1999 guidelines defines the following five conditions for rescue aid to be compatible with the common market:
‘Rescue aid must:
(a)
consist of liquidity support in the form of loan guarantees or loans. In both cases, the loan must be granted at an interest rate at least comparable to those observed for loans to healthy firms, and in particular the reference rates adopted by the Commission;
(b)
be linked to loans that are to be reimbursed over a period of not more than twelve months after disbursement of the last instalment to the firm; reimbursement of the loan linked to the rescue aid may possibly be covered by the restructuring aid subsequently approved by the Commission;
(c)
be warranted on the grounds of serious social difficulties and have no unduly adverse “spillover” effects on other Member States;
(d)
be accompanied on notification by an undertaking on the part of the Member State concerned to communicate to the Commission, not later than six months after the rescue aid measure has been authorised, a restructuring plan or a liquidation plan or proof that the loan has been reimbursed in full and/or that the guarantee has been terminated;
(e)
be restricted to the amount needed to keep the firm in business for the period during which the aid is authorised (for example, covering wage and salary costs or routine supplies)’.
(273)
The repayment period provided for in the framework agreement is 12 months. However, the Belgian Government informed the Commission that the period was tacitly extended between the parties until the time of the capital increase.
(274)
In view of this factor, the Commission considered in its decision initiating the procedure (points 232 and 233) that the criterion of point 23(b) was not fulfilled, and the cash aid could not be authorised as rescue aid.
(275)
Belgium contests this legal assessment with three arguments. It considers firstly that SNCB maintained the rescue measures with the sole intention of allowing the Commission to conclude its scrutiny of case NN 9/04. It takes advantage of point 24 of the guidelines, which provides that the authorisation of rescue measures remains valid until the Commission rules on the restructuring plan. Consequently, the Belgian authorities asked the Commission not to refer to the duration of its own procedure for approval of the rescue measures to contest the duration of the maintenance of these measures, and to approve the rescue measures on the basis of point 24 of the 1999 guidelines, until the Commission rules upon the restructuring plan.
(276)
The Commission does not consider this argument to be relevant. Point 24 of the 1999 guidelines states that ‘the rescue aid will initially be authorised for not more than six months or, where the Member State concerned has submitted a restructuring plan within that period, until the Commission reaches its decision on the plan. In duly substantiated exceptional circumstances and at the request of the Member State concerned, the Commission may extend the initial six-month period’.
(277)
The Commission notes that Belgium implemented this restructuring aid on 7 April 2003. The period of six months for the submission of a restructuring plan therefore expired on 6 October 2003. Having communicated the restructuring plan to the Commission at the meeting on 12 December 2003, the Belgian authorities did not comply with the period provided for in point 24 of the guidelines.
(278)
The Belgian authorities’ second argument that they had supplied the Commission with all the necessary information for a decision on the rescue measures in their communication of 12 August 2003 is also not relevant. The fact that the Commission requested additional information on several subsequent occasions shows that the information supplied by Belgium was not complete.
(279)
As regards the Belgian authorities’ argument that the Commission had never expressed reservations regarding the provisional continuation of the rescue measures, it suffices to recall that the Commission, in its letters of 13 October 2003 and 26 January 2005, included the following warning: the Commission draws ‘the attention of the Belgian authorities to the suspensive clause on implementation Article 88, paragraph 3, of the EC Treaty, laid down in Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/99, which prohibits the implementation of any new aid before the Commission has taken, or is deemed to have taken, a decision authorising it. Furthermore, I would like to remind the Belgian authorities that the recovery of all aid implemented in contravention of this clause, would have to be charged to its beneficiary under the terms of Article 14 of said regulation’.
(280)
The Commission therefore concludes that the cash aids awarded by SNCB to IFB exceeded the period of 12 months laid down in point 23(b) of the 1999 guidelines, and that the Belgian authorities did not submit the restructuring plan to the Commission within a period of six months, as laid down in point 24 of the 1999 guidelines. The aid awarded by SNCB may not therefore be authorised as rescue aid. It could nevertheless be compatible with the common market as restructuring aid.
4.2.2. Compatibility of restructuring aid
(281)
The question arises again as to which version of the guidelines is applicable. In its decision initiating the procedure (point 240), the Commission considers that if SNCB decides not to award any new benefit to IFB, and if proof is provided that SNCB was committed to converting debts into capital before the publication of the 2004 guidelines, in its final decision the Commission must assess the aid awarded to IFB by SNCB on the basis of the 1999 guidelines.
(282)
The Belgian authorities, in their reply to the letter initiating the procedure, had informed the Commission that SNCB was relinquishing to IFB the contribution in kind of its shareholding in the company TRW, and retracting its notification of 28 February 2005. Due to this, the Commission notes that SNCB decided not to award any further benefit to IFB, but to limit itself to converting debts into capital.
(283)
It is necessary to determine whether SNCB committed to converting debts into capital before the publication of the 2004 guidelines. The Belgian authorities, in their reply to the letter initiating the procedure, demonstrated that, under Belgian law, SNCB’s commitment to converting debts into capital was firm as from 7 April 2003, the time of the conclusion of the framework agreement, and the fact that this commitment was subject to a condition precedent, that is to say notification to the Commission and approval by the Commission, did not have the consequence of removing the firm and definite nature of this commitment. As demonstrated by the Belgian authorities, if this condition precedent is fulfilled, it has a retroactive effect. SNCB’s commitment to convert its debts into capital is therefore firm as from 7 April 2003.
(284)
The two conditions being fulfilled, the Commission concludes that it is appropriate to apply the 1999 guidelines to this case. This conclusion is moreover in keeping with the analysis presented in the decision initiating the procedure (point 240), in which the Commission concludes:
‘[…] if SNCB decides not to award the new benefit to IFB, and if proof is provided that SNCB was committed to converting debts into capital before the publication of the 2004 guidelines, in its final decision the Commission must assess the aid awarded to IFB by SNCB on the basis of the 1999 guidelines’ (49).
(285)
In order to be able to benefit from restructuring aid, a firm must firstly be eligible for the application of the guidelines. To be eligible a firm must be a firm in difficulty. On this subject, the 1999 guidelines state (points 4 and 5):
‘(4)
[…] the Commission regards a firm as being in difficulty where it is unable, whether through its own resources or with the funds it is able to obtain from its owner/shareholders or creditors, to stem losses which, without outside intervention by the public authorities, will almost certainly condemn it to go out of business in the short or medium term.
(5)
In particular, a firm is, in any event and irrespective of its size, regarded as being in difficulty for the purpose of these guidelines:
(a)
in the case of a limited company, where more than half of its registered capital has disappeared and more than one quarter of that capital has been lost over the preceding 12 months’.
(286)
As has already demonstrated in the decision initiating the procedure (point 225), IFB’s 2002 annual accounts show a subscribed capital of EUR 48 million and recurrent losses before tax of EUR 50 million. Consequently, the share capital had disappeared when SNCB decided in April 2003 to award the aid. More than half of the subscribed capital having disappeared at this time, more than a quarter which in the previous 12 months, IFB is a firm in difficulty in the sense of points 4 and 5 of the guidelines.
(287)
Furthermore, the firm does not have to be a newly created firm. On this subject, the 1999 guidelines state (point 7).
‘(7)
For the purposes of these Guidelines, a newly created firm is not eligible for rescue or restructuring aid, even if its initial financial position is insecure. This is the case, for instance, where a new firm emerges from the liquidation of a previous firm or merely takes over such firm’s assets.’
(288)
As described in section 2 of this decision, IFB was created on 1 April 1998 by the merger of the company FerryBoats SA with the company InterFerry SA, and the addition of the ‘rail’ division of the company Edmond Depaire SA to the merged entity. In the letter initiating the procedure (points 218 to 223), the Commission expressed doubts as to whether the new IFB business continued with the legal identity of one of the three companies, or if it had been newly created in 1998.
(289)
In their reply to the letter initiating the procedure, the Belgian authorities established that IFB continued with the legal identity of FerryBoats SA, which had been registered in 1923. The Commission therefore concludes that IFB is not a newly created firm within the meaning of point 7 of the 1999 guidelines.
(290)
Point 3.2.2 of the 1999 guidelines sets out the conditions for the authorisation of restructuring aid. The conditions are as follows:
-
The restructuring plan must make it possible to restore the long-term viability of the firm within a reasonable period,
-
Measures must be taken to mitigate, as far as possible, any adverse effects of the aid on competitors,
-
The aid must be limited to the strict minimum needed to enable restructuring to be carried out, and the firm must make a contribution to its restructuring,
-
The Commission must be able to satisfy itself, on the basis of regular detailed reports, that the restructuring plan is being implemented properly,
-
The restructuring aid should be granted once only.
4.2.2.1. Restructuring plan restoring the economic viability of the firm
(291)
As regards the restructuring plan restoring the economic viability of the firm, the 1999 guidelines state:
‘(31)
The grant of the aid is conditional on implementation of the restructuring plan which must be endorsed by the Commission in the case of all individual aid measures.
(32)
The restructuring plan, the duration of which must be as short as possible, must restore the long-term viability of the firm within a reasonable timescale and on the basis of realistic assumptions as to future operating conditions. Restructuring aid must therefore be linked to a viable restructuring plan to which the Member State concerned commits itself. The plan must be submitted in all relevant detail to the Commission and include, in particular, a market survey. The improvement in viability must derive mainly from internal measures contained in the restructuring plan and may be based on external factors such as variations in prices and demand over which the company has no great influence if the market assumptions made are generally acknowledged. Restructuring must involve the abandonment of activities which would remain structurally loss making even after restructuring.
(33)
The restructuring plan should describe the circumstances that led to the company’s difficulties, thereby providing a basis for assessing whether the proposed measures are appropriate. It should take account, inter alia, of the present State of and future prospects for supply and demand on the relevant product market, with scenarios reflecting best-case, worst-case and intermediate assumptions and the firm’s specific strengths and weaknesses. It should enable the firm to progress towards a new structure that offers it prospects for long-term viability and enables it to stand on its own feet.
(34)
The plan should provide for a turnaround that will enable the company, after completing its restructuring, to cover all its costs including depreciation and financial charges. The expected return on capital should be enough to enable the restructured firm to compete in the marketplace on its own merits’.
(292)
The Commission concluded in its decision initiating the procedure (points 242 to 247) that Belgium had provided a restructuring plan which fulfilled the criteria set out in the guidelines, and therefore did not express any doubts as to this criterion. Following the initiation of the procedure, the Commission did not receive any comments from interested parties contesting this conclusion.
(293)
The Commission observes that the firm IFB had been able to demonstrate its economic viability both in its restructuring plan, presented in 2003, and in its results achieved since then. Consequently, the Commission concludes, as in its decision initiating the procedure (point 271), that the criterion ‘restructuring plan restoring the economic viability of the firm’ is fulfilled.
(294)
Nevertheless, as indicated in point 290 of this decision, the restructuring plan establishing the economic viability of the firm is not a sufficient condition; it is also necessary to establish that aid does not lead to undue distortions of competition.
4.2.2.2. Prevention of undue distortions in competition
(295)
As regards the prevention of undue distortions of competition, the 1999 guidelines state (points 35 to 39):
‘(35)
Measures must be taken to mitigate as far as possible any adverse effects of the aid on competitors. Otherwise, the aid should be regarded as “contrary to the common interest” and therefore incompatible with the common market.
(36)
This condition usually takes the form of a limitation on the presence which the company can enjoy on its market or markets after the end of the restructuring period. Where the size of the relevant market(s) is negligible at Community and at EEA level or the firm’s share of the relevant market(s) is negligible it should be considered that there is no undue distortion of competition. This condition should accordingly be regarded as not normally applying to small or medium-sized enterprises, except where otherwise provided by rules on State aid in a particular sector.
(37)
The compulsory limitation or reduction of the company’s presence on the relevant market(s) represents a compensatory factor in favour of its competitors. It should be in proportion to the distortive effects of the aid and, in particular, to the relative importance of the firm on its market or markets. The Commission will determine the extent of the limitation or reduction on the basis of the market survey attached to the structuring plan and, where the procedure has been initiated, on the basis of information supplied by interested parties. The reduction in the firm’s presence is to be put into effect through the restructuring plan and any conditions attached thereto.
(38)
A relaxation of the need for compensatory measures may be contemplated if such a reduction or limitation is likely to cause a manifest deterioration in the structure of the market, for example by having the indirect effect of creating a monopoly or a tight oligopolistic situation.
(39)
Compensatory measures can take different forms according to whether or not the firm is operating in a market where there is excess capacity. […]’
(296)
Prior to the decision initiating the procedure, the Belgian authorities had explained that, in order to mitigate, as far as possible, any adverse effects of the aid on competitors, IFB had taken two measures:
-
Withdrawal from its transhipment activities in France,
-
The closure of the terminal in Bressoux in Belgium and the sale of shareholdings in the terminals in Brussels and Zeebrugge in Belgium.
(297)
In its decision initiating the procedure (points 252 to 265), the Commission expressed doubts as to whether these measures were sufficient to mitigate, as far as possible, any unfavourable consequences of the aid on competitors. These doubts concern the two sectors in which IFB is continuing its activities, that is to say the Belgian freight transhipment market and the Belgian logistics market.
(a) The Belgian freight transhipment market
(298)
The two measures referred to in the letter initiating the procedure (point 260) concern the Belgian freight transhipment market. In the letter initiating the procedure (points 262 to 264), the Commission expressed doubts as to whether these measures were sufficient, notably in view of the fact that it was envisaged that SNCB’s shareholding in the company TRW, which retains significant shareholdings in the Brussels and Zeebrugge terminals, would be transferred to IFB, and that IFB owns minority shareholdings in a number of important Belgian terminals.
(299)
The Belgian Government, in its reply to the letter initiating the procedure, presents several arguments to refute the Commission’s doubts. Firstly, it underlines that IFB experienced less significant growth than the market (4,1 % growth for IFB, 10,7 % growth for the terminals in the port of Antwerp, 12 % growth for the terminals in the ARA region). The Commission considers that this additional information allows the conclusion that IFB’s weight in the market has been reduced following the implementation of the restructuring plan.
(300)
Secondly, Belgium showed that IFB had reduced its capacity in the fright transhipment market from 1,5 million TEU in 2002 to 1,1 million TEU at the end of 2005. The Commission considers that this reduction in capacity constitutes an important mitigating measure.
(301)
Finally, Belgium informed the Commission that the handover of TRW to IFB will not take place. The Commission considers that this last change is important since it means that the closure of Bressoux and the sale of shareholdings to Brussels and Zeebrugge result in a genuine reduction in IFB’s presence in the Belgian freight transhipment market.
(302)
In view of these arguments, and the fact that IFB’s market share is reduced, the Commission considers that Belgium has produced proof that sufficient measures to mitigate any unfavourable consequences of the aid for competitors have been taken in the freight transhipment sector.
(b) The Belgian logistics market
(303)
In its letter initiating the procedure (points 257 to 259), the Commission noted that the proposed measures did not concern the logistics market. The Commission therefore considered that the absence of measures proposed for the logistics market, together with the fact that the market is in a state of flux and that IFB had been able to increase its volume significantly, created some doubts as to whether Belgium had limited, as far as possible, the unfavourable consequences of IFB’s logistics activities on competition.
(304)
The Belgian Government, in its reply to the letter initiating the procedure, presented five arguments aimed to demonstrate that, contrary to what was being claimed by the Commission in its decision initiating the procedure, IFB had taken sufficient measures to limit distortions of competition (for the details, see the description in section 3 of this decision, points 177 to 187). These arguments can be summarised as follows:
-
Reduction of 49 % in the wagon capacity utilised by IFB,
-
IFB’s market share less than 5 %,
-
Slower growth than market (9,9 % for IFB, against an average of 12 % for the market),
-
Growth mainly due to freight transport, a sub-sector of the market in which IFB had only a very small presence before 2002,
-
The liberalisation of the rail freight market from 2007 will once again increase competitive pressure.
(305)
The Commission notes that the five arguments presented by the Belgian Government are convincing. Regarding the first argument, it considers that the Belgian Government has demonstrated that IFB has reduced its logistical capacity by reducing the number of wagons utilised by 49 %, which makes it possible to limit the distortions of competition brought about by the measures in question. Regarding the second argument, the Commission agrees that the Belgian Government that IFB’s market shares of the logistics market have been reduced within the meaning of point 36 of the 1999 guidelines. Regarding the third argument, the Commission considers that the explanations given by Belgium to describe in more detail IFB’s increase in turnover demonstrate that IFB Logistics has grown less quickly than its competitors, and that the most significant growth concerns a sub-sector where IFB is only marginally present. Regarding the fourth argument, the Commission considers that, even if the decision to open its terminals to competitors was probably also due to economic considerations, it nevertheless has the consequence of consolidating the opening-up of the markets in which IFB is active, and can thus limit the negative effects of aid. Regarding the fifth argument, the Commission recognises that IFB’s situation is in some ways similar to the situation of SNCF freight, insofar as IFB, like SNCF freight, is active in the sub-sectors ‘rail freight transport’ and ‘combined transport’, which have been completely liberalised since 1 January 2007 (50).
(306)
The Commission concludes that Belgium has shown proof that sufficient measures have been taken to mitigate, as far as possible, the unfavourable consequences of aid on competitors in the logistics sectors.
(c) Conclusion
(307)
The Commission concludes that the Belgian authorities have shown proof that they have taken sufficient measures to mitigate, as far as possible, the unfavourable consequences of aid for competitors in the two markets in question.
4.2.2.3. Aid limited to a minimum
(308)
As regards the limitation of aid to a minimum, the 1999 Guidelines state (points 40 and 41):
‘(40)
The amount and intensity of the aid must be limited to the strict minimum needed to enable restructuring to be undertaken in the light of the existing financial resources of the company, its shareholders or the business group to which it belongs. Aid beneficiaries will be expected to make a significant contribution to the restructuring plan from their own resources, including through the sale of assets that are not essential to the firm’s survival, or from external financing at market conditions. To limit the distortive effect, the amount of the aid or the form in which the aid is granted must be such as to avoid providing the company with surplus cash which could be used for aggressive, market-distorting activities not linked to the restructuring process. The Commission will accordingly examine the level of the firm’s liabilities after restructuring, including the situation after any postponement or reduction of its debts, particularly in the context of its continuation in business following collective insolvency proceedings brought against it under national law. Neither should any of the aid go to finance new investment that is not essential for restoring the firm’s viability.
(41)
In any event, it must be demonstrated to the Commission that the aid will be used only for the purpose of restoring the firm’s viability and that it will not enable the recipient during the implementation of the restructuring plan to expand production capacity, except in so far as this is essential for restoring viability without unduly distorting competition’.
(309)
It is therefore necessary to verify firstly whether the aid is limited to the minimum, and then whether IFB has made an adequate contribution itself.
(a) Limitation of aid to a minimum
(310)
In order to demonstrate that the aid is limited to the strict minimum, the Belgian Government explains that the increase in capital is limited to restoring IFB’s capital stock, which has become negative further to losses recorded in 2001 and 2002, to a level which allows it to recover its economic viability. As explained in section 2 of this decision, IFB’s solvency rate, that is to say the debt-to-equity ratio, will be 35,6 % after the increase in capital.
(311)
In its decision initiating the procedure (point 268), the Commission noted that the increase in capital was EUR 20 million less than had been recommended by the consultants McKinsey in the restructuring plan; furthermore, the Commission noted (point 268) that the solvency rate envisaged by IFB was less than that of the terminal companies and also, though to a lesser extent, than that of companies with mixed activities.
(312)
However, it noted that the rate was greater than the average of the rates recorded in the transport companies. In view of that, it concluded that it did not have at its disposal sufficient factors to consider definitively that the aid was limited to the strict minimum.
(313)
The Commission considers that, to establish that the aid was limited to a minimum, it is necessary to check firstly whether the solvency rate of IFB, which will retain its activities in Belgium, does not exceed the average of its competitors, and then if IFB divested its shareholdings in France at the lowest possible cost.
(i) Solvency rate not exceeding the average of competitors
(314)
Belgium provided additional information in its reply to the letter initiating the procedure. Firstly, it calculated the solvency rate of the six terminal companies which are most comparable to IFB and the solvency rate of the six logistics companies which are most comparable to IFB. Then, it calculated an average, weighting the average rates of the terminal companies and the logistics companies in relation to the relative strength of these two activities within IFB. This produced an average solvency rate of 35,6 %, which corresponds to IFB’s solvency rate after the foreseen increase in capital.
(315)
Furthermore, Belgium demonstrated that the two most direct competitors to IFB, namely the companies Gosselin and Hupac, have very similar solvency rates (38,9 % and 34,9 % respectively).
(316)
In view of the additional information provided by Belgium, and the fact that the increase in capital has been reduced, in relation to the initial recommendation of EUR 120 million contained in the McKinsey plan of December 2003, to EUR 95,3 million, the Commission considers that the increase in capital is limited to what is strictly necessary.
(ii) Divestiture of shareholdings in France at lowest cost
(317)
As regards the divestiture of IFB’s French subsidiaries, the Commission has further verified that, during its withdrawal, IFB always chose the lowest cost option, in order to limit withdrawal costs, and therefore aid, to a minimum.
(a) Acimar
(318)
The legal divestiture of Acimar by judicial settlement cost of EUR 3,9 million (see section 2 of this decision). The Commission notes that Belgium demonstrated that the alternative, that is to say the continuation of its activities, would have necessitated the financing of the annual cash-drain by IFB until the end of 2005, which would have represented a loss of EUR 10,8 million in total, without any certainty of being able recover the debts of EUR 3,9 million which would have had to be abandoned in the judicial settlement.
(319)
The Commission consequently concludes that IFB chose the lowest cost option for Acimar.
(b) NFTI-ou
(320)
As regards NFTI-ou, which was a company controlled jointly by IFB and Port Autonome de Dunkerque, operating the terminals in the port of Dunkerque, IFB explored two possibilities: the pursuit of activities, or divestiture by selling its shareholding. Divestiture would have led to costs of EUR 18,5 million (see detailed description in section 2 of this decision).
(321)
As regards the alternative, that is to say the continuation of activities, Belgium demonstrated in its reply that this would have generated losses of EUR 36,2 million (see detailed description in section 3 of this decision).
(322)
In view of the cost of these two options, the Commission considers that IFB chose the least expensive option.
(c) IFB France
(323)
The handover of IFB France, which subsequently became AGEP, to NFTI-ou cost EUR 0,9 million (see detailed description in section 2 of this decision). The question arises as to whether allowing IFB France to file for bankruptcy would not have been less costly for IFB.
(324)
As in the assumption of its sale, IFB would have had to abandon its receivables to IFB France for a value of EUR 0,8 million. Belgium however claims that filing for bankruptcy would have generated additional costs: IFB would not have been able to achieve the sale price of EUR 0,1 million, which would have generated capital losses on its shareholding, and IFB would have had to pay a total of EUR 0,8 million to 14 employees, who would have lost their employment following the bankruptcy, by virtue of French social law.
(325)
The Commission considers that Belgium has not presented evidence of this risk of coverage of liabilities. Therefore, the Commission must reject this argument. (51) The Commission concludes that the handover of IFB France cost at least the same as its continuation would have done.
(326)
The Commission therefore concludes that IFB selected one of the two least expensive options.
(d) Dry Port Dunkerque
(327)
For the Dry Port of Dunkerque, it had been decided to liquidate this company, by the preliminary sale of a part of the assets, namely the shareholding of 8,6 % in NFTI-ou. That cost EUR 7,9 million (see detailed description in section 2 of this decision).
(328)
In the alternative scenario, i.e. the continuation of activities, IFB would have had to finance the annual cash drain generated by the company’s losses, which would have presented an additional charge of EUR 2,6 million.
(329)
Consequently, liquidation was the least costly option.
(e) SSTD
(330)
In view of the strategic decision to leave the French market, the decision to sell SSTD for EUR 0,2 million (see detailed description below in section 2) was the most attractive option for IFB.
(f) Conclusion
(331)
The Commission concludes that IFB divested its shareholdings in France at the lowest possible cost, and that as a consequence the finance allocated by SNCB to finance this divestiture, which was necessary for the viability of the remainder of IFB, was limited to the minimum possible.
(b) Beneficiaries’ own contribution
(332)
Point 40 of the 1999 guidelines states that:
‘Aid beneficiaries will be expected to make a significant contribution to the restructuring plan from their own resources, including through the sale of assets that are not essential to the firm’s survival, or from external financing at market conditions.’
(333)
In the letter initiating the procedure (point 270), the Commission noted that, according to the restructuring plan, IFB did not appear to make a significant contribution of its own to its restructuring, and therefore the Commission had doubts as to whether IFB contributed sufficiently to its restructuring.
(334)
Belgium, in its reply to the letter initiating the procedure, explained in detail what it considered IFB’s own contributions to be (see description in section 3 of this decision, points 194 to 201).
(335)
The Commission assesses Belgium’s explanations as follows:
(i) Costs of restructuring
(336)
The Commission starts by determining the total cost of restructuring, net of productivity gains and reduction in working capital requirement.
Net costs of restructuring
Net operating loss
2,749
Exceptional charges
0,032
Increase in working capital requirement
12,998
Investments and replacement of non-financial assets
6,611
Investments in financial assets
1,882
Interest payments to businesses other than SNCB
2,351
Repayment of financial debt
16,599
Partial repayment of debt and interest to SNCB
81,7
Tax debts
0,077
Total
125,56
(337)
In this respect, the Commission considers that it is justified, in accordance with its decision-making process (52), in retaining the costs in the table above, rather than the costs presented by Belgium (see the table in point 184), in particular for the following reasons:
-
The operating loss (the ‘cash drain’). Belgium had included EUR 27,916 million as ‘gross operating loss’ in the restructuring costs. The Commission considers that, in line with its decision-making practice (53), only the net operating loss should be included in the restructuring costs. These costs may be obtained by deducting the productivity gains during the restructuring period (EUR 25,167 million) from the gross operating loss during the restructuring period (EUR 27,916 million). Consequently, the net operating loss is EUR 2,749 million,
-
Variations in working capital requirement. In the sections ‘costs’ and ‘own contribution’, Belgium mentions variations in the working capital requirement (54). In accordance with the Commission’s decision-making practice (55), only the net increase in working capital requirement should be taken into account for the restructuring costs, which is EUR 12,998 million (56),
-
Inter-group transfers. In the costs of restructuring, Belgium includes, under the heading ‘investments in financial assets’, inter-group transfers linked to the centralisation of the Belgian shareholdings in the group. These transfers were as follows: shares in RKE (a Belgian firm, described in detail in section 2, point 47, of the letter initiating the procedure), held by Haeger & Schmidt International (a 100 % subsidiary of IFB in Germany, described in detail in section 2, point 47, of the letter initiating the procedure) were transferred to IFB, which now holds them directly, and no longer indirectly via Haeger & Schmidt International. The price of this transaction was EUR 1,6 million and was settled by a cash payment of EUR 0,6 million and by a reduction in IFB’s receivables (current account) from Haeger & Schmidt International of EUR 1 million.
The Commission considers that this transaction, which constitutes a transfer within the IFB group, may not be taken into consideration as a restructuring cost, as it is financially neutral at group level. At a cost of EUR 0,6 million to IFB, this corresponds to an increase in profits of EUR 0,6 million for Haeger & Schmidt International, which appears in the consolidated accounts for the group as a profit increase.
(ii) Financing by SNCB and own shareholding in IFB
(338)
SNCB financed the restructuring to the tune of EUR 95,3 million. As demonstrated in points 199 to 237, this financing is imputable to Belgium. It will involve a conversion into capital of the credit facility and receivables for which a payment extension was awarded, together with the interest pertaining to it.
(339)
Contrary to point 43 of the 2004 guidelines, the 1999 guidelines do not prevent the firm’s own contribution consisting of future profits. The Commission considers that, within the context of the 1999 guidelines, future profits can constitute an own contribution, if the future profits were foreseeable at the time when the restructuring plan was prepared.
(340)
IFB will contribute to its own restructuring initially by means of the profits forecast for the years 2004, 2005 and 2006, which should amount to a total of EUR 10,5 million. As already explained, the forecast of these profits was based on the factual elements known to IFB at the time of the development of the restructuring plan, such as the conclusion of major new contracts, a reduction in salary costs following a reduction in the workforce, and synergies forecast in the restructuring plan. Consequently, the Commission concludes that these future profits were foreseeable at the time when the restructuring plan was prepared.
(341)
Later, IFB will contribute from its financial receipts, which result from accumulated interest on IFB’s bank accounts, and which amount to EUR 1,4 million in total. As described in point 187, these future receipts were foreseeable at the time when the restructuring plan was prepared.
(342)
By the sale of ‘non financial’ assets to private firms, IFB will contribute EUR 4 771 million. Besides the sale of various assets of relatively limited size, totalling EUR 0,271 million, this part of the contribution principally comprised the divestiture in 2004 of assets utilised at the OCHZ terminal. The co-ownership rights (50 %) to these assets utilised by OCHZ were ceded for a price of EUR 4,5 million.
(343)
IFB will release EUR 9,287 million by the sale of ‘financial’ assets, i.e. the sale of minority shareholdings in private firms. These revenues were generated by the divestiture of
-
Autocare Europe and IFB France in 2003,
-
GIE OCHZ, Brussels Port Invest SA and Brussels Terminal Intermodal SA in 2004, and
-
CNC Ferry Boats Intermodal in 2005.
As described in point 187, these future receipts were foreseeable at the time when the restructuring plan was prepared.
(344)
The Commission considers that Belgium has demonstrated that, by means of the sales to private firms described above, IFB has reduced its activities to its core business.
(345)
IFB was able to release EUR 3,3 million in 2003 and 2006 by entering into credit arrangements with private credit institutions. This credit has been described in detail in points 75 to 79 of the decision initiating the procedure. They have been obtained under market conditions, and without the offer of security on the part of SNCB or the Belgian State to the banking establishments.
(346)
Finally, IFB is contributing EUR 1,105 million, arising from exceptional receipts. These exceptional receipts correspond to capital increases achieved on the sale of non-financial assets (mainly of EAOS wagons and rolling stock at the terminals).
(347)
The Commission concludes that IFB’s own involvement in the restructuring costs amounts to EUR 24,927 million. The following table summarise all IFB’s contributions:
Profits 2004 to 2006
10,429
Financial receipts
1,368
Sale of non-financial assets
4,771
Sale of financial assets
9,287
Credit entered into with private banks
3,300
Exceptional receipts
1,105
Total
30,26
(348)
To summarise, out of the total costs for the restructuring of IFB, which amount to EUR 125,56 million, EUR 95,3 million, or 76 %, were paid by SNCB. This financing is imputable to the Belgian State. EUR 30,26 million, or 24 %, of these costs were borne by IFB itself.
(349)
In this case, the Commission recalls that the 1999 guidelines do not impose a minimum level of own contribution, but only a significant contribution. Nevertheless, inasmuch as the 2004 guidelines, which are not applicable in this case, insist upon an own contribution greater than 50 %, the Commission believes that it is useful to recall the particular difficulties of restructuring (upon which 250 jobs in Belgium directly depend); the scale of the reductions in capacity (reduction of 49 % of the rail wagons; handover of several terminals); and the importance of combined transport, the market in which IFB is principally active, to the European Union’s transport policy.
(350)
The Commission concludes that, under these circumstances, and in view of the size of the IFB business and its disastrous financial situation prior to its restructuring, a shareholding of 24 % constitutes a significant shareholding.
4.2.2.4. Annual report and ‘one time, last time’
(351)
The 1999 guidelines state in points 45 and 48:
‘(45)
The Commission must be put in a position to make certain that the restructuring plan is being implemented properly, through detailed regular reports communicated by the Member State concerned.[…]
(48)
In order to prevent firms from being unfairly assisted, restructuring aid should be granted once only. When planned restructuring aid is notified to the Commission, the Member State must specify whether the firm concerned has in the past already received restructuring aid, including aid granted before entry into force of these Guidelines and any unnotified aid. If so, and where less than 10 years has elapsed since the restructuring period came to an end or implementation of the plan has been halted, the Commission will normally allow further restructuring aid only in exceptional and unforeseeable circumstances for which the company is not responsible. An unforeseeable circumstance is one which could in no way be anticipated when the restructuring plan was drawn up.’
(352)
As already noted in the decision initiating the procedure (point 271), the Belgian Government agreed to provide the Commission with an annual report to allow the Commission to evaluate whether the restructuring plan was implemented in accordance with the commitments made by the Belgian authorities.
(353)
As also noted in the decision initiating the procedure (point 271), the criterion ‘one time, last time’ has been respected.
5. CONCLUSIONS
(354)
The Commission finds that Belgium unlawfully implemented some of the measures in question in violation of Article 88(3) EC. However, the assessment of the measures has shown that, in part, they do not constitute aid, and as far as the rest are concerned, they are compatible with the common market,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
The financing of the restructuring of the activities of Inter Ferry Boats SA in Belgium and the financing of the divestiture of Inter Ferry Boats SA in France for the amount of EUR 95,3 million by Société Nationale des Chemins de Fer Belges, imputable to Belgium and implemented by the latter, constitute State aid for restructuring, which is compatible with the common market.
Article 2
This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Belgium.
Done at Brussels, 24 April 2007.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION of 28 October 1988 listing the products referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 3 (1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1898/87 (88/566/EEC) (88/566/EEC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1898/87 of 2 July 1987 on the protection of designations used in marketing of milk and milk products (1), as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 222/88 (2), and in particular Article 4 (2) (b) thereof,
Whereas Regulation (EEC) No 1898/87 establishes the principle that the descriptions ´milk' and ´milk products' may not be used for milk products other than those described in Article 2 thereof; whereas, as an exception, this principle is not applicable to the description of products the exact nature of which is known because of traditional use and/or when the designations are clearly used to describe a characteristic quality of the product;
Whereas the Member States must notify to the Commission indicative lists of the products which they deem to meet, within their own territories, the criteria for the abovementioned exception; whereas, in accordance with Article 4 (2) (b) of the Regulation concerned, a list should be made of such products on the basis of the indicative lists notified by the Member States; whereas the Community list should include the names of the relevant products according to their traditional use in the various languages of the Community, in order to render these names usable in all the Member States, provided they comply with the provisions of Council Directive 79/112/EEC of 18 December 1978 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs intended for sale to the ultimate consumer (3), as last amended by Directive 86/197/EEC (4);
Whereas this list is not exhaustive and additions thereto may be made in accordance with Article 4 (2) (b) of Regulation (EEC) No 1898/87;
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 DECISION:
Article 1 The products corresponding, on the territory of the Community, to the products referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 3 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1898/87 are listed in the Annex hereto.
Article 2 This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 28 October 1988.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
*****
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE
of 6 December 1984
on the supervision and control within the European Community of the transfrontier shipment of hazardous waste
(84/631/EEC)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN
COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Articles 100 and 235 thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission (1),
Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (2),
Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee (3),
Whereas the 1973 (4), 1977 (5) and 1983 (6) programmes of action of the European Communities on the environment provide for Community action in order to control the disposal of hazardous waste;
Whereas, pursuant to Council Directive 78/319/EEC of 20 March 1978 on toxic and dangerous waste (7), Member States are required to take the necessary measures to ensure that toxic and dangerous waste is disposed of without endangering human health and without harming the environment;
Whereas shipment of waste between Member States, or between Member States and other States, may be necessary in order to dispose of it under the best possible conditions;
Whereas any difference between the provisions on disposal of hazardous waste already applicable or in preparation in the various Member States may distort the conditions of competition and thus directly affect the functioning of the common market; whereas there are, in particular, differences between the procedures applying to the supervision and control of the transfrontier shipment of hazardous waste within the Community; whereas it is therefore necessary to approximate laws in this field, as provided for in Article 100 of the Treaty;
Whereas Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (8), Council Directive 76/403/EEC of 16 April 1976 on the disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlorinated terphenyls (9) and Council Directive 78/319/EEC have already laid down certain provisions concerning the disposal of dangerous waste, but have not yet regulated the supervision and control of the transfrontier shipment of hazardous waste;
Whereas an efficient and coherent system of supervision and control of the transfrontier shipment of hazardous waste should neither create barriers to intra-Community trade nor affect competition;
Whereas the growing volume of long-distance transfrontier shipments of hazardous waste in the Community results in increased risk necessitating supervision and control of hazardous waste from the moment of its formation until its treatment or ultimate safe disposal;
Whereas this requires compulsory notification of transfrontier shipments of hazardous waste and a uniform consignment note;
Whereas the competent authorities of the Member States of destination of waste should be able to raise objections to shipments of waste; whereas any objection should fulfil certain criteria and be duly substantiated;
Whereas it is also desirable for the Member State of dispatch and the Member State of transit to be able, subject to certain criteria, to lay down conditions in respect of the shipment of waste on their territory;
Whereas, moreover, in certain situations and subject to certain conditions, the Member State of dispatch should be able to object to a shipment;
Whereas in the case of waste shipped outside the Community, the third State of destination and, where appropriate, the third State of transit should also be notified;
Whereas in this case, in order effectively to control transfrontier shipments of hazardous waste, the customs authorities of the last Member State through which the shipment is due to pass should send a copy of the consignment note to the competent authority of that Member State; whereas the holder should certify to the competent authorities of the Member State of dispatch that the waste has left the Community;
Whereas in certain circumstances a general notification procedure may be used;
Whereas information relating to the waste concerned, the producers, the existence of a contractual agreement with the consignee, the provisions made for routes and insurance and the conditions for the exercise of the transport operations should be sent to the competent authorities of the Member States concerned as part of the notification procedure;
Whereas in order to ensure that hazardous waste does not constitute an unnecessary risk it should be properly packaged and labelled; whereas the instructions to be followed in the event of danger or accident should accompany the waste in order to protect man and the environment from any danger that might arise during the operation;
Whereas the Member States may fix border crossing-points after consulting the Commission;
Whereas in accordance with the 'polluter pays' principle, the costs of implementing the notification procedure, including the costs of control and analysis, should be borne by the holder and/or the producer of the waste;
Whereas it is important that the liability of the producer and that of any other person who may be accountable for damage should be defined and the conditions of application determined in order to guarantee effective and fair compensation for damage which may be caused during the shipment of dangerous waste; whereas the Council should act at the latest within three years of the application of this Directive; whereas the Council should also take a decision within the same time limit on a system of insurance;
Whereas, subject to certain conditions, non-ferrous metal waste intended for re-use, regeneration or recycling should be exempted from the provisions of this Directive;
Whereas Member States should communicate to the Commission any information relevant to the implementation of this Directive and must in particular prepare reports every two years on the basis of which the Commission will draw up a summary report;
Whereas the Technical Committee set up under Directive 78/319/EEC should also be empowered to draw up and adapt as necessary the uniform consignment note on the uniform declaration provided for in this Directive and also to adapt the list of Conventions annexed to this Directive,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:
Article 1
Member States shall, in accordance with the provisions of this Directive, take the necessary measures for the supervision and control, with a view to the protection of human health and the environment, of the transfrontier shipment of hazardous waste both within the Community and on its entering and/or leaving the Community.
Article 2
1. For the purposes of this Directive:
(a) 'hazardous waste', hereinafter referred to as 'waste', means: - toxic and dangerous waste as defined in Article 1 (b) of Directive 78/319/EEC, except for the chlorinated and organic solvents referred to in points 13 and 14 of the Annex to that Directive,
- PCB as defined in Article 1 (a) of Directive 76/403/EEC;
(b) 'competent authorities' of the Member States concerned means the competent authority or authorities, designated in accordance with Article 16, of the Member State of destination of the waste, of the Member State of dispatch of the waste and, where applicable, of the Member State or States of transit of the waste;
(c) 'the producer of the waste' means anyone whose activities produce waste ('original producer') and/or anyone who carries out pre-processing, mixing or other operations resulting in a change in the nature or composition of this waste;
(d) 'the holder of the waste' means the producer of the waste or any other person or undertaking who or which proposes to carry out or to have carried out a transfrontier shipment of waste;
(e) 'the consignee of the waste' means the person or undertaking to whom or to which the waste is shipped for disposal;
(f) 'disposal' means disposal within the meaning of Article 1 (c) of Directive 78/319/EEC.
2. The off-loading to shore of waste produced by the normal operation of ships, including waste water and residues, shall not be considered a transfrontier shipment of waste within the meaning of this Directive.
Article 3
1. Where the holder of the waste intends to ship it or to have it shipped from one Member State to another, to have it routed through one or more Member States or to ship it to a Member State from a third State, he shall notify the competent authorities of the Member States concerned.
2. Notification shall be made by means of a uniform consignment note, hereinafter referred to as the 'consignment note', to be drawn up in accordance with Article 15 and the contents of which are set out in Annex I.
3. When so notifying the competent authorities of the Member States concerned the holder of the waste must provide them with satisfactory information, in particular on:
- the source and composition of the waste, including the producer's identity, and in the case of waste from various sources, a detailed inventory of the waste and, where such information exists, the identity of the original producers,
- the provisions made for routes and insurance against damage to third parties,
- the measures to be taken to ensure safe transport and, in particular, compliance by the carrier with the conditions laid down by the Member States concerned for the exercise of such transport operations,
- the existence of a contractual agreement with the consignee of the waste, who should possess adequate technical capacity for the disposal of the waste in question under conditions presenting no danger to human health or the environment. Where the waste is stored, treated or deposited within a Member State, the consignee must also possess a permit in accordance with Article 9 of Directive 78/319/EEC or Article 6 of Directive 76/403/EEC.
4. Where the waste is shipped outside the Community for disposal, the holder of the waste shall notify the third State of destination and where applicable, the third State or States of transit and the competent authorities of the Member States concerned.
Article 4
1. A transfrontier shipment may not be executed before the competent authority of the Member State referred to in paragraph 2 (a) or (b) has acknowledged receipt of the notification. The acknowledgement shall be entered on the consignment note.
2. The acknowledgement of receipt or any objection raised in accordance with paragraph 3 shall, not later than one month after receipt of the notification, be forwarded to the holder of the waste:
(a) either by the competent authority of the Member State of destination;
(b) or, in the case of shipments of waste for disposal outside the Community or of waste from a third country in transit through the Community for disposal outside the Community, by the competent authority of the last Member State through which the shipment is due to pass,
with a copy to the consignee of the waste and to the competent authorities of the other Member States concerned. 3. Objections must be substantiated on the basis of laws and regulations relating to environmental protection, safety and public policy or health protection which are in accordance with the provisions of this Directive, with other Community instruments or with international conventions on this subject concluded by the Member State concerned prior to notification of this Directive.
4. Once the competent authority of the Member State referred to in paragraph 2 (a) or (b) is satisfied that the problems giving rise to its objections have been resolved, it shall immediately send an acknowledgement to the holder of the waste with a copy to the consignee of the waste and to the competent authorities of the other Member States concerned.
5. The acknowledgement forwarded by the competent authorities of the Member State referred to in paragraphs 2 (a) or (b) to the holder of the waste pursuant to the provisions of this Article shall not release the producer of such waste or any other person from his obligations under existing national and Community provisions.
6. Without prejudice to the provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2, the competent authorities of the Member State of dispatch and those of the Member State or States of transit, if any, shall have 15 days following the notification in which to lay down, if appropriate, conditions in respect of the shipment of waste on their national territory. These conditions, which shall be forwarded to the holder of the waste, with a copy to the competent authorities of the Member States concerned, may not be more stringent than those laid down in respect of similar shipments occurring wholly within the Member State in question and shall take due account of existing agreements. The holder of the waste must comply with these conditions in order to make the shipment.
Not later than 20 days after receipt of the notification, the competent authorities of the Member State of dispatch may raise objections on the grounds that the shipment of waste adversely affects the implementation of plans drawn up pursuant to Article 12 of Directive 78/319/EEC or Article 6 of Directive 76/403/EEC or that it conflicts with obligations resulting from international agreements on this subject concluded by it prior to notification of this Directive. Such objections shall be forwarded to the holder of the waste with copies to the competent authorities of the Member States concerned.
Article 5
1. The holder of the waste may use a general notification procedure where waste having the same physical and chemical characteristics is shipped regularly to the same consignee via the same customs office of exit of the Member State of dispatch, via the same customs office of entry of the Member State of destination and, in the case of transit, via the same customs offices of entry and exit of the Member State or States of transit.
2. The competent authorities of the Member State referred to in Article 4 (2) (a) or (b) and, where applicable, those of the Member State or States of transit, may make their agreement to the use of this general notification procedure subject to the supply of certain information, such as the exact quantities or periodical lists of the waste to be shipped.
3. Under a general notification procedure, a single acknowledgement within the meaning of Article 4 (1) may cover several shipments of waste over a maximum period of one year.
4. The general notification shall be made by means of the consignment note.
Article 6
1. Upon receipt of the acknowledgement referred to in Articles 4 and 5, the holder of the waste shall complete the consignment note and send copies to the competent authorities of the Member States concerned and to the third States concerned before shipment is carried out.
2. A copy of the consignment note, including the acknowledgement, shall accompany each shipment.
3. All undertakings subsequently involved in the operation shall complete the consignment note where indicated, sign it and retain a copy of it.
4. Within 15 days following receipt of the waste, the consignee of the waste shall forward to the holder of the waste, to the competent authorities of the Member States concerned and to the third States concerned copies of the duly completed consignment note. These copies shall be kept for at least two years.
Article 7
By way of derogation from Article 6 (4), when waste leaves the Community for disposal outside the Community, the customs service in the last Member State through which the shipment passes shall forward a copy of the consignment note to the competent authorities in that Member State, which shall keep it for at least two years. The holder of the waste shall declare or certify to the competent authorities of the Member State of dispatch, not later than six weeks after the waste has left the Community, that the waste has reached its proper destination and shall indicate the last customs post in the Community through which the shipment passed.
Article 8
1. Transfrontier shipments must comply with the following conditions:
(a) The waste must be properly packed.
(b) The containers must have appropriate labels indicating, in addition to the nature, composition and quantity of the waste, the telephone number(s) of the person(s) from whom instructions or advice may be obtained at all times during shipment.
(c) The instructions to be followed in the event of danger or accident must accompany the waste.
(d) The labels and instructions referred to in (b) and (c) must be in the languages of the Member States concerned.
2. The conditions referred to in paragraph 1 shall be deemed to be met where a Member State applies the provisions applicable in the matter under the international transport conventions listed in Annex II to which it is a party in so far as those conventions cover the waste to which this Directive refers.
Article 9
Member States may designate border crossing-points for the shipment of waste where necessary and after consulting the Commission.
Article 10
In accordance with the 'polluter pays' principle, the cost of implementing the notification and supervision procedure, including the necessary analyses and controls, shall be chargeable to the holder and/or the producer of the waste by the Member State concerned, provided that this cost is comparable to that entailed by the same operations concerning the same types of waste and relating to shipments taking place entirely within that Member State.
Article 11
1. Without prejudice to national provisions concerning civil liability, irrespective of the place in which the waste is disposed of, the producer of the waste shall take all necessary steps to dispose of or arrange for the disposal of the waste so as to protect the quality of the environment in accordance with Directives 75/442/EEC and 78/319/EEC and with this Directive.
2. Member States shall take all necessary steps to ensure that the obligations laid down in paragraph 1 are carried out.
3. The Council shall, acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 100 of the Treaty, determine not later than 30 September 1988 the conditions for implementing the civil liability of the producer in the case of damage or that of any other person who may be accountable for the said damage and shall also determine a system of insurance.
Article 12
1. Member States shall forward to the Commission not later than 31 December 1985 the name(s), address(es) and telephone and telex numbers of the competent authorities and of the installations, establishments or undertakings with a permit within the meaning of the last indent of Article 3 (3) to dispose of waste.
Member States shall forward regularly to the Commission any modifications to the data.
2. The Commission shall forward information referred to under paragraph 1 without delay to the other Member States.
Article 13
1. Every two years, and for the first time on 1 October 1987, Member States shall forward to the Commission reports on the implementation of this Directive and on the situation with regard to transfrontier shipments concerning their respective territories.
2. These reports shall in particular comprise the following information:
- transfrontier shipments of waste arising from major accidents, in particular within the meaning of Article 1 of Council Directive 82/501/EEC of 24 June 1982 on the major-accident hazards of certain industrial activities (1),
- any significant irregularities in transfrontier shipment of waste covered by this Directive which has involved or may yet involve serious hazards for man or the environment,
- the quantity and type of waste which has entered their territory for disposal and the quality and type of waste produced in their territory and subsequently definitively exported.
Article 14
On the basis of the reports referred to in Article 13, the Commission shall prepare a summary report every two years, which it shall submit to the European Parliament, the Council and the Economic and Social Committee.
Article 15
The Technical Committee set up under Article 18 of Directive 78/319/EEC, and acting under the procedure laid down in Article 19 of that Directive, shall be empowered to draw up, in accordance with the information given in Annexes I and III respectively, the consignment note including the general instructions and the uniform declaration document referred to in Article 17. The Committee shall also be empowered, under the same procedure, to adapt to technical progress the consignment note, the declaration document and the list of international transport conventions contained in Annex II.
Article 16
Member States shall designate the competent authorities for the purpose of Article 4.
Article 17
Waste (including in particular waste, scrap, sludge, ash and dust) from non-ferrous metals which is intended for re-use, regeneration, or recycling on the basis of a contractual agreement regarding such operations shall be exempt from the provisions of this Directive provided that the following conditions are fulfilled:
(a) the holder must make a declaration on a uniform document, the contents of which is set out in Annex III, and which must accompany the shipment, to the effect that these materials are intended for the operations in question, and must forward a copy of this document to the competent authorities of the Member State referred to in Article 4 (2) (a) or (b);
(b) the consignee must declare in the same document, which he shall forward to the competent authorities of the Member State referred to in (a) not later than 15 days from receipt of the materials that these operations will actually be carried out.
Article 18
1. Member States shall take the measures necessary to comply with this Directive as from 1 October 1985. They shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof.
2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the texts of the provisions of national law which they adopt in the field governed by this Directive. The Commission shall inform the other Member States thereof.
Article 19
This Directive is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 6 December 1984.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2319/98 of 27 October 1998 on the sale by the procedure laid down in Regulation (EEC) No 2539/84 of beef held by certain intervention agencies and intended for supplying Madeira and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1462/98
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 of 27 June 1968 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1633/98 (2), and in particular Article 7(3) thereof,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1600/92 of 15 June 1992 concerning specific measures for the Azores and Madeira relating to certain agricultural products (3), as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 562/98 (4), and in particular Article 10 thereof,
Whereas certain intervention agencies hold substantial stocks of beef bought into intervention; whereas an extension of the storage period should be avoided on account of the ensuing high costs;
Whereas the forecast supply balance for frozen meat for Madeira for the period 1 July 1998 to 30 June 1999 is laid down in Annex I to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1913/92 of 10 July 1992 laying down detailed implementing rules for the specific measures for supplying the Azores and Madeira with products from the beef and veal sector (5), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1322/98 (6); whereas, in the light of traditional trade patterns, beef should be released from intervention for the purpose of supplying Madeira during that period;
Whereas Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2539/84 of 5 September 1984 laying down detailed rules for certain sales of frozen beef held by the intervention agencies (7), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2417/95 (8), provides for the possibility of a two-stage procedure for the sale of beef from intervention;
Whereas, in order to ensure that the tendering procedure is consistent and uniform, measures should be adopted in addition to those laid down in Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2173/79 (9), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2417/95;
Whereas the supply of beef and veal to Madeira from the Community is subject to the use of aid certificates issued by the competent Portuguese authorities in accordance with Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1696/92 of 30 June 1992 laying down common detailed rules for implementation of the specific arrangements for the supply of certain agricultural products to the Azores and Madeira (10), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 2596/93 (11); whereas, in order to improve the operation of the abovementioned arrangements, certain derogations from that Regulation should be laid down, in particular with regard to applications for and the issue of aid certificates;
Whereas the sale should be conducted in accordance with Commission Regulations (EEC) No 2539/84, (EEC) No 3002/92 (12), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 770/96 (13), and (EEC) No 1696/92, subject to certain special exceptions on account of the particular use to which the products in question are to be put;
Whereas it is necessary to provide for the lodging of a security to guarantee that the beef arrives at the intended destination;
Whereas Commission Regulation (EC) No 1462/98 (14) should be repealed;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Beef and Veal,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
1. The sale shall take place of intervention products bought in under Article 6 of Regulation (EEC) No 805/68, of approximately:
- 162 tonnes of boneless beef held by the French intervention agency,
- 400 tonnes of boneless beef held by the Irish intervention agency,
- 500 tonnes of bone-in beef held by the Portuguese intervention agency.
2. This meat shall be sold for delivery to Madeira pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1322/98.
3. Subject to the provisions of this Regulation, the sale shall take place in accordance with Regulations (EEC) No 2539/84, (EEC) No 3002/92 and (EEC) No 1696/92.
4. The quantities and the minimum prices referred to in Article 3(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2539/84 are set out in Annex I hereto.
5. The intervention agencies shall sell first those products in each product group which have been in storage longest.
Particulars of the quantities and places where the products are stored shall be made available to interested parties at the addresses given in Annex II.
6. Only those tenders shall be taken into consideration which reach the intervention agencies concerned no later than 12 noon on 5 November 1998.
7. Notwithstanding Article 8(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2173/79 a tender must be submitted to the intervention agency concerned in a closed envelope, bearing the reference to the Regulation concerned. The closed envelope must not be opened by the intervention agency before the expiry of the tender deadline referred to in paragraph 6.
Article 2
1. After receiving a tender or purchase application, the intervention agency shall only conclude the contract after having checked with the competent Portuguese agency referred to in Annex III that the quantity concerned is available within the forecast supply balance.
2. The Portuguese agency shall immediately reserve for the applicant the quantity requested until receipt of the application for the relevant aid certificate. The certificate application must be accompanied by the original purchase invoice issued by the seller intervention agency or by a certified copy thereof.
The application for the aid certificate shall be submitted not later than 14 days after the date on which the purchase invoice is made out.
3. Notwithstanding Article 4(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1696/92, the aid shall not be granted for meat sold pursuant to this Regulation.
4. Notwithstanding Article 4(4)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 1696/92, box 24 of the aid certificate application and the aid certificate shall contain the entry 'aid certificate for use in Madeira - no aid to be paid`.
Article 3
Notwithstanding Article 4(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2539/84, purchase applications may be submitted from the 10th working day following the date referred to in Article 1(6).
Article 4
The security provided for in Article 5(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2539/84 shall be:
- ECU 3 000 per tonne for boneless beef,
- ECU 2 000 per tonne for bone-in beef.
Delivery of the products concerned to Madeira not later than 30 June 1999 shall be a primary requirement within the meaning of Article 20 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2220/85 (15). Proof of compliance with this requirement must be provided not later than two months after completion of formalities with the competent authorities in Madeira for the delivery concerned.
Article 5
The removal order referred to in Article 3(1)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 3002/92 and the T 5 control copy shall contain the entry:
- Carne de intervención destinada a Madeira - sin ayuda [Reglamento (CE) n° 2319/98]
- Interventionskød til Madeira - uden støtte (forordning (EF) nr. 2319/98)
- Interventionsfleisch für Madeira - ohne Beihilfe (Verordnung (EG) Nr. 2319/98)
- ÊñÝáò áðü ôçí ðáñÝìâáóç ãéá ôç ÌáäÝñá - ÷ùñßò åíéó÷ýóåéò [Êáíïíéóìüò (ÅÊ) áñéè. 2319/98]
- Intervention meat for Madeira - without the payment of aid (Regulation (EC) No 2319/98)
- Viandes d'intervention destinées à Madère - sans aide (règlement (CE) n° 2319/98)
- Carni in regime d'intervento destinate a Madera - senza aiuto [regolamento (CE) n. 2319/98]
- Interventievlees voor Madeira - zonder steun (Verordening (EG) nr. 2319/98)
- Carne de intervenção destinada à Madeira - sem ajuda [Regulamento (CE) nº 2319/98]
- Madeiralle osoitettu interventioliha - ilman tukea (Asetus (EY) N:o 2319/98)
- Interventionskött för Madeira - utan bidrag (Förordning (EG) nr 2319/98).
Article 6
Regulation (EC) No 1462/98 is hereby repealed.
Article 7
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 October 1998.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 215/2000
of 24 January 2000
renewing for 2000 the measures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1416/95 establishing certain concessions in the form of Community tariff quotas in 1995 for certain processed agricultural products
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 133 thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,
Whereas:
(1) Regulation (EC) No 1416/95(1) opened tariff quotas for 1995 in favour of Switzerland and Norway in accordance with the conditions set out in Annexes I and II thereto;
(2) Regulation (EC) No 1416/95 was renewed for 1996, 1997, 1998 and 1999 by Regulations (EC) No 102/96(2), No 306/97(3), No 560/98(4) and No 2847/98(5) respectively;
(3) It was not possible to conclude additional Protocols before 1 January 2000; in these circumstances and pursuant to Articles 76, 102 and 128 of the 1994 Act of Accession, the Community must adopt the measures required to remedy the situation; therefore, it is necessary to renew the measures provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1416/95 for 2000;
(4) The measures necessary for the suspension of this Regulation should be adopted in accordance with Article 2 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);
(5) 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(7) 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,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
1. The measures provided for in Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 1416/95 shall be renewed to cover 2000.
Annexes I and II to Regulation (EC) No 1416/95 shall be replaced by Annexes I and II to this Regulation.
2. If Switzerland and Norway discontinue the application of the reciprocal measures in favour of the Community, the Commission may, in accordance with the management procedure laid down in Article 2(2) of this Regulation, suspend application of the measures provided for in paragraph 1.
Article 2
1. The Commission shall be assisted by the Committee referred to in Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 3448/93(8).
2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Articles 4 and 7 of Decision 1999/468/EC shall apply.
The period laid down in Article 4(3) of Decision 1999/468/EC shall be set at one month.
3. The Committee shall adopt its rules of procedure.
Article 3
The Community tariff quotas referred to in Annexes I and II to Regulation (EC) No 1416/95 shall be administered in accordance with Articles 308a to 308c of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93.
Article 4
This Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
It shall apply with effect from 1 January 2000.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 24 January 2000.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 618/2003
of 4 April 2003
fixing the maximum export refund on wholly milled long grain B rice to certain third countries in connection with the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 1898/2002
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 3072/95 of 22 December 1995 on the common organisation of the market in rice(1), as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 411/2002(2), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) An invitation to tender for the export refund on rice was issued pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1898/2002(3).
(2) Article 5 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 584/75(4), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1948/2002(5), allows the Commission to fix, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 22 of Regulation (EC) No 3072/95 and on the basis of the tenders submitted, a maximum export refund. In fixing this maximum, the criteria provided for in Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 3072/95 must be taken into account. A contract is awarded to any tenderer whose tender is equal to or less than the maximum export refund.
(3) The application of the abovementioned criteria to the current market situation for the rice in question results in the maximum export refund being fixed at the amount specified in Article 1.
(4) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The maximum export refund on wholly milled long grain B rice to be exported to certain third countries pursuant to the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 1898/2002 is hereby fixed on the basis of the tenders submitted from 31 March to 3 April 2003 at 295,00 EUR/t.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 5 April 2003.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 4 April 2003.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2772/98 of 21 December 1998 establishing the forecast supply balance and Community aid for the supply to French Guiana of products falling within CN codes 2309 90 31, 2309 90 33, 2309 90 41, 2309 90 43, 2309 90 51 and 2309 90 53 used in feedingstuffs for 1999
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 2598/95 (2), and in particular Article 3(5) thereof,
Whereas Article 3(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 3763/91 introduces an exemption scheme for duties on imports into French Guiana and aid for the supply by the rest of the Community of certain cereal products used in feedingstuffs;
Whereas the supply balance for these products for the department of Guiana should be drawn up on the basis of feedingstuffs requirements based on the notifications sent by the competent authorities for the year 1999;
Whereas Commission Regulation (EEC) No 388/92 (3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2621/98 (4), lays down detailed rules for the implementation of the specific arrangements for the supply of cereal products to the French overseas departments; whereas those provisions, which supplement Commission Regulation (EEC) No 131/92 (5) for the cereals sector, as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1736/96 (6), apply to cereals used in feedingstuffs as referred to in this Regulation;
Whereas, in accordance with Regulation (EEC) No 3763/91, the amount of the aid for the supply of Community products must be determined in such a way that users are supplied on terms equivalent to exemption from levies on imports from the world market; whereas fixing the aid at an amount equal to the export refund plus a fixed component to take account of conditions for deliveries of small quantities will satisfy this aim;
Whereas this Regulation should apply from 1 January 1999;
Whereas Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1103/97 of 17 June 1997 on certain provisions relating to the introduction of the euro (7) provides that as from 1 January 1999, all references to the ecu in legal instruments are to be relaced by references to the euro at the rate of EUR 1 to ECU 1; whereas, for the sake of clarity, the denomination 'euro` should be used in this Regulation since it is to apply from 1 January 1999;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Pursuant to Article 3(1) and (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 3763/91, the forecast supply balance quantities of products falling within CN codes 2309 90 31, 2309 90 33, 2309 90 41, 2309 90 43, 2309 90 51 and 2309 90 53 used in feedingstuffs eligible for exemption from import duties or for Community aid shall be as specified in the Annex.
Article 2
The amount of the aid for the supply of feedingstuffs referred to in Article 1 and manufactured from cereals processed in the rest of the Community shall be equal to the export refunds for those products, plus EUR 20 per tonne.
Article 3
Article 1(2) and Articles 2 to 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 388/92 shall apply to the supply to French Guiana of the products referred to in Article 1 of this Regulation.
Article 4
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
It shall apply from 1 January 1999.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 21 December 1998.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 39/2003
of 9 January 2003
fixing the representative prices and the additional import duties for molasses in the sugar sector
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the market in sugar(1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 680/2002(2),
Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1422/95 of 23 June 1995 laying down detailed rules of application for imports of molasses in the sugar sector and amending Regulation (EEC) No 785/68(3), and in particular Article 1(2) and Article 3(1) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Regulation (EC) No 1422/95 stipulates that the cif import price for molasses, hereinafter referred to as the "representative price", should be set in accordance with Commission Regulation (EEC) No 785/68(4). That price should be fixed for the standard quality defined in Article 1 of the above Regulation.
(2) The representative price for molasses is calculated at the frontier crossing point into the Community, in this case Amsterdam; that price must be based on the most favourable purchasing opportunities on the world market established on the basis of the quotations or prices on that market adjusted for any deviations from the standard quality. The standard quality for molasses is defined in Regulation (EEC) No 785/68.
(3) When the most favourable purchasing opportunities on the world market are being established, account must be taken of all available information on offers on the world market, on the prices recorded on important third-country markets and on sales concluded in international trade of which the Commission is aware, either directly or through the Member States. Under Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 785/68, the Commission may for this purpose take an average of several prices as a basis, provided that this average is representative of actual market trends.
(4) The information must be disregarded if the goods concerned are not of sound and fair marketable quality or if the price quoted in the offer relates only to a small quantity that is not representative of the market. Offer prices which can be regarded as not representative of actual market trends must also be disregarded.
(5) If information on molasses of the standard quality is to be comparable, prices must, depending on the quality of the molasses offered, be increased or reduced in the light of the results achieved by applying Article 6 of Regulation (EEC) No 785/68.
(6) A representative price may be left unchanged by way of exception for a limited period if the offer price which served as a basis for the previous calculation of the representative price is not available to the Commission and if the offer prices which are available and which appear not to be sufficiently representative of actual market trends would entail sudden and considerable changes in the representative price.
(7) Where there is a difference between the trigger price for the product in question and the representative price, additional import duties should be fixed under the conditions set out in Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1422/95. Should the import duties be suspended pursuant to Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1422/95, specific amounts for these duties should be fixed.
(8) Application of these provisions will have the effect of fixing the representative prices and the additional import duties for the products in question as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.
(9) 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 representative prices and the additional duties applying to imports of the products referred to in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1422/95 are fixed in the Annex hereto.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 10 January 2003.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 9 January 2003.
|
[
0,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2590/1999
of 8 December 1999
amending Regulations (EEC) No 2312/92 and (EEC) No 1148/93 laying down detailed rules for implementing the specific measures for supplying the French overseas departments with breeding bovines and horses
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 1257/1999(2), and in particular Article 4(5) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Pursuant to Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 3763/91, it is necessary to determine the number of pure-bred breeding bovines and horses in the Community which are eligible for aid with a view to encouraging the development of those sectors in the French overseas departments (FODs).
(2) The quantities of the forecast supply balance and the level of aid for those products are fixed by Commission Regulations (EEC) No 2312/92(3) and (EEC) No 1148/93(4), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2727/98(5). The Annexes to those Regulations should therefore be amended.
(3) The need might arise in the French overseas departments for additional supplies of pure-bred breeding bovines and horses in particular marketing years. The French authorities should therefore be granted some leeway in their management of the scheme so they can issue aid certificates for animals intended for certain overseas departments in excess of the maximum quantities available to those departments, on condition that the overall maximum quantity available for all four overseas departments is complied with. In order to take proper account of such additional supply requirements for subsequent years, the French authorities should inform the Commission of cases in which certificates have been issued using this discretionary power.
(4) As a result of the presentation by the French authorities of information on the needs of the French overseas departments, the Annexes to Regulations (EEC) No 2312/92 and (EEC) No 1148/93 should be replaced by the Annexes to this Regulation adding, for supply of breeding horses, the French overseas department Réunion. The balances should be fixed on the basis of the calendar year.
(5) Application of the criteria for fixing the amount of Community aid to the current market situation in the sector in question and, in particular, to the exchange rates and prices for those products in the European part of the Community and on the world market, gives rise to aid for the supply of the French overseas departments with pure-bred breeding animals at the levels fixed in the Annex hereto.
(6) 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
Annex III to Regulation (EEC) No 2312/92 is replaced by Annex I to this Regulation.
Article 2
Regulation (EEC) No 1148/93 is amended as follows:
1. (This amendment does not apply to the English-language version).
2. The Annex is replaced by Annex II to this Regulation.
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 January 2000.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 8 December 1999.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1432/97 of 23 July 1997 amending Regulation (EC) No 3582/93 on detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2073/92 on promoting consumption in the Community and expanding the markets for milk and milk products
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2073/92 on promoting consumption in the Community and expanding the markets for milk and milk products (1), and in particular Article 4 thereof,
Whereas Article 6 (2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 3582/93 of 21 December 1993 on detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2073/92 on promoting consumption in the Community and expanding the markets for milk and milk products (2), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1312/97 (3), provides that the competent bodies shall conclude contracts for the selected measures with the successful applicants within one month of notification of the decision to the Member State; whereas this time limit expired on 27 June 1997 for the marketing year 1996/1997; whereas administrative problems of an exceptional nature relating to the internal structure of the successful German applicant have precluded the conclusion of such a contract within the deadline for the marketing year 1996/1997;
Whereas, as a result, a deadline of 27 July 1997 for the conclusion of the contract should be set for the marketing year 1996/1997 in the case of Germany; whereas the delay in the conclusion of the contract will not necessitate a prolongation in the period for the accomplishment of the measures beyond the date that would otherwise have been applicable;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Milk and Milk Products,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The second subparagraph to Article 6 (2) of Regulation (EC) No 3582/93 is replaced by the following text:
'However, for the marketing year 1996/1997, in the case of Germany, the contracts for the selected measures with the successful applicants shall be concluded before 27 July 1997`.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 23 July 1997.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION of 16 February 1996 laying down animal health conditions and veterinary certificates for the importation of fresh poultrymeat from Switzerland (Text with EEA relevance) (96/181/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Directive 91/494/EEC of 26 June 1991 on animal health conditions governing intra-Community trade in and imports from third countries of fresh poultrymeat (1), as last amended by Directive 93/121/EC (2) and in particular Article 10 (1) b, Article 11 and Article 12 thereof,
Whereas Commission Decision 94/85/EC (3), as last amended by Decision 96/2/EC (4), established a list of third countries, including Switzerland, from which the importation of fresh poultrymeat is authorized;
Whereas Switzerland is no longer free from Newcastle disease; whereas, however, Switzerland applies measures to control Newcastle disease which are at least equivalent to those laid down in Council Directive 92/66/EEC (5), as last amended by the Act of Accession of Austria, Sweden and Finland;
Whereas it is appropriate on this basis to allow the importation of fresh poultrymeat from Switzerland; Whereas therefore the animal health conditions and the veterinary certificates must be laid down;
Whereas it is appropriate to restrict the scope of this Decision to poultry species covered by Council Directive 71/118/EEC (6), as amended and updated by Directive 92/116/EEC (7), and, if necessary, to lay down the animal health conditions and veterinary certification for other poultry species in a separate Decision;
Whereas this Decision applies without prejudice to measures taken for poultrymeat imported for other purposes than human consumption;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,
HAS ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING DECISION:
Article 1
Member States shall authorize the import of fresh poultry-meat from Switzerland, provided that it meets the requirements of the animal health certificate set out in the Annex and that it is accompanied by such a certificate, duly completed and signed.
Article 2
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 16 February 1996.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Council Decision
of 5 June 2001
authorising the Kingdom of Belgium, in accordance with Article 8(4) of Directive 92/81/EEC, to apply a differentiated rate of excise duty to low-sulphur diesel and unleaded petrol
(2001/439/EC)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Directive 92/81/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on mineral oils(1), and in particular Article 8(4) thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,
Whereas:
(1) Under Article 8(4) of Directive 92/81/EEC, the Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission, may authorise any Member State to introduce exemptions or reductions in the excise duty charged on mineral oils for specific policy considerations.
(2) The Kingdom of Belgium has requested authorisation to apply a differentiated rate of excise duty to low-sulphur (50 ppm) and low-aromatic (35 %) unleaded petrol and low-sulphur (50 ppm) diesel from 1 May 2001 and 1 October 2001 respectively. This differentiation of BEF 0,65 per litre is available to all users of these types of fuel.
(3) Low-sulphur fuels comply with the environmental criterion (50 ppm) laid down in Directive 98/70/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels(2). Under Articles 3 and 4 of that Directive, the use of 50 ppm fuels will, in principle, be compulsory from 1 January 2005.
(4) The other Member States have been informed of this request by the Belgian authorities.
(5) The measure envisaged by the Kingdom of Belgium complies with the minimum rates of excise duty referred to in Articles 4 and 5 of Council Directive 92/82/EEC of 19 October on the approximation of the rates of excise duties on mineral oils(3).
(6) The derogation is sought on environmental grounds - the benefits in terms of air quality are known.
(7) Taking into account the information available at present, neither the Commission nor the Member States consider that the application of a differentiated rate of excise duty on low-sulphur fuel will cause distortions of competition affecting the common interest or hinder the operation of the single market.
(8) This Decision does not prejudice the outcome of any future state aid procedures that may be undertaken in accordance with Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty, nor does it override the requirement for Member States to notify instances of potential state aid to the Commission under Article 88 of the Treaty.
(9) The Commission regularly reviews reductions and exemptions to check that they do not distort competition or the operation of the internal market or are incompatible with Community environmental policy.
(10) The Council will review this decision on the basis of a proposal from the Commission no later than 31 December 2004, when the authorisation granted by this Decision expires,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
1. In accordance with Article 8(4) of Directive 92/81/EEC, the Kingdom of Belgium is authorised to apply a differentiated rate of excise duty on low-sulphur (50 ppm) and low-aromatic (35 %) unleaded petrol from 1 May 2001.
2. In accordance with Article 8(4) of Directive 92/81/EEC, the Kingdom of Belgium is authorised to apply a differentiated rate of excise duty on low-sulphur (50 ppm) diesel fuel from 1 October 2001.
3. These differentiated rates, not exceeding BEF 0.65 per litre of fuel, must comply with the terms of Directive 92/82/EEC and in particular the minimum rates laid down in Articles 4 and 5 thereof.
Article 2
The differentiated rates must be accorded to all users of 50 ppm fuel purchased in Belgium, without discrimination.
Article 3
Subject to a prior review by the Council, on the basis of a proposal from the Commission, this Decision shall expire on 31 December 2004.
Article 4
This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Belgium.
Done at Luxembourg, 5 June 2001.
|
[
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
*****
COUNCIL DECISION
of 22 January 1990
concerning the conclusion of exchanges of letters adjusting the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Eastern Republic of Uruguay on trade in mutton and lamb
(90/114/EEC)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Article 113 thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,
Whereas the Community has taken measures to stabilize the market in sheepmeat and goatmeat; whereas it intends to bring about better integration of that market;
Whereas, in the context of those adjustments to the common organization of the market, it would be opportune to make adjustments to the voluntary restraint agreements concluded in the sector with certain third countries, in order to stabilize imports and improve import prices;
Whereas the Commission has held negotiations on the matter with Uruguay with a view to adjusting the Agreement concluded with that country in 1980 (1); whereas the said negotiations have led to an agreement with Uruguay,
HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Article 1
The Agreement in the form of exchanges of letters adjusting the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Eastern Republic of Uruguay on trade in mutton and lamb is hereby approved on behalf of the European Economic Community.
The text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.
Article 2
The President of the Council is hereby authorized to designate the person empowered to sign the Agreement in order to bind the Community.
Done at Brussels, 22 January 1990.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1043/94 of 12 April 1994 amending Regulation (EC) No 3680/93 laying down certain conservation and management measures for fishery resources in the Regulatory Area as defined in the Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in the North West Atlantic Fisheries
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92 of 20 December 1992 establishing a Community system for fisheries and aquaculture (1), and in particular Article 8 (4) thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,
Whereas Regulation (EC) No 3680/93 (2) lays down quotas for Member States in the NAFO Regulatory Area for 1994;
Whereas these quotas corresponded to the proposals adopted by NAFO at its annual meeting of 1993;
Whereas the NAFO Fisheries Commission, at its special meeting of February 1994, adopted a proposal for cod fishery in NAFO division 3NO for 1994, in the light of scientific evidence showing that a very high proportion of the biomass of this stock is undersized fish;
Whereas the NAFO Fisheries Commission proposed a derogation to the general 130 mm mesh size rule for nets made of polyamide;
Whereas Regulation (EC) No 3680/93 should therefore be amended,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Regulation (EC) No 3680/93 is hereby amended as follows:
1. In Article 4 (1), the following shall be added after the second paragraph:
'For the nets made of polyamide fibres the equivalent minimum mesh size shall be 120 mm. Vessels using these materials shall have aboard certificates, issued by the competent authorities of the flag Member State, certifying that the fibres in the net used are made of polyamide.'
2. The first page of Annex I shall be replaced by the Annex to this Regulation.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Luxembourg, 12 April 1994.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2663/94 of 31 October 1994 fixing for the 1994/95 marketing year the reference prices for cabbage lettuce
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 cabbage lettuce is produced in such quantities in the Community that reference prices should be fixed for it;
Whereas cabbage lettuce harvested during a given crop year is marketed from July to June of the following year; whereas the quantities imported from 1 July to 31 October and in June 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 31 May 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 cabbage lettuce (CN codes 0705 11 10 and 90), 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: 70,82, - from 1 January to 28 February 1995: 76,11, - from 1 March to 31 May 1995: 82,90.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 November 1995.
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 Decision
of 22 May 2003
amending Decision 2000/728/EC establishing the application and annual fees of the Community eco-label
(notified under document number C(2003) 1780)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2003/393/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1980/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 July 2000 on a revised Community eco-label award scheme(1), and in particular Article 12 thereof and Annex V thereto,
Whereas:
(1) In accordance with the working plan established by Commission Decision 2002/18/EC(2) the fee structure for the Community eco-label should offer an appropriate incentive to encourage the use of labels under both the Community scheme and other eco-label award schemes.
(2) Commission Decision 2000/728/EC of 10 November 2000 establishing the application and annual fees of the Community eco-label(3) should therefore be amended to allow reductions for products that have also been awarded another eco-label that complies with the general requirements of ISO 14024.
(3) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee instituted by Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1980/2000,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
In Article 2 of Decision 2000/728/EC, the following paragraph 8a is inserted:
"8a. Competent bodies may grant a reduction of up to 30 % where the product in question has also been awarded another eco-label that complies with the general requirements of ISO 14024."
Article 2
This Decision is addressed to the Member States and to the Community eco-label competent bodies.
Done at Brussels, 22 May 2003.
|
[
0,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 92/19/EEC of 23 March 1992 amending Directive 66/401/EEC on the marketing of fodder plant seed
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Directive 66/401/EEC of 14 June 1966 on the marketing of fodder plant seed (1), as last amended by Directive 90/654/EEC (2), and in particular Article 2 (1a) thereof,
Whereas in the light of the development of scientific and technical knowledge concerning the hybrids resulting from the crossing of species covered by Directive 66/401/EEC, the hybrids resulting from the crossing of Festuca pratensis Huds. with Lolium multiflorum Lam. should, owing to their increased importance in the Community, be included in the scope of the said Directive;
Whereas in the light of the development of scientific and technical knowledge, Annexes II and III to the said Directive should be amended in order to adapt the conditions to be satisfied by the seed and the lot and sample weights of Festulolium species;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Seeds and Propagating Material for Agriculture, Horticulture and Forestry,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:
Article 1
Directive 66/401/EEC is hereby amended as follows:
1. The following is added to Article 2 (1) (A) (a):
'This definition shall also cover the following hybrid resulting from the crossing of species referred to above.
Festuca pratensis Huds. × Lolium multiflorum Lam. Hybrid resulting from the crossing of tall fescue with Italian ryegrass (including Westerworld ryegrass) (× Festulolium) '.
2. In Article 3 (1), '× Festulolium' is inserted after 'Festuca rubra L.'
3. In Annex I.3 'or x Festulolium' shall appear each time after 'Lolium species'.
4. In Annex II.I.2.A the following is inserted after 'Festuca rubra L.':
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 '× Festulolium 75 (a) 96 1,5 1,0 0,5 0,3 0 0 (j) (k) 5 (n)'
5. In Annex II.II.2.A the following is inserted after 'Festuca rubra L.':
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 '× Festulolium 0,3 20 (a) 2 5 5 (j)'
6. In Annex III the following is inserted after 'Festuca rubra L.':
1 2 3 4 '× Festulolium 10 200 60'
Article 2
Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 30 June 1992. They shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof.
When Member States adopt these provisions, these shall contain a reference to this Directive or shall be accompanied by such reference at the time of their official publication. The procedure for such reference shall be adopted by Member States.
Article 3
This Directive is addressed to the Member States. Done at Brussels, 23 March 1992.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1170/2007
of 5 October 2007
establishing a prohibition of fishing for blue whiting in EC and international waters of ICES zone I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIIIa, VIIIb, VIIId, VIIIe, XII and XIV by vessels flying the flag of Spain
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 26(4) thereof,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to common fisheries policy (2), and in particular Article 21(3) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
Council Regulation (EC) No 41/2007 of 21 December 2006 fixing for 2007 the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks applicable in Community waters and for Community vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required (3), lays down quotas for 2007.
(2)
According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2007.
(3)
It is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing for that stock and its retention on board, transhipment and landing,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Quota exhaustion
The fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2007 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.
Article 2
Prohibitions
Fishing for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. It shall be prohibited to retain on board, tranship or land such stock caught by those vessels after that date.
Article 3
Entry into force
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 5 October 2007.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 3131/81 of 28 October 1981 on the classification of goods falling within subheading 19.08 B of the Common Customs Tariff
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 97/69 of 16 January 1969 on measures to be taken for uniform application of the nomenclature of the Common Customs Tariff (1), as last amended by the Act of Accession of Greece, and in particular Article 3 thereof,
Whereas, in order to ensure uniform application of the nomenclature of the Common Customs Tariff, provisions must be laid down concerning the tariff classification of pancakes with cheese filling (approximately 48 % of the total weight) pre-cooked and deep-frozen, for consumption after rapid frying in oil;
Whereas the Common Customs Tariff annexed to Council Regulation (EEC) No 950/68 (2), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3002/81 (3), provides for the classification under heading No 19.08 of pastry, biscuits, cakes and other fine bakers' wares, whether or not containing cocoa in any proportion;
Whereas neither the ingredients (in particular the cheese filling) nor the preparation (pre-cooking followed by deep-freezing) of the products in question constitute an impediment to their being considered as goods falling within heading No 19.08 ; whereas, within this heading, subheading 19.08 B must be chosen for the products in question;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on Common Customs Tariff Nomenclature,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Pancakes with cheese filling (approximately 48 % of the total weight), pre-cooked and deep-frozen for consumption after rapid frying in oil shall fall within Common Customs Tariff subheading
19.08 Pastry, biscuits, cakes and other fine bakers' wares, whether or not containing cocoa in any proportion:
B. Other.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the 21st day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 28 October 1981.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 727/98 of 31 March 1998 suspending certain concessions provided for in Regulations (EC) No 1898/97 and (EC) No 1899/97 laying down rules of application in the pigmeat sector and in the poultrymeat and egg sectors respectively for the arrangements covered by Council Regulation (EC) No 3066/95
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 3066/95 of 22 December 1995 establishing certain concessions in the form of Community tariff quotas for certain agricultural products and providing for the adjustment, as an autonomous and transitional measure, of certain agricultural concessions provided for in the Europe Agreements to take account of the Agreement on Agriculture concluded during the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1595/97 (2), and in particular Article 8 thereof,
Whereas Council Regulation (EC) No 703/98 (3), suspending certain concessions set out in Regulation (EC) No 3066/95 suspends certain concessions regarding certain pigmeat products and certain poultrymeat products; whereas provisions should accordingly be made for derogations from the detailed rules of application laid down in Commission Regulations (EC) No 1898/97 (4), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 618/98 (5), and (EC) No 1899/97 (6);
Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the relevant management committees,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The lodging of applications for licences at reduced customs duty pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1898/97 and for the groups 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1899/97 for products from the Czech Republic shall be suspended from 1 April 1998.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 April 1998.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 31 March 1998.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION
of 15 October 2007
authorising the use of at risk bovine animals until the end of their productive lives in Germany following official confirmation of the presence of BSE
(notified under document number C(2007) 4648)
(Only the German text is authentic)
(2007/667/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (1), and in particular the second subparagraph of Article 13(1) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 lays down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs) in animals. The first subparagraph of Article 13(1) of that Regulation provides for eradication measures to be applied when the presence of a TSE has been officially confirmed. Those measures consist in particular in the killing and complete destruction of the animals and products of animal origin which have been identified as being at risk (at risk bovine animals) due to an epidemiological link with the affected animals.
(2)
Germany has submitted to the Commission a request for a decision to allow the use of at risk bovine animals until the end of their productive lives by way of derogation from point (c) of the first subparagraph of Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 999/2001.
(3)
The control measures submitted by Germany provide for strict movement restriction and traceability of bovine animals in such a way that the current level of protection of human and animal health is not endangered.
(4)
On the basis of a favourable risk assessment, Germany should therefore be allowed to use at risk bovine animals until the end of their productive lives provided that certain conditions are met.
(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
1. By way of derogation from point (c) of the first subparagraph of Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 999/2001, Germany may use bovine animals referred to in the second and third indents of point 1(a) of Annex VII to that Regulation until the end of their productive lives under the conditions provided for in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of this Article.
2. Germany shall ensure that the bovine animals referred to in paragraph 1:
(a)
are permanently traceable in the computerised database provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2);
(b)
are only moved from their holding under official supervision and for the purpose of destruction;
(c)
are not dispatched to other Member States or exported to third countries.
3. Germany shall carry out regular checks to verify the correct implementation of this Decision.
4. Germany shall keep the Commission and the other Member States informed of the use of the bovine animals as referred to in paragraph 1 through the Standing Committee of the Food Chain and Animal Health.
Germany shall also present related information in the annual report provided for in Article 6(4) of Regulation (EC) No 999/2001.
Article 2
This Decision is addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany.
Done at Brussels, 15 October 2007.
|
[
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1171/2006
of 31 July 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 (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 August 2006.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 31 July 2006.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Council Decision
of 28 January 2002
on the conclusion of an Interim Agreement on trade and trade-related matters between the European Community, of the one part, and the Republic of Croatia, of the other part
(2002/107/EC)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 133, in conjunction with Article 300(2), first subparagraph, first sentence, and Article 300(3), second subparagraph, thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission(1),
Having regard to the assent of the European Parliament(2),
Whereas:
(1) Pending the entry into force of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Croatia, of the other part, signed at Luxembourg on 29 October 2001, it is necessary to approve the Interim Agreement on trade and trade-related matters between the European Community, of the one part, and the Republic of Croatia, of the other part, initialled in Brussels on 10 July 2001.
(2) The absence of a separate, pre-existing Transport Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Croatia requires the inclusion of the relevant, trade-related, transport provisions under Protocol 6 of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement.
(3) In the absence of pre-existing contractual structures this Agreement establishes an Interim Committee for the implementation of this Agreement.
(4) The commercial provisions contained in this Agreement are of an exceptional nature, connected with the policy implemented within the framework of the Stabilisation and Association Process and will not constitute, for the European Union, any precedent in the commercial policy of the European Community with regard to third countries other than the countries covered by the Stabilisation and Association Process,
HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Article 1
1. The Interim Agreement on trade and trade-related matters between the European Community, of the one part, and the Republic of Croatia, of the other part, the Annexes and Protocols annexed thereto and the Declarations attached to the Final Act are hereby approved on behalf of the Community.
2. The texts referred to in paragraph 1 are attached to this Decision(3).
Article 2
1. The Commission, assisted by representatives of the Member States, shall represent the Community in the Interim Committee established under Article 38 of the Agreement.
2. The position to be taken by the Community within the Interim Committee shall be determined by the Council, on a proposal by the Commission, or, where appropriate, by the Commission, each in accordance with the corresponding provisions of the Treaty.
Article 3
The President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered, on behalf of the Community, to deposit the act of notification provided for in Article 50 of the Agreement.
Done at Brussels, 28 January 2002.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1795/2004
of 15 October 2004
initiating a ‘new exporter’ review of Council Regulation (EC) No 1995/2000 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of solutions of urea and ammonium nitrate originating, inter alia, in Algeria, repealing the duty with regard to imports from one exporter in this country and making these imports subject to registration
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (1) of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (the basic Regulation), and in particular Article 11(4) thereof,
After consulting the Advisory Committee,
Whereas:
A. REQUEST FOR A REVIEW
B. PRODUCT
C. EXISTING MEASURES
D. GROUNDS FOR THE REVIEW
E. PROCEDURE
(a) Questionnaires
(b) Collection of information and holding of hearings
F. REPEAL OF THE DUTY IN FORCE AND REGISTRATION OF IMPORTS
G. TIME LIMITS
In the interest of sound administration, time limits should be stated within which:
-
interested parties may make themselves known to the Commission, present their views in writing and submit the replies to the questionnaire mentioned in paragraph E(a) of this Regulation or provide any other information to be taken into account during the investigation,
-
interested parties may make a written request to be heard by the Commission.
H. NON COOPERATION
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
A review of Council Regulation (EC) No 1995/2000 is hereby initiated pursuant to Article 11(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 in order to determine if and to what extent the imports of mixtures of urea and ammonium nitrate in aqueous or ammoniacal solution falling within CN code 3102 80 00 originating in Algeria, produced and sold for export to the Community by Fertial SPA (TARIC additional code: A573) should be subject to the anti-dumping duty imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 1995/2000.
Article 2
The anti-dumping duty imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 1995/2000 is hereby repealed with regard to the imports identified in Article 1 of the present Regulation.
Article 3
The customs authorities are hereby directed, pursuant to Article 14(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96, to take the appropriate steps to register the imports identified in Article 1 of this Regulation. Registration shall expire nine months following the date of entry into force of this Regulation.
Article 4
1. Interested parties, if their representations are to be taken into account during the investigation, must make themselves known to the Commission, present their views in writing and submit the replies to the questionnaire mentioned in paragraph E(a) of this Regulation or any other information, unless otherwise specified, within 40 days of the entry into force of this Regulation. Attention is drawn to the fact that the exercise of most procedural rights set out in the basic Regulation depends on the party’s making itself known within the aforementioned period.
Interested parties may also apply in writing to be heard by the Commission within the same 40-day time limit.
2. All submissions and requests made by interested parties must be made in writing (not in electronic format unless otherwise specified) and must indicate the name, address, e-mail address, telephone, and fax and/or telex numbers of the interested party. All written submissions, including the information requested in this notice, questionnaire replies and correspondence provided by interested parties on a confidential basis shall be labelled as ‘Limited Distribution’ (3) and, in accordance with Article 19(2) of the basic Regulation, shall be accompanied by a non-confidential version, which will be labelled ‘FOR INSPECTION BY INTERESTED PARTIES’.
Any information relating to the matter and any request for a hearing should be sent to the following address:
European Commission
Directorate General for Trade
Directorate B
J-79 5/16
B-1049 Brussels
Fax (32 2) 295 65 05
Telex COMEU B 21877
Article 5
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, 15 October 2004.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 787/94 of 29 March 1994 on special measures for farmers affected by the 1992/93 drought in Portugal
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 proposals from the Commission (1),
Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (2),
Whereas Portugal suffered a severe drought between Autumn 1991 and Spring 1992 resulting, on the one hand, in almost total loss of the cereals harvest in certain regions and, on the other, in particular high additional costs for the feeding of cattle, sheep, goats and horses in certain regions; whereas special aid schemes were introduced to mitigate the resulting loss of income to the producers concerned;
Whereas the drought continued until Spring 1993 in certain regions, with similar economic consequences for cereals producers and stockfarmers; whereas provision should therefore be made for special aid measures similar to those taken under Council Regulation (EEC) No 3311/92 of 9 November 1992 on special measures for farmers affected by the 1991/92 drought in Portugal (3);
Whereas the economic consequences of the drought could slow down the integration of Portuguese agriculture into the common market organizations; whereas, in order to support Portuguese efforts to overcome the difficulties, the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, (EAGGF) Guarantee Section, should make a financial contribution to the aid in question not exceeding the appropriations entered in the general budget of the European Communities for financing the measures provided for in Regulation (EEC) No 3311/92 and carried over from 1993 to 1994 for the purpose;
Whereas, in addition, the Portuguese Republic should continue to be authorized to grant aid from the national budget for producers keeping horses in the regions most severely affected by the drought,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
TITLE I Measures to assist cereals producers
Article 1
1. The Portuguese Republic is hereby authorized to grant special aid to producers of common wheat, barley, rye and triticale who are particularly affected by the severe drought which prevailed in Portugal during the period from Autumn 1992 to Spring 1993 in the areas listed in Annex I.
2. Cereals producers who obtained an average yield per hectare of less than 1 000 kg of common wheat, 850 kg of barley and triticale and 650 kg of rye on their holdings in 1993 shall be considered to be particularly affected.
Article 2
Farmers who submitted a crop declaration under the special aid scheme provided for in Council Regulation (EEC) No 3653/90 of 11 December 1990 introducing transitional measures governing the common organization of the market in cereals and rice in Portugal (4) and, in duly substantiated cases, other farmers who can prove that their cereals crops have been affected shall be eligible for the aid.
Article 3
1. The aid per hectare shall amount to:
- ECU 215 per hectare for producers who were unable to produce any cereals on the areas indicated in the crop declaration referred to in Article 2;
- ECU 170 per hectare for other producers.
2. The amounts stated in paragraph 1 shall be reduced by the compensatory payments granted pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1765/92 of 30 June 1992 establishing a support scheme for producers of certain arable crops (5).
Article 4
Where necessary, detailed rules for the application of this Title, in particular those relating to controls, shall be laid down in accordance with the procedure set out in Article 23 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 of 30 June 1992 on the common organization of the market in cereals (6).
TITLE II Measures to assist stockfarmers
Article 5
The Portuguese Republic is hereby authorized to grant special aid to producers keeping suckler cows, dairy cows, ewes and she-goats in regions affected by the severe drought which prevailed in Portugal during the period from Autumn 1992 to Spring 1993 who undertake to keep the herd or flock until at least 31 December 1993.
For the purposes of this Regulation:
- the particularly affected regions shall be as listed in Annex II hereto,
- the severely affected regions shall be as listed in Annex III.
Article 6
Where Article 5 applies, aid may be granted to producers holding suckler cows who received, for 1992, the suckler cow premium introduced by Regulation (EEC) No 2066/92 (7). Where the number of suckler cows held at 1 September 1993:
- is equal to the number for which the premium was granted for 1992, the aid may be granted for no more than that number of animals,
- is less than the number of animals for which the premium was granted for 1992, the aid shall be granted for that lower number,
- is greater than the number of animals for which the premium was granted for 1992, the aid shall be granted for that higher number, provided that the animals were already held at 1 January 1993, subject to appropriate checks by the competent authorities.
Aid may also be paid to producers keeping suckler cows as referred to in Article 5 who did not receive the suckler cow premium for the 1992 marketing year but who can prove to the satisfaction of the competent authorities that they actually held suckler cows likely to have been eligible under Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 (8) at least for the period 1 January to 1 September 1993. The aid may be granted for no more than that number of suckler cows.
Article 7
Where Article 5 applies, aid may be granted to producers delivering or directly selling milk or milk products whose individual reference quantities as referred to in Article 5c of Council Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 of 27 June 1968 on the common organization of the market in milk and milk products (9), are not more than 120 000 kg.
The aid shall be granted only to producers within the particularly affected regions referred to in the first indent of the second paragraph of Article 5 who can prove to the satisfaction of the competent authorities that they actually held dairy cows at least for the period 1 January to 1 September 1993. The aid may be granted for no more than that number of dairy cows.
The number of dairy cows eligible for calculation of the aid shall not in any case exceed seventeen par producer and the total aid per dairy cow may not exceed that granted in accordance with Regulation (EEC) No 3311/92.
Article 8
Where Article 5 applies, aid may be granted to producers holding ewes or she-goats who received the premium referred to in Article 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3013/89 of 25 September 1989 on the common organization of the market in sheepmeat and goatmeat (10), for the 1993 marketing year. The aid may be granted for no more than the number of eligible ewes or she-goats, subject to an appropriate check by the competent authorities.
Article 9
1. The aid shall not exceed:
(a) in particularly affected regions, ECU 145 per suckler cow, ECU 14,5 per ewe and she-goat and ECU 75 per dairy cow;
(b) in severely affected regions, ECU 60 per suckler cow and ECU 6 per ewe and she-goat.
2. If the animals were not present for the whole of the period 1 January to 1 May 1993 in the regions referred to in Article 5, the maximum amounts set out in paragraph 1 of this Article shall be reduced in proportion to the time during which they were present.
Article 10
Where necessary, the Commission may lay down detailed rules for the application on this Title in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 27 of Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 in the case of suckler cows, Article 30 of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the case of dairy cows and Article 30 of Regulation (EEC) No 3013/89 in the case of ewes or she-goats.
TITLE III Other provisions
Article 11
The Portuguese Republic is authorized to grant, from the national budget, in addition to the special 'drought' aid, aid not exceeding ECU 110 per breeding mare more than twelve months old in particularly affected regions.
Article 12
1. The aid referred to in this Regulation shall be converted using the agricultural conversion rate applicable on 1 July 1993.
2. The Community shall make a financial contribution to the aid referred to in Titles I and II not exceeding the appropriations approved by the budgetary authority for the financing of the measures provided for in Regulation (EEC) No 3311/92 and carried over from 1993 to 1994 for that purpose. The aid shall be deemed intervention within the meaning of Article 1 (2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 of 21 April 1970 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (11).
Article 13
The Portuguese Republic shall take the measures necessary to ensure that the aid provided for in this Regulation is only granted to those eligible. The measures shall include appropriate penalties in the case of aid applications containing false information either deliberately or as a result of gross negligence.
The Portuguese Republic shall inform the Commission of measures taken to give effect to this Article.
Article 14
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, 29 March 1994.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 504/2008
of 6 June 2008
implementing Council Directives 90/426/EEC and 90/427/EEC as regards methods for the identification of equidae
(Text with EEA relevance)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Directive 90/426/EEC of 26 June 1990 on animal health conditions governing the movement and import from third countries of equidae (1), and in particular Article 4(4) thereof,
Having regard to Council Directive 90/427/EEC of 26 June 1990 on the zootechnical and genealogical conditions governing intra-Community trade in equidae (2), and in particular Article 4(2)(c) and (d), the second indent of Article 6(2) and the first subparagraph of Article 8(1) thereof,
Having regard to Council Directive 94/28/EC of 23 June 1994 laying down the principles relating to the zootechnical and genealogical conditions applicable to imports from third countries of animals, their semen, ova and embryos, and amending Directive 77/504/EEC on pure-bred breeding animals of the bovine species (3), and in particular Article 3(4) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
Commission Decision 93/623/EEC of 20 October 1993 establishing the identification document (passport) accompanying registered equidae (4) introduces a method to identify registered equidae during their movements for animal health control purposes.
(2)
Commission Decision 2000/68/EC of 22 December 1999 amending Commission Decision 93/623/EEC and establishing the identification of equidae for breeding and production (5), lays down rules on the identification document to accompany equidae during movement.
(3)
Decisions 93/623/EEC and 2000/68/EC have been implemented differently by the Member States. In addition, the identification of equidae in those Decisions is linked to movement, while in Community legislation concerning other livestock species, animals are identified, inter alia for disease control purposes, regardless of their movement status. In addition, that two-tier system of equidae for breeding and production on the one side and registered equidae on the other side may lead to the issuing of more than one identification document for a single animal which can only be counteracted by applying to the animal an indelible, but not necessarily visible, mark on the occasion of the primary identification of the animal.
(4)
The outline diagram included in the identification document set out in Decision 93/623/EEC is not fully compatible with similar information required by international organisations handling equidae for competitions and races and by the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE). This Regulation should therefore establish an outlinediagram which is appropriate to the needs of the Community and in line with those internationally accepted requirements.
(5)
Imports of equidae continue to be subject to the conditions laid down in Directive 90/426/EEC, and in particular in Commission Decision 93/196/EEC of 5 February 1993 on animal health conditions and veterinary certification for imports of equidae for slaughter (6), and Commission Decision 93/197/EEC of 5 February 1993 on animal health conditions and veterinary certification for imports of registered equidae and equidae for breeding and production (7).
(6)
When the customs procedures laid down in Council Regulation (EC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (8) are applied, it is necessary to refer in addition to Council Regulation (EEC) No 706/73 of 12 March 1973 concerning the Community arrangements applicable to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man for trade in agricultural products (9). Regulation (EEC) No 706/73 stipulates that as from 1 September 1973, the Community rules are applicable in the matter of veterinary legislation, but excludes Community zootechnical legislation. The present Regulation should apply without prejudice to that Regulation.
(7)
Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 July 2000 establishing a system for the identification and registration of bovine animals and regarding the labelling of beef and beef products (10) provides a definition of a keeper of animals. By contrast, Article 4(2) of Directive 90/426/EEC refers to the owner or breeder of the animal. Council Directive 92/35/EEC of 29 April 1992 laying down control rules and measures to combat African horse sickness (11) provides for a combined definition of owner and keeper. As under Community and national legislation, the owner of an equine animal is not necessarily the person responsible for the animal, it is appropriate to clarify that primarily the keeper of the equine animal, who may be the owner, should be responsible for the identification of equine animals in accordance with the present Regulation.
(8)
In the interests of consistency of Community legislation, the methods for the identification of equidae provided for in this Regulation should apply without prejudice to Commission Decision 96/78/EC of 10 January 1996 laying down the criteria for entry and registration of equidae in stud books for breeding purposes (12).
(9)
Those methods should be in line with the principles established by breeding organisations approved in accordance with Commission Decision 92/353/EEC of 11 June 1992 laying down the criteria for the approval or recognition of organisations and associations which maintain or establish stud books for registered equidae (13). In accordance with that Decision, it is for the organisation or association which maintains the stud book of the origin of the breed to establish principles on a system for identifying equidae and on the division of the stud book into classes and on the lineages entered in the stud book.
(10)
In addition, the certificate of origin, referred to in Article 4(2)(d) of Directive 90/427/EEC, to be incorporated in the identification document should mention all necessary information to ensure that equidae which are moved between different stud books are entered in the class of the stud book the criteria of which they meet.
(11)
In accordance with the third indent of Article 1 of Commission Decision 96/510/EC of 18 July 1996 laying down the pedigree and zootechnical certificates for the importation of breeding animals, their semen, ova and embryos (14) the pedigree and zootechnical certificate for registered equidae must be conform to the identification document as laid down in Decision 93/623/EEC. It is therefore necessary to clarify that any reference to Decision 93/623/EEC, but also to Decision 2000/68/EC, should be construed as reference to the present Regulation.
(12)
As all equidae born in or imported into the Community in accordance with this Regulation should be identified by a single identification document, special provisions are necessary when the animals’ status as equidae for breeding and production is changed into registered equidae as defined in Article 2(c) of Directive 90/426/EEC.
(13)
Member States should be able to establish specific regimes for the identification of equidae roaming under wild or semi-wild conditions in defined areas or territories, including nature reserves, for the sake of consistency with the second paragraph of Article 2 of Directive 92/35/EEC.
(14)
Electronic identifiers (transponders) for equidae are already in wide practical use at international level. That technology should be used to ensure a close link between the equine animal and the means of identification. Equidae should be marked with a transponder, although provision should be made for alternative methods used for the verification of the identity of the animal provided that those alternative methods provide equivalent guarantees to prevent multiple issuing of identification documents.
(15)
While equidae must always be accompanied by their identification document in accordance with current Community legislation, provision should be made to derogate from that requirement when it is impossible or even impractical with the view to the retention of the identification document throughout the lifetime of the equine animal, or where such document was not issued taking into account the slaughter of the animal before it reaches the required maximum age for identification.
(16)
Those derogations should be applied without prejudice to Article 14 of Council Directive 2003/85/EC of 29 September 2003 on Community measures for the control of foot-and-mouth disease (15), which allows derogations from certain disease control measures for identified equidae on holdings where an outbreak of that disease has been confirmed.
(17)
Member States should also be permitted to allow a simplified identification document to be used for equidae being moved within their territory. Plastic cards with embedded computer chips (smart cards) have been introduced as data storage devices in various areas. It should be possible to issue such smart cards as an option in addition to the identification document and to use them under certain conditions in place of the identification document accompanying equidae during movements within a Member State.
(18)
In accordance with Article 8 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2076/2005 of 5 December 2005 laying down transitional arrangements for the implementation of Regulations (EC) No 853/2004, (EC) No 854/2004 and (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (16) food chain information requirements for equidae are to be implemented by the end of 2009.
(19)
Provisions are necessary in case the original identification document issued in accordance with this Regulation for lifetime was lost. Those provisions should as much as possible exclude the unlawful possession of more than one identification document in order to describe correctly the animal's status as intended for slaughter for human consumption. Where sufficient and verifiable information is available, a duplicate document should be issued which is marked as such, and generally excludes the animal from the food chain; in other cases a replacement document should be issued, equally marked as such, that in addition will downgrade a previously registered equine animal to an equine for breeding and production.
(20)
In accordance with Articles 4 and 5 of Directive 90/426/EEC, the identification document is an instrument to immobilise equidae in case of an outbreak of a disease on the holding where they are kept or bred. It is therefore necessary to provide for the suspension of the validity of that document for movement purposes in the event of an outbreak of certain diseases by an appropriate entry in the identification document.
(21)
On the death of the equine animal other than by slaughter at a slaughterhouse, the identification document should be returned to the issuing body by the authority supervising the processing of the dead animal in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 October 2002 laying down health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption (17), and it should be ensured that the transponder, or any alternative methods, including marks, used to verify the identity of the equine animal, cannot be recycled.
(22)
To prevent transponders from entering the food chain, meat from animals from which it has not been possible to remove the transponder at the time of slaughter should be declared unfit for human consumption in accordance with Chapter V of Section II of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption (18).
(23)
The standardisation of the place of implantation of transponders and the recording of that place in the identification documents should make it easier to locate implanted transponders.
(24)
In accordance with Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (19), live animals prepared for placing on the market for human consumption are defined as food. That Regulation provides for far-reaching responsibilities of food business operators throughout all stages of the production of food, including traceability of food-producing animals.
(25)
Equidae for breeding and production, as well as registered equidae, may become equidae for slaughter as defined in Article 2(d) of Directive 90/426/EEC at a certain stage of their lifetime. Meat of solipeds, synonymous for equidae, is defined in Annex I 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 (20).
(26)
In accordance with paragraph 7 of Section III of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004, the slaughterhouse operator is to receive, check and act upon food chain information providing details on the origin, history and management of animals intended for food production. The competent authority may allow food chain information on domestic solipeds to be sent to the slaughterhouse at the same time as the animals, rather than being sent in advance. The identification document accompanying equidae for slaughter should therefore form part of that food chain information.
(27)
In accordance with paragraph 1 of Chapter III of Section II of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 the official veterinarian is to verify compliance with the food business operator's duty to ensure that animals accepted for slaughter for human consumption are properly identified.
(28)
In accordance with paragraph 8 of Section III of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004, the food business operators are to check passports accompanying domestic solipeds to ensure that the animal is intended for slaughter for human consumption and if they accept the animal for slaughter they are to give the passport to the official veterinarian.
(29)
Without prejudice to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 of 26 June 1990 laying down a Community procedure for the establishment of maximum residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin (21) and Council Directive 96/22/EC of 29 April 1996 concerning the prohibition on the use in stockfarming of certain substances having a hormonal or thyrostatic action and of ß-agonists (22), the administration of veterinary medicinal products to equidae is subject to Directive 2001/82/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to veterinary medicinal products (23).
(30)
Article 10(2) and (3) of Directive 2001/82/EC provides for specific derogations for equidae from Article 11 of that Directive, relating to the treatment of food producing animals with medicinal products that have an established maximum residue limit for species other than the target species or are authorised for a different condition, provided that those equidae are identified in accordance with Community legislation and specifically marked in their identification document as not intended for slaughter for human consumption or as intended for slaughter for human consumption following a withdrawal period of at least six months after they have been treated with substances listed in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1950/2006 of 13 December 2006 establishing, in accordance with Directive 2001/82/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Community code relating to veterinary medicinal products, a list of substances essential for the treatment of equidae (24).
(31)
In order to maintain control over the issuing of identification documents, a minimum set of relevant data relating to the issuing of such documents should be recorded in a database. The databases in different Member States should cooperate in accordance with Council Directive 89/608/EEC of 21 November 1989 on mutual assistance between the administrative authorities of the Member States and cooperation between the latter and the Commission to ensure the correct application of legislation on veterinary and zootechnical matters (25) to facilitate the exchange of data.
(32)
The Universal Equine Life Number (UELN) system has been agreed worldwide between the major horse-breeding and competition organisations. It has been developed on the initiative of the World Breeding Federation for Sport Horses (WBFSH), the International Stud Book Committee (ISBC), the World Arabian Horse Organization (WAHO), the European Conference of Arabian Horse Organisations (ECAHO), the Conférence Internationale de l’Anglo-Arabe (CIAA), the Fédération Equestre Internationale (FEI) and the Union Européenne du Trot (UET) and information on this system can be consulted on the UELN website (26).
(33)
The UELN system is suitable for the registration of both registered equidae and equidae for breeding and production and allows computerised networks to be brought in gradually to ensure that the animals’ identity can continue to be verified in accordance with Article 6 of Directive 90/427/EEC in the case of registered equidae.
(34)
When codes are assigned to databases, those codes and the format of the recorded identification numbers of individual animals should in no way conflict with the established UELN system. Therefore, the list of assigned UELN codes should be consulted before any new code is assigned to a database.
(35)
Article 7(3) of Directive 90/426/EEC requires the official veterinarian to record the identification number or identification document number of the slaughtered equidae, and to forward to the competent authority at the place of dispatch, at the latter’s request, an attestation to the effect that the equine animal has been slaughtered. In accordance with Article 4(4)(i) of that Directive, after registered equidae are slaughtered, their identification document are to be returned to the body that issued them. These requirements should also apply to identification documents issued for equidae for breeding and production. Recording a UELN-compatible life number and using it to identify the authorities or bodies which issued the identification document should facilitate compliance with those requirements. Where possible, Member States should use the liaison bodies they have designated in accordance with Article 35 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules (27).
(36)
Veterinary supervision necessary to provide the animal health guarantees in accordance with Articles 4 and 5 of Directive 90/426/EEC can only be ensured if the holding as defined in Article 2(a) of that Directive is known to the competent authority. Similar requirements result from the application of food law in relation to equidae as food-producing animals. However, due to the frequency of movements of equidae, in comparison with other livestock, it should not be attempted to establish a real-time habitual traceability of equidae. Identification of equidae should therefore be a first step of a system for the identification and registration of equidae to be completed in the framework of the New Community Animal Health Policy.
(37)
With a view to the uniform application of Community legislation on the identification of equidae in the Member States and to ensure that it is clear and transparent, Decisions 93/623/EEC and 2000/68/EC should be repealed and replaced by this Regulation.
(38)
Transitional measures should be provided for in order to allow the Member States to adapt to the rules laid down in this Regulation.
(39)
The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and the Standing Committee on Zootechnics,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
CHAPTER I
SUBJECT MATTER, SCOPE AND DEFINITIONS
Article 1
Subject matter and scope
1. This Regulation lays down rules on the identification of equidae:
(a)
born in the Community; or
(b)
released for free circulation in the Community in accordance with the customs procedure defined in Article 4(16)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.
2. This Regulation shall be without prejudice to:
(a)
Regulation (EEC) No 706/73 and Decision 96/78/EC; and
(b)
measures taken by Member States to register holdings keeping equidae.
Article 2
Definitions
1. For the purposes of this Regulation, the definitions in Article 2(a) and (c) to (f), (h) and (i) of Directive 90/426/EEC and Article 2(c) of Directive 90/427/EEC shall apply.
2. The following definitions shall also apply:
(a)
‘keeper’ means any natural or legal person having ownership of, or in the possession of, or charged with the keeping of, an equine animal, whether or not for financial reward, and whether or not on a permanent or on a temporary basis, including during transportation, at markets, or during competitions, races or cultural events;
(b)
‘transponder’ means a read-only passive radio frequency identification device:
(i)
complying with standard ISO 11784 and applying HDX or FDX-B technology; and
(ii)
capable of being read by a reading device compatible with standard ISO 11785, at a minimum distance of 12 cm;
(c)
‘equidae’ or ‘equine animals’ means wild or domesticated soliped mammals of all species within the genus Equus of the family Equidae, and their crosses;
(d)
‘unique life number’ means a unique 15-digit alphanumeric code compiling information on the individual equine animal and the database and country where such information is first recorded in accordance with the coding system of the Universal Equine Life Number (UELN) and comprising:
(i)
a six-digit UELN-compatible identification code for the database referred to in Article 21(1); followed by
(ii)
a nine-digit individual identification number assigned to the equine animal.
(e)
‘smart card’ means a plastic device with an embedded computer chip capable of storing data and transmitting them electronically to compatible computer systems.
CHAPTER II
IDENTIFICATION DOCUMENT
Article 3
General principles and obligation to identify equidae
1. Equidae referred to in Article 1(1) shall not be kept unless they are identified in accordance with this Regulation.
2. Where the keeper has no ownership of the equine animal he shall act within the framework of this Regulation on behalf of and in agreement with the natural or legal person having the ownership of the equine animal (the owner).
3. For the purpose of this Regulation, the system for the identification of equidae shall be comprised of the following elements:
(a)
a single lifetime identification document;
(b)
a method to ensure an unequivocal link between the identification document and the equine animal;
(c)
a database recording under a unique identification number the identification details relating to the animal for which an identification document was issued to a person recorded in that database.
Article 4
Issuing bodies for identification documents for equidae
1. Member States shall ensure that the identification document referred to in Article 5(1) for registered equidae is issued by the following bodies (issuing bodies):
(a)
the organisation or association officially approved or recognised by the Member State, or by the official agency of the Member State concerned, both as referred to in the first indent of Article 2(c) of Directive 90/427/EEC, which manages the stud book for that breed of animal, as referred to in Article 2(c) of Directive 90/426/EEC; or
(b)
a branch with its headquarters in a Member State of an international association or organisation which manages horses for competition or racing, as referred to in Article 2(c) of Directive 90/426/EEC.
2. The identification documents issued by the authorities in a third country issuing pedigree certificates in accordance with the third indent of Article 1 of Decision 96/510/EC shall be deemed valid in accordance with this Regulation for registered equidae referred to in Article 1(1)(b).
3. The issuing body for the identification document referred to in Article 5(1) for equidae for breeding and production shall be designated by the competent authority.
4. The issuing bodies referred to in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 shall act in accordance with this Regulation, in particular with the provisions in Articles 5, 8 to 12, 14, 16, 17, 21 and 23.
5. Member States shall draw up and keep up to date the list of issuing bodies and make this information available to the other Member States and the public on a website.
The information on the issuing bodies shall include at least the contact details necessary to comply with the requirements of Article 19.
In order to assist the Member States in making those up to date lists available, the Commission shall provide a website to which each Member State shall provide a link to its national website.
6. The lists of issuing bodies in third countries referred to in paragraph 2 shall be prepared and updated in accordance with the following conditions:
(a)
the competent authority of the third country in which the issuing body is situated guarantees that:
(i)
the issuing body complies with paragraph 2;
(ii)
in the case of an issuing body approved in accordance with Directive 94/28/EEC, it must comply with the information requirement referred to in Article 21(3) of this Regulation;
(iii)
lists of issuing bodies are drawn up, kept up to date and communicated to the Commission;
(b)
the Commission shall:
(i)
provide the Member States with regular notifications concerning new or updated lists that it has received from the competent authorities of the third countries concerned in accordance with point (a)(iii);
(ii)
arrange for up-to-date versions of those lists to be made available to the public;
(iii)
where necessary, include the matter related to the list of issuing bodies in third countries, without undue delay, on the agenda of the Standing Committee on Zootechnics for decision in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 11(2) of Council Directive 88/661/EEC (28).
Article 5
Identification of equidae born in the Community
1. Equidae born in the Community shall be identified by means of a single identification document in accordance with the model identification document for equidae set out in Annex I (identification document or passport). It shall be issued for the lifetime of the equine animal.
The identification document shall be in a printed indivisible format and contain entries for the insertion of the information required under the following Sections thereof:
(a)
in the case of registered equidae, Sections I to X;
(b)
in the case of equidae for breeding and production, at least Sections I, III, IV and VI to IX.
2. The issuing body shall ensure that no identification document is issued for an equine animal unless at least Section I thereof is duly completed.
3. Without prejudice to Article 1(1) of Decision 96/78/EC, and notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 1(a) and paragraph 2 of this Article, registered equidae shall be identified in the identification document according to the rules of the issuing bodies referred to in Article 4(1) or (2) of this Regulation.
4. For registered equidae, the issuing body, as referred to in Article 4(1)(a) and (2) of this Regulation, shall complete in Section II of the identification document the information in the certificate of origin, as referred to in Article 4(2)(d) of Directive 90/427/EEC.
In accordance with the principles of the approved or recognised breeding organisation keeping the stud book of the origin of the breed of the registered equine animal concerned, the certificate of origin must contain full pedigree information, the section of the stud book referred to in Article 2 or 3 of Decision 96/78/EC and, where established, the class of the main section in which the equine animal is entered.
5. For the purpose of obtaining an identification document, an application shall be submitted by the keeper, or, where specifically required by law in the Member State where the animal is born, by the owner, within the time limits provided for in paragraph 6 of this Article and Article 7(1) for an identification document referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article, to the issuing body referred to in Article 4(1), (2) or (3), and all information necessary to comply with this Regulation shall be supplied.
6. Without prejudice to Article 13(1), equidae born in the Community shall be identified in accordance with this Regulation before 31 December of the year of birth of the equine animal or within six months following the date of birth, whatever date occurs later.
By way of derogation from the first subparagraph, Member States may decide to limit that maximum permitted period for identifying the equine animal to six months.
Member States making use of the derogation provided for in the second subparagraph shall inform the Commission and the other Member States.
7. The order of Sections and their numbering must remain unaltered in the identification document, except in the case of Section I that may be placed centrefold in the identification document.
8. The identification document shall not be duplicated or replaced, except as provided for in Articles 16 and 17.
Article 6
Derogation from the completion of Section I of the identification document
By way of derogation from Article 5(2), where a transponder is implanted in accordance with Article 11, or an individual, indelible and visible alternative mark is applied in accordance with Article 12, the information in points 3(b) to (h) of Part A of Section I and in points 12 to 18 in the outline diagram in Part B of Section I of the identification document need not be completed, or a photograph or print displaying details sufficient to identify the equine animal may be used instead of completing that outline diagram.
The derogation provided for in the first paragraph shall be without prejudice to the rules on identifying equidae laid down by the issuing bodies referred to in Article 4(1), (2) and (3).
Article 7
Derogations concerning the identification of certain equidaeliving under wild or semi-wild conditions
1. By way of derogation from Article 5(1), (3) and (5), the competent authority may decide that equidae constituting defined populations living under wild or semi-wild conditions in certain areas, including nature reserves, to be defined by that authority, shall be identified in accordance with Article 5 only when they are removed from such areas or brought into domestic use.
2. Member States intending to make use of the derogation provided for in paragraph 1 shall notify the Commission of the population and the areas concerned:
(a)
within six months of the date of entry into force of this Regulation; or
(b)
before making use of that derogation.
Article 8
Identification of imported equidae
1. The keeper or, where specifically required by law in the Member State where the animal is imported, the owner, shall apply for an identification document, or for the registration of the existing identification document in the database of the appropriate issuing body in accordance with Article 21, within 30 days of the date of completion of the customs procedure, as defined in Article 4(16)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 2913/92, where:
(a)
equidae are imported into the Community; or
(b)
the temporary admission defined in Article 2(i) of Directive 90/426/EEC is converted into permanent entry in accordance with Article 19(iii) of that Directive.
2. Where an equine animal, as referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article, is accompanied by papers that do not comply with Article 5(1) or lack certain information required in accordance with this Regulation, the issuing body shall on request of the keeper or, where specifically required by law in the Member State where the animal is imported, the owner:
(a)
complete those papers so that they meet the requirements of Article 5; and
(b)
record the identification details of that equine animal and the complementary information in the database in accordance with Article 21.
3. Where the papers accompanying the equidae as referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article cannot be amended to meet the requirements of Article 5(1) and (2), they shall not be considered valid for identification purposes in accordance with this Regulation.
Where the papers referred to in the first subparagraph are surrendered to or invalidated by the issuing body, that fact shall be recorded in the database referred to in Article 21 and the equidae shall be identified in accordance with Article 5.
CHAPTER III
CHECKS REQUIRED PRIOR TO ISSUE OF IDENTIFICATION DOCUMENTS AND TRANSPONDERS
Article 9
Verification of single identification documents issued for equidae
Before issuing an identification document, the issuing body, or the person acting on its behalf, shall take all appropriate measures to:
(a)
verify that no such identification document has already been issued for the equine animal concerned;
(b)
prevent the fraudulent issuing of multiple identification documents for an individual equine animal.
Those measures shall at least involve consulting the appropriate papers and electronic records available, checking the animal for any signs or marks indicative of any previous identification and applying the measures provided for in Article 10.
Article 10
Measures to detect previous active marking of equidae
1. The measures referred to in Article 9 shall include, at least, measures to detect:
(a)
any transponder previously implanted, using a reading device complying with ISO standard 11785 and capable of reading HDX and FDX-B transponders at least when the reader is in direct contact with the body surface on the spot where under normal circumstances a transponder is implanted;
(b)
any clinical signs indicating that a transponder previously implanted has been surgically removed;
(c)
any other alternative mark on the animal applied in accordance with Article 12(3)(b).
2. Where the measures provided for in paragraph 1 indicate the existence of a previously implanted transponder, or any other alternative mark applied in accordance with Article 12(3)(b), the issuing body shall take the following measures:
(a)
in the case of equidae born in a Member State, it shall issue a duplicate or replacement identification document in accordance with Articles 16 or 17;
(b)
in the case of imported equidae, it shall act in accordance with Article 8(2).
3. Where the measures provided for in paragraph 1(b) indicate the existence of a transponder previously implanted, or the measures provided for in paragraph 1(c) indicate the existence of any other alternative mark, the issuing body shall enter this information in an appropriate way in Part A and in the outline diagram in Part B of Section I of the identification document.
4. Where the undocumented removal of a transponder or alternative mark referred to in paragraph 3 of this Article is confirmed in an equine animal born in the Community, the issuing body, as referred to in Article 4(1) or (3), shall issue a replacement identification document in accordance with Article 17.
Article 11
Electronic methods of identity verification
1. The issuing body shall ensure that at the time it is first identified, the equine animal is actively marked by the implantation of a transponder.
Member States shall lay down the minimum qualification required for the intervention referred to in the first subparagraph or designate the person or profession entrusted with such operations.
2. The transponder shall be implanted parenterally under aseptic conditions between poll and withers in the middle of the neck in the area of the nuchal ligament.
However, the competent authority may authorise the implantation of the transponder at a different place on the neck of the equine animal, provided that such alternative implantation does not compromise the welfare of the animal and does not increase the risk of migration of the transponder compared to the method referred to in the first subparagraph.
3. When the transponder is implanted in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2, the issuing body shall enter the following information in the identification document:
(a)
in point 5 of Part A of Section I, at least the last 15 digits of the code transmitted by the transponder and displayed by the reader following implantation, together with, where appropriate, a self-adhesive sticker with a bar code or a print of that bar code encoding at least those last 15 digits of the code transmitted by the transponder;
(b)
in point 11 of Part A of Section I, the signature and stamp of the person referred to in paragraph 1 who carried out the identification and implanted the transponder;
(c)
in points 12 or 13 of the outline diagram in Part B of Section I, depending on the side where the transponder was implanted, the place where the transponder has been implanted into the equine animal.
4. By way of derogation from paragraph 3(a) of this Article, where the measures provided for in Article 26(2) are implemented for an equine animal marked with a previously implanted transponder which does not comply with the standards defined in Article 2(2)(b), the name of the manufacturer or the reading system shall be inserted in point 5 of Part A of Section I in the identification document.
5. Where Member States lay down rules to ensure, in accordance with the standards referred to in Article 2(2)(b), the uniqueness of the numbers displayed by the transponders implanted by issuing bodies referred to in Article 4(1)(a) that are approved in accordance with Decision 92/353/EEC by the competent authorities of that Member State, those rules shall be applied without compromising the system of identification laid down by the issuing body in another Member State or third country that carried out the identification in accordance with this Regulation on request of the keeper or, where specifically required by law in the Member State where the animal is born, of the owner.
Article 12
Alternative methods for identity verification
1. By way of derogation from Article 11(1), Member States may authorise the identification of equidae by suitable alternative methods, including marks, that provide equivalent scientific guarantees that, alone or in combination, ensure that the identity of the equine animal can be verified and that effectively prevent the double issuing of identification documents (alternative method).
The issuing body shall ensure that no identification document is issued for an equine animal, unless the alternative method referred to in the first subparagraph is entered in point 6 or 7 of Part A of Section I of the identification document and recorded in the database in accordance with Article 21(1)(f).
2. Where an alternative method is used, the keeper shall provide the means of accessing that identification information or shall, if applicable, bear the costs of verifying the identity of the animal.
3. Member States shall ensure that:
(a)
alternative methods as the sole means of the identity verification of equidae are not used in the majority of equidae identified in accordance with this Regulation;
(b)
visible marks applied to equidae for breeding and production cannot be confused with those reserved on their territory for registered equidae.
4. Member States intending to make use of the derogation provided for in paragraph 1 shall make this information available to the Commission, other Member States and the public on a website.
In order to assist the Member States in making that information available, the Commission shall provide a website to which each Member State shall provide a link to its national website.
CHAPTER IV
MOVEMENT AND TRANSPORT OF EQUIDAE
Article 13
Movement and transport of registered equidae and equidae for breeding and production
1. The identification document shall accompany registered equidae and equidae for breeding and production at all times.
2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, the identification document need not accompany equidae referred to in that paragraph on the occasions when they are:
(a)
stabled or on pasture, and the identification document can be produced without delay by the keeper;
(b)
moved temporarily on foot either:
(i)
in the vicinity of the holding within a Member State so that the identification document can be produced within a period of three hours; or
(ii)
during transhumance of equidae to and from summer grazing grounds and the identification documents can be produced at the holding of departure;
(c)
unweaned and accompany their dam or foster mare;
(d)
participating in a training or test of an equestrian competition or event which requires them to leave the competition or event venue;
(e)
moved or transported in an emergency situation relating to the equine animals themselves or, without prejudice to the second subparagraph of Article 14(1) of Directive 2003/85/EC, to the holding on which they are kept.
Article 14
Derogation for certain movements and transport without or with simplified identification documents
1. By way of derogation from Article 13(1), the competent authority may authorise the movement or transport within the same Member State of equidae referred to in that paragraph not accompanied by their identification document, provided they are accompanied by a smart card issued by the body that issued their identification document and containing the information set out in Annex II.
2. Member States, making use of the derogation provided for in paragraph 1 of this Article, may grant derogations to each other covering movements or transport of the equidae referred to in Article 13(1) within their own territories.
They shall notify the Commission of their intention to grant such derogations.
3. The issuing body shall issue a temporary document comprising at least a reference to the unique life number and, where available, the transponder code, allowing the equine animal to be moved or transported within the same Member State for a period not exceeding 45 days, during which the identification document is surrendered to the issuing body or the competent authority for the purpose of updating identification details.
4. Where, during the period referred to in paragraph 3, an equine animal is transported to another Member State or through another Member State to a third country, it shall, irrespective of its registration status, be accompanied, in addition to the temporary document, by a health certificate in accordance with Annex C to Directive 90/426/EEC. If the animal is not marked with a transponder or if the animal is not identified by an alternative method in accordance with Article 12 of this Regulation, that health certificate must be completed with a description in accordance with Section I of the identification document.
Article 15
Movements and transport of equidae for slaughter
1. The identification document issued in accordance with Articles 5(1) or 8 shall accompany equidae for slaughter while they are being moved or transported to the slaughterhouse.
2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, the competent authority may authorise an equine animal for slaughter which has not been identified in accordance with Article 5, to be transported directly from the holding of birth to the slaughterhouse within the same Member State provided that:
(a)
the equine animal is less than 12 months old and has visible dental stars of the temporary lateral incisors;
(b)
there is an uninterrupted traceability from the holding of birth to the slaughterhouse;
(c)
during transport to the slaughterhouse the equine animal is individually identifiable in accordance with Articles 11 or 12;
(d)
the consignment is accompanied by the food chain information in accordance with Section III of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 that shall include a reference to the individual identification referred to in point (c) of this paragraph.
3. Article 19(1)(b), (c) and (d) shall not apply in the case of the movement or transport of equidae for slaughter in accordance with paragraph 2 of this Article.
CHAPTER V
DUPLICATION, REPLACEMENT AND SUSPENSION OF IDENTIFICATION DOCUMENTS
Article 16
Duplicate identification documents
1. Where the original identification document is lost, but the equine animal’s identity can be established, notably through the code transmitted by the transponder or the alternative method, and an ownership declaration is available, the issuing body, as referred to in Article 4(1), shall issue a duplicate identification document with a reference to the unique life number and shall clearly mark the document as such (duplicate identification document).
In such cases, the equine animal shall be classified in Part II of Section IX of the duplicate identification document as not intended for slaughter for human consumption.
Details of the duplicate identification document issued and the equine animal’s classification in Section IX thereof shall be entered by reference to the unique life number in the database, as referred to in Article 21.
2. By way of derogation from the second subparagraph of paragraph 1, the competent authority may decide to suspend the equine animal’s status as intended for slaughter for human consumption for a period of six months where the keeper can satisfactorily demonstrate within 30 days of the declared date of loss of the identification document that the equine animal’s status as intended for slaughter for human consumption has not been compromised by any medicinal treatment.
To that effect, the competent authority shall enter the date of commencement of the six-month suspension period in the first column of Part III of Section IX of the duplicate identification document, and complete the third column thereof.
3. Where the lost original identification document was issued by an issuing body referred to in Article 4(2) in a third country, the duplicate identification document shall be issued by that original issuing body and routed to the keeper or, where specifically required by law in the Member State where the equine animal is located, to the owner, via the issuing body or competent authority in that Member State.
In such cases, the equine animal shall be classified in Part II of Section IX of the duplicate identification document as not intended for slaughter for human consumption and the entry in the database as referred to in Article 21(1)(l) adapted accordingly.
However, the duplicate identification document may be issued by an issuing body referred to in Article 4(1)(a) which registers equidae of that breed or by an issuing body referred to in Article 4(1)(b) which registers equidae for that purpose in the Member State where the equine animal is located, where the original issuing body in the third country has so agreed.
4. Where the lost original identification document has been issued by an issuing body which is no longer in existence, the duplicate identification document shall be issued by an issuing body in the Member State where the equine animal is located in accordance with paragraph 1.
Article 17
Replacement identification document
Where the original identification document is lost and the identity of the equine animal cannot be established, the issuing body as referred to in Article 4(3) in the Member State where the equine animal is located shall issue a replacement identification document (replacement identification document) which shall be clearly marked as such and meet the requirements of Article 5(1)(b).
In such cases, the equine animal shall be classified in Part II of Section IX of the replacement identification document as not intended for slaughter for human consumption.
Details of the replacement identification document issued and the equine animal’s registration status and classification in Section IX thereof shall be adapted accordingly in the database as referred to in Article 21 by reference to the unique life number.
Article 18
Suspension of identification documents for movement purposes
The official veterinarian shall suspend the validity for movement purposes of the identification document by making an appropriate entry in Section VIII thereof where an equine animal is kept on or comes from a holding which is:
(a)
subject to a prohibition order as referred to in Article 4(5) of Directive 90/426/EEC; or
(b)
situated in a Member State or part thereof that is not free of African horse sickness.
CHAPTER VI
DEATH OF EQUIDAE AND EQUIDAE INTENDED FOR SLAUGHTER FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION AND MEDICATION RECORD
Article 19
Death of equidae
1. On the slaughter or death of the equine animal, the following measures shall be taken:
(a)
the transponder shall be protected from subsequent fraudulent use, notably by its recovery, destruction or disposal in situ;
(b)
the identification document shall be rendered invalid at least by stamping it ‘invalid’ on the first page;
(c)
an attestation shall be communicated to the issuing body, either directly or through the contact point referred to in Article 23(4), with reference to the equine animal’s unique life number to the effect that the equine animal has been slaughtered, was killed or died, including the date of death of the animal; and
(d)
the invalidated identification document shall be destroyed.
2. The measures provided for in paragraph 1 shall be carried out by or under the supervision of:
(a)
the official veterinarian:
(i)
in case of slaughter or killing for disease control purposes, in accordance with Article 4(4)(i) of Directive 90/426/EEC; or
(ii)
following slaughter, in accordance with Article 7(3) of Directive 90/426/EEC; or
(b)
the competent authority defined in Article 2(1)(i) of Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002, in the case of disposal or processing of the carcass in accordance with Articles 4 or 5 of that Regulation.
3. Where, as required in paragraph 1(a), the transponder cannot be recovered from an equine animal slaughtered for human consumption, the official veterinarian shall declare the meat or the part of the meat containing the transponder unfit for human consumption in accordance with Chapter V(1)(n) of Section II of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 854/2004.
4. By way of derogation from paragraph 1(d), and without prejudice to the rules printed in the identification document by the issuing body, Member States may implement procedures to return the invalidated document to the issuing body.
5. In all cases of death or loss of the equine animal not referred to in this Article, the keeper shall return the identification document to the appropriate issuing body referred to in Article 4(1), (2) or (3) within 30 days of the death or loss of the animal.
Article 20
Equidae intended for slaughter for human consumption and medication record
1. An equine animal shall be deemed to be intended for slaughter for human consumption, unless it is irreversibly declared as not so intended in Part II of Section IX of the identification document, by the signature of:
(a)
the keeper or owner on his/her own discretion, or
(b)
the keeper and the veterinarian responsible, acting in accordance with Article 10(2) of Directive 2001/82/EC.
2. Prior to any treatment in accordance with Article 10(2) of Directive 2001/82/EC or to any treatment by use of a medicinal product authorised in accordance with Article 6(3) of that Directive, the veterinarian responsible shall ascertain the equine animal’s status as either intended for slaughter for human consumption, which is the default case, or not intended for slaughter for human consumption as set out in Part II of Section IX of the identification document.
3. Where the treatment referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article is not permitted for an equine animal intended for slaughter for human consumption, the veterinarian responsible shall ensure that in accordance with the derogation provided for in Article 10(2) of Directive 2001/82/EC the equine animal concerned is irreversibly declared as not intended for slaughter for human consumption by:
(a)
completing and signing Part II of Section IX of the identification document; and
(b)
invalidating Part III of Section IX of the identification document.
4. Where an equine animal is to be treated under the conditions referred to in Article 10(3) of Directive 2001/82/EC, the veterinarian responsible shall enter in Part III of Section IX of the identification document the requisite details of the medicinal product containing substances essential for the treatment of equidae listed in Regulation (EC) No 1950/2006.
The veterinarian responsible shall enter the date of last administration, as prescribed, of that medicinal product and shall, acting in accordance with Article 11(4) of Directive 2001/82/EC, inform the keeper of the date when the withdrawal period established in accordance with Article 10(3) of that Directive will lapse.
CHAPTER VII
RECORDS AND PENALTIES
Article 21
Database
1. When issuing the identification document, or registering previously issued identification documents, the issuing body shall record at least the following information concerning the equine animal in its database:
(a)
the unique life number;
(b)
the species;
(c)
the sex;
(d)
the colour;
(e)
the date (day, month and year) of birth;
(f)
if applicable, at least the last 15 digits of the code transmitted by the transponder, or the code transmitted by a radio frequency identification devise not complying with the standard defined in Article 2(2)(b) together with information on the required reading system, or the alternative method;
(g)
the country of birth;
(h)
the date of issue and any amendment of the identification document;
(i)
the name and address of the person to whom the identification document is issued;
(j)
the status as registered equidae or equidae for breeding and production;
(k)
the name of the animal (birth name and where applicable the commercial name);
(l)
the known status of the animal as not intended for slaughter for human consumption;
(m)
information concerning any duplicate and replacement identification documents in accordance with Articles 16 and 17;
(n)
the notified date of death of the animal.
2. The issuing body shall keep the information referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article on record in its database for at least 35 years or until at least two years from the date of death of the equine animal communicated in accordance with Article 19(1)(c).
3. Immediately after recording the information referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article, the issuing body shall communicate the information referred to in points (a) to (f) and (n) of that paragraph to the central database in the Member State where the equine animal was born, if such central database has been made available in accordance with Article 23.
Article 22
Communication of code of databases of issuing bodies
The Member States shall make the names, addresses, including communication details, and six-digit UELN-compatible identification code of the databases of the issuing bodies available to the other Member States and the public on a website.
In order to assist the Member States in making such information available, the Commission shall provide a website to which each Member State shall provide a link to its national website.
Article 23
Central databases and their cooperation and contact points
1. A Member State may decide that the issuing body is to incorporate the information referred to in Article 21 relating to equidae born or identified on its territory in a central database or that the issuing body’s database is to be networked with that central database (the central database).
2. The Member States shall cooperate in the operation of their central databases in accordance with Directive 89/608/EEC.
3. The Member States shall make the name, address and six-digit UELN-compatible identification code of their central databases available to the other Member States and the public on a website.
In order to assist the Member States in making such information available, the Commission shall provide a website to which each Member State shall provide a link to its national website.
4. Member States shall provide a contact point to receive the attestation referred to in Article 19(1)(c) for further distribution to the respective issuing bodies approved on their territory.
That contact point may be a liaison body referred to in Article 35 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004.
Details about the contact point, which may be incorporated in the central database, shall be made available to other Member States and the public on a website.
In order to assist the Member States in making such information available, the Commission shall provide a website to which each Member State shall provide a link to its national website.
Article 24
Penalties
The Member States shall lay down the rules on penalties applicable to infringements of this Regulation and shall take all measures necessary to ensure that they are implemented. The penalties laid down shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.
The Member States shall notify those provisions to the Commission by 30 June 2009 at the latest. Any subsequent amendments affecting them shall be notified to the Commission without delay.
CHAPTER VIII
TRANSITIONAL AND FINAL PROVISIONS
Article 25
Repeal
Decisions 93/623/EEC and 2000/68/EC are repealed with effect from 1 July 2009.
References to the repealed Decisions shall be construed as references to this Regulation.
Article 26
Transitional provisions
1. Equidae which are born by 30 June 2009 at the latest, and identified by that date in accordance with Decisions 93/623/EEC or 2000/68/EC, shall be deemed to be identified in accordance with this Regulation.
The identification documents for those equidae shall be registered in accordance with Article 21(1) of this Regulation by 31 December 2009 at the latest.
2. Equidae which are born by 30 June 2009 at the latest, but not identified by that date in accordance with Decisions 93/623/EEC or 2000/68/EC, shall be identified in accordance with this Regulation by 31 December 2009 at the latest.
Article 27
Entry into force
This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
It shall apply from 1 July 2009.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 6 June 2008.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION of 16 December 1994 on the approval of the Single Programming Document for Community structural assistance in the region of Rhône-Alpes concerned by Objective 2 in France (Only the French text is authentic) (94/1065/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988 laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards coordination of activities of the different Structural Funds between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments (1), as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 2082/93 (2), and in particular Article 10 (1) last subparagraph thereof,
After consultation of the Advisory Committee on the Development and Conversion of Regions and the Committee pursuant to Article 124 of the Treaty,
Whereas the programming procedure for structural assistance under Objective 2 is defined in Article 9 (8) to (10) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 of 24 June 1988 on the tasks of the Structural Funds and their effectiveness and on coordination of their activities between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments (3), as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 2081/93 (4); whereas, however, the last subparagraph of Article 5 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 foresees that in order to simplify and to speed up programming procedures, Member States may submit in a Single Programming Document the information required for the regional and social conversion plan referred to in Article 9 (8) of Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 and the information required at Article 14 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88; whereas Article 10 (1) last subparagraph of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 foresees that in that case the Commission adopts a single decision in a Single Document covering the points referred to in Article 8 (3) and the assistance from the Funds referred to in the last subparagraph of Article 14 (3);
Whereas the Commission has established, by Decision 94/169/EC (5), an initial list of declining industrial areas concerned by Objective 2 for the period 1994 to 1996;
Whereas the French Government has submitted to the Commission on 28 April 1994 the Single Programming Document referred to in Article 5 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 for the region of Rhône-Alpes; whereas this document contains the elements referred to in Article 9 (8) of Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 and in Article 14 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88; whereas expenditure under this Single Programming Document is eligible pursuant to Article 33 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88, from 1 January 1994;
Whereas the Single Programming Document submitted by this Member State includes a description of the conversion priorities selected and the applications for assistance from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the European Social Fund (ESF) as well as an indication of the planned use of the assistance available from the European Investment Bank (EIB) and the other financial instruments in implementing the Single Programming Document;
Whereas, in accordance with Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88, the Commission is charged with ensuring, within the framework of the partnership, coordination and consistency between assistance from the Funds and assistance provided by the EIB and the other financial instruments, including the ECSC and the other actions for structural purposes;
Whereas the EIB has been involved in the drawing up of the Single Programming Document in accordance with the provisions of Article 8 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88, applicable by analogy in the establishment of the Single Programming Document; whereas it has declared itself prepared to contribute to the implementation of this document in conformity with its statutory provisions; whereas, however, it has not yet been possible to evaluate precisely the amounts of Community loans corresponding to the financial needs;
Whereas Article 2 second subparagraph of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1866/90 of 2 July 1990 on arrangements for using the ecu for the purpose of the budgetary management of the Structural Funds (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2745/94 (2), stipulates that in the Commission Decisions approving a Single Programming Document, the Community assistance available for the entire period and the annual breakdown thereof shall be set out in ecus at prices for the year in which each Decision is taken and shall be subject to indexation; whereas this annual breakdown must be compatible with the progressive increase in the commitment appropriations shown in Annex II to Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88; whereas indexation is based on a single rate per year, corresponding to the rates applied annually to budget appropriations on the basis of the mechanism for the technical adjustment of the financial perspectives;
Whereas Article 1 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4254/88 of 19 December 1988 laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards the European Regional Development Fund (3), as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 2083/93 (4), defines the measures for which the ERDF may provide financial support;
Whereas Article 1 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4255/88 of 19 December 1988 laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards the European Social Fund (5), as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 2084/93 (6), defines the measures for which the ESF may provide financial support;
Whereas the Single Programming Document has been established in agreement with the Member State concerned through the partnership defined in Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88;
Whereas the Single Programming Document satisfies the conditions and includes the information required by Article 14 of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88;
Whereas Article 9 (3) of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 lays down that Member States shall provide the relevant financial information to the Commission to permit verification of the respect of the principle of additionality; whereas the analysis, in the framework of partnership, of the information provided for by the French authorities has not yet allowed this verification; whereas, payments should therefore be suspended after the first advance provided for in Article 21 (2) of the said Regulation until the Commission will have verified the respect of the additionality;
Whereas the present assistance satisfies the conditions laid down in Article 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88, and so should be implemented by means of an integrated approach involving finance from more than one Fund;
Whereas Article 1 of the Financial Regulation of 21 December 1977 applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (7), as last amended by Regulation (ECSC, EC, Euratom) No 2730/94 (8), states that the legal commitments entered into for measures extending over more than one financial year must contain a time limit for implementation which must be specified to the recipient in due form when the aid is granted;
Whereas all the other conditions laid down for the grant of aid from the ERDF and the ESF have been complied with,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
The Single Programming Document for Community structural assistance in the region of Rhône-Alpes concerned by Objective 2 in France, covering the period 1 January 1994 to 31 December 1996, is hereby approved.
Article 2
The Single Programming Document includes the following essential elements:
(a) a statement of the main priorities for joint action, their specific quantified objectives, an appraisal of their expected impact and their consistency with economic, social and regional policies in France;
the main priorities are:
1. improving the competitivity of enterprise;
2. develop training and research;
3. support local development;
(b) the assistance from the Structural Funds as referred to in Article 4;
(c) the detailed provisions for implementing the Single Programming Document comprising:
- the procedures for monitoring and evaluation,
- the financial implementation provisions,
- the rules for compliance with Community policies;
(d) the procedures for verifying additionality;
(e) the arrangements for associating the environmental authorities with the implementation of the Single Programming Document;
(f) the means available for technical assistance necessary for the preparation, implementation or adaptation of the measures concerned.
Article 3
For the purpose of indexation, the annual breakdown of the global maximal allocation foreseen for the assistance from the Structural Funds is as follows:
TABLE
Article 4
The assistance from the Structural Funds granted to the Single Programming Document amounts to a maximum of ECU 99,7 million.
The procedure for granting the financial assistance, including the financial contribution from the Funds to the various priorities and measures, is set out in the financing plan and the detailed implementing provisions which form an integral part of the Single Programming Document.
The national financial contribution envisaged, which is approximately ECU 133 million for the public sector and ECU 84 million for the private sector, may be met in part by Community loans, in particular from the ECSC and EIB.
Article 5
1. The breakdown among the Structural Funds of the total Community assistance available is as follows:
- ERDF:ECU 81,754 million,
- ESF:ECU 17,946 million.
2. The budgetary commitments for the first instalment are as follows:
- ERDF:ECU 25,986 million,
- ESF:ECU 5,704 million.
Commitments of subsequent instalments will be based on the financing plan for the Single Programming Document and on progress in its implementation.
3. The financial contribution will be suspended after the payment of the first advance provided for in Article 21 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 until such time as the Commission has verified the respect of the principle of additionality on the basis of the relevant information supplied by the Member State.
Article 6
The breakdown among the Structural Funds and the procedure for the grant of the assistance may be altered subsequently, subject to the availability of funds and the budgetary rules, in the light of adjustments decided according to the procedure laid down in Article 25 (5) of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88.
Article 7
The Community aid concerns expenditure on operations under the Single Programming Document which, in the Member State concerned, are the subject of legally binding commitments and for which the requisite finance has been specifically allocated no later than 31 December 1996. The final date for taking account of expenditure on these measures is 31 December 1998.
Article 8
The Single Programming Document shall be implemented in accordance with Community law, and in particular Articles 6, 30, 48, 52, 59, 92 and 93 of the EC Treaty and the Community Directives on the coordination of procedures for the award of contracts.
Article 9
This Decision is addressed to the French Republic.
Done at Brussels, 16 December 1994.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
*****
COMMISSION DECISION
of 10 December 1986
approving an addendum to the programme relating to the potato sector submitted by the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany for the Land of Lower Saxony pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC) No 355/77
(Only German text is authentic)
(86/615/EEC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 355/77 of 15 February 1977 on common measures to improve the conditions under which agricultural and fishery products are processed and marketed (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 2224/86 (2), and in particular Article 5 thereof,
Whereas on 28 April 1986 the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany forwarded an addendum to the programme approved by Commission Decision 79/910/EEC (3), relating to potatoes in Lower Saxony;
Whereas the addendum to the programme concerns the modernization and expansion of capacity for the intake, storage, grading, market preparation and processing of potatoes for consumption in the fresh state, seed potatoes, and potatoes for processing, so as to improve the situation in the sector and add value to its output; whereas it therefore constitutes a programme within the meaning of Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 355/77;
Whereas approval of the addendum cannot relate to products not covered by Annex II to the Treaty or to starch;
Whereas the addendum contains enough of the details specfied in Article 3 Regulation (EEC) No 355/77 to show that the objective of Article 1 of the said Regulation can be attained in the potato sector in Lower Saxony; whereas the time laid down for implementing the addendum does not exceed the period specified in Article 3 (1) (g) of the said Regulation;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Agricultural Structure,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
The addendum to the programme relating to the potato sector in Lower Saxony, notified on 28 April 1986 by the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany in accordance with Regulation (EEC) No 355/77, is hereby approved with the exception of the investments relating to products not covered by Annex II and to starch.
Article 2
This Decision is addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany.
Done at Brussels, 10 December 1986.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1223/2008
of 9 December 2008
establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),
Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,
Whereas:
Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations, the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products and periods stipulated in Annex XV, Part A thereto,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 10 December 2008.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 9 December 2008.
|
[
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COUNCIL DECISION
of 31 January 2000
concerning the conclusion of the Agreement concerning the establishing of global technical regulations for wheeled vehicles, equipment and parts which can be fitted and/or be used on wheeled vehicles ("Parallel Agreement")
(2000/125/EC)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community and in particular Articles 95 and 133 thereof, in conjunction with Article 300(2), first sentence, and Article 300(3) second subparagraph thereof;
Having regard to the proposal by the Commission(1);
Having received the assent of the European Parliament(2);
Whereas:
(1) In its Decision of 3 November 1997, the Council authorised the Commission to negotiate in the framework of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UN/ECE) an Agreement concerning the establishing of global technical regulations for wheeled vehicles, equipment and parts which can be fitted and/or be used on wheeled vehicles ("Parallel Agreement").
(2) As a result of those negotiations, on 25 June 1998 the Parallel Agreement was opened for signature; the Community signed that Agreement on 18 October 1999.
(3) International harmonisation in the automotive sector is already taking place in the framework of the 1958 UN/ECE Revised Agreement concerning the adoption of uniform technical prescriptions for wheeled vehicles, equipment and parts which can be fitted and/or be used on wheeled vehicles and the conditions for reciprocal recognition of approvals granted on the basis of these prescriptions (the 1958 Agreement), to which the Community became a Contracting Party on 24 March 1998.
(4) Conclusion of the Parallel Agreement constitutes an aim of common trade policy in accordance with Article 133 of the Treaty to remove existing and avoid the creation of new technical barriers to trade in motor vehicles between the Contracting Parties; involvement by the Community will ensure consistency between the harmonisation activites conducted under both the 1958 Agreement and the Parallel Agreement and will thus permit easier access to third-country markets.
(5) Conclusion of the Parallel Agreement by the Community establishes a specific institutinal framework by organising cooperation procedures between Contracting Parties; the assent of the European Parliament is therefore required.
(6) It is necessary to establish practical arrangements with regard to the involvement of the Community in the Parallel Agreement.
(7) The Commission should be responsible for meeting all the notification requirements laid down in the Parallel Agreement; the Parallel Agreement is to operate in parallel with the 1958 Agreement; both Agreements will operate in the framework of the UN/ECE and use the same Working Parties and facilities installed in that framework.
(8) The Parallel Agreement creates a framework to establish global technical regulations in the global registry by consensus vote; due to the operating in parallel of the two Agreements, draft technical regulations emerging from the Working Groups will in principle be voted in the bodies under both Agreements; for the 1958 Agreement a decision-making procedure has been established; the Community vote concerning the Parallel Agreement can therefore be decided upon under the same procedure on the same occasion as for the 1958 Agreement.
(9) In cases where a regulation is only voted under the Parallel Agreement, it is possible to delegate the decision determining the Community vote to the Commission assisted by the regulatory committee, because the established global technical regulation has at a later stage to be submitted for adoption to the procedure laid down in Articles 95 and 251 of the Treaty.
(10) The Community vote regarding a proposed amendment to the Parallel Agreement should be determined in accordance with the procedure followed in order to approve that Agreement; with regard to the expression of an objection to an amendment to the Parallel Agreement after a consensus vote in favour of the amendment, taking account of the time constrains laid down in that Agreement, the Community position may be decided upon by the Commission in a less complex procedure.
(11) The Parallel Agreement should be approved,
HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Article 1
The Agreement concerning the establishing of global technical regulations for wheeled vehicles, equipment and parts which can be fitted and/or be used on wheeled vehicles, hereinafter referred to as the "Parallel Agreement", is hereby approved on behalf of the Community, within the limits of its competences.
The text of the Parallel Agreement is set out as Annex I.
Article 2
The President of the Council shall be authorised to designate the person empowered to lodge the instrument of approval as required by Article 9.2 of the Parallel Agreement and to make the declaration contained in Annex II.
Article 3
The Commission shall carry out on behalf of the Community all the notifications laid down in the Parallel Agreement, in particular those provided for under its Articles 7,9,12 and 15.
Article 4
The principal arrangements with regard to the participation of the Community and the Member States in the Parallel Agreement are established in Annex III.
Article 5
1. The Community shall vote in favour of establishing any draft global technical regulation or a draft amendment to such a regulation
- if the Community's vote in favour of the parallel draft technical regulation has been decided upon under either of the procedures laid down in Article 4(2) of Council Decision 97/836/EC(3),
- if a global technical regulation or an amendment to such a regulation is not established in parallel with a regulation or an amendment to such a regulation under the 1958 Agreement, where the draft has been approved in accordance with the procedure set out in Article 13 of Directive 70/156/EEC(4).
2. Where an approval in accordance with paragraph 1 is not given, the Community shall vote against the establishment of a global technical regulation in the global registry.
3. The Community position with regard to the listing and reaffirmation of listing in the compendium of candidate technical regulations as well as with regard to issue resolution between Contracting Parties shall be established as appropriate in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 13 of Directive 70/156/EEC.
Article 6
1. The Community shall vote in favour of a proposed amendment to the Parallel Agreement where the proposed amendment has been approved in accordance with the procedure followed in order to approve that Agreement. Where that procedure has not been completed in time before the vote takes place the Commission will vote against the amendment on behalf of the Community.
2. The Decision to express an objection to an amendment to the Parallel Agreement shall be taken in accordance with the procedure laid down in the second indent of Article 5(1).
Done at Brussels, 31 January 2000.
|
[
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 2097/92 of 24 July 1992 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1805/78 on the withdrawal by fruit and vegetable producers' organizations of products not complying with their marketing rules
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic 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 (EEC) No 1754/92 (2), and in particular the second subparagraph of Article 15 (1) thereof,
Whereas Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1805/78 (3), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1592/87 (4), set out the requirements pertaining to withdrawals by producers' organizations which, under the second subparagraph of Article 15 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72, decide not to put on sale products that although meeting the quality standards do not satisfy the marketing rules that these organizations have adopted in order to limit the volume of supplies; whereas in particular that Regulation sets out the minimum requirements that such withdrawn produce must meet;
Whereas nectarines have been added to the products listed in Annex II to Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 covered by the second paragraph of Article 15 (1) of that Regulation; whereas nectarines should therefore also be brought within the scope of Regulation (EEC) No 1805/78;
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
The second indent in Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 1805/78 is hereby replaced by the following:
'- in the case of tomatoes, table grapes, apricots, peaches and nectarines, the quality, grading and packaging requirements laid down by the quality standards in respect of the classes in operation; peaches and nectarines may however be presented unlayered in the packaging.'
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 24 July 1992.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 909/2008
of 17 September 2008
establishing a prohibition of fishing for hake in VI and VII; EC waters of Vb; international waters of XII and XIV by vessels flying the flag of the Netherlands
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, 17 September 2008.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0
] |
*****
COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC, EURATOM, ECSC) No 2023/83
of 18 July 1983
amending Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 440/83 in respect of the shiftwork allowances for officials and other servants of the European Communities
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN
COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing a single Council and a single Commission of the European Communities,
Having regard to the Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Communities, and in particular Article 13 thereof,
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 (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 440/83 (2), and in particular Articles 63, 64, 65 and 82 of the Staff Regulations and the first paragraph of Article 20 and Article 64 of the conditions of employment,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,
Whereas an error was made in the submission of the proposal for Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 440/83; whereas this error must be corrected,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The following paragraph is hereby added to Article 9 of Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 440/83:
'With effect from 1 July 1982, the amounts of Bfrs 6 207, 10 242 and 13 966 for the shiftwork allowances laid down in Article 9 of Regulation (ECSC, EEC, Euratom) No 372/82 (2) shall be replaced by Bfrs 6 592, 10 877 and 14 832 respectively.
(2) OJ No L 47, 19. 2. 1982, p. 13.'
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 18 July 1983.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 187/2006
of 2 February 2006
fixing the maximum export refund for white sugar to certain third countries for the 18th partial invitation to tender issued within the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1138/2005
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) and in particular the second indent of Article 27(5) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1138/2005 of 15 July 2005 on a standing invitation to tender to determine levies and/or refunds on exports of white sugar (2), for the 2005/2006 marketing year, requires partial invitations to tender to be issued for the export of this sugar to certain third countries.
(2)
Pursuant to Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1138/2005 a maximum export refund shall be fixed, as the case may be, account being taken in particular of the state and foreseeable development of the Community and world markets in sugar, for the partial invitation to tender in question.
(3)
The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sugar,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
For the 18th partial invitation to tender for white sugar issued pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1138/2005 the maximum amount of the export refund shall be 31,712 EUR/100 kg.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 3 February 2006.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 2 February 2006.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1431/2003
of 11 August 2003
amending Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 as regards the conditions for the payment of export refunds on cereal products
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 of 30 June 1992 on the common organisation of the market in cereals(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1104/2003(2), and in particular Article 13(11) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) The second indent of Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 of 15 April 1999 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 444/2003(4), stipulates that, when a differentiated refund applies for a specific third country, entitlement to the refund is acquired on importation into that third country. Articles 14, 15 and 16 of that Regulation lay down the conditions for the payment of the refund when a differentiated refund applies and in particular the documents to be presented to prove the arrival of the products at destination.
(2) When a differentiated refund applies, Article 18(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 stipulates that part of the refund, calculated using the lowest refund rate, is paid on application by the exporter once proof is furnished that the product has left the customs territory of the Community.
(3) Article 13a of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 of 29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 on the granting of export refunds on cereals and the measures to be taken in the event of disturbance on the market for cereals(5), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1163/2002(6), provides for derogations from Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 as a result of trade agreements concluded with Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovenia and Slovakia, providing for the abolition of refunds for those destinations.
(4) Commission Regulation (EC) No 934/2003(7) opens an invitation to tender for the refund on common wheat exports to all third countries, except for the 10 countries acceding to the Community on 1 May 2004, and Bulgaria and Romania, so requiring the refund rate to be differentiated, depending on the destination. Those destinations are also excluded when the export refunds are fixed at regular intervals. As there is no trade agreement with Cyprus or Malta and these countries are not therefore listed among the destinations referred to in Article 13a of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95, the derogation regarding proof of arrival at destination and calculation of the amount of the advance provided for in that Article does not apply to the invitation to tender opened by Regulation (EC) No 934/2003, nor to the fixing of export refunds at regular intervals.
(5) Based on the statistical data available, there are no exports of Community cereal products to Cyprus or Malta. So as not to hamper most Community exports by requiring proof of arrival at destination, the scope of the derogations provided for in Article 13a of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 should be extended to cases where a refund is not fixed for those two destinations.
(6) Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 should therefore be amended.
(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 following paragraph 3 is hereby added to Article 13a of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95:
"3. The derogations laid down in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall also apply where refunds are not fixed for exports of the products referred to in Article 1(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 to Cyprus or Malta."
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 11 August 2003.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 2829/77 of 12 December 1977 on the bringing into force of the European Agreement concerning the work of crews of vehicles engaged in international road transport (AETR)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Article 75 thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,
Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (1),
Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee (2),
Whereas the European Agreement concerning the work of crews of vehicles engaged in international road transport (AETR) of 1 July 1970 was open at Geneva until 31 March 1971 for signature and after that date for accession by Member States of the Economic Commission for Europe ; whereas, after the deposit of the eighth instrument of ratification, the Agreement entered into force on 5 January 1976;
Whereas the AETR Agreement lays down rules governing specific conditions of work in international road transport between the Contracting States which are fundamental to the social protection of the crews of vehicles and to road safety ; whereas the Agreement is thus an instrument for creating uniform working conditions favouring social progress and improved safety in road transport between European countries ; whereas it covers the same fields as Council Regulation (EEC) No 543/69 of 25 March 1969 on the harmonization of certain social legislation relating to road transport (3), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 2827/77 (4), and thus constitutes a useful supplement to the internal Community rules ; whereas the Agreement should therefore enter into force in all Member States as soon as possible;
Whereas the AETR Agreement should be brought into force in such a way as to ensure that its provisions apply uniformly from 1 January 1978 at the latest throughout the Community to the crews of all vehicles which effect international carriage operations between Member States and third countries which are Contracting Parties ; whereas the provisions of the Agreement should also as far as possible be applied to transport operations with third countries which are not Contracting Parties ; whereas Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 543/69 must be amended accordingly;
Whereas, since the subject matter of the AETR Agreement falls within the scope of Regulation (EEC) No 543/69, from the date of entry into force of that Regulation the power to negotiate and conclude the Agreement has lain with the Community ; whereas, however, the particular circumstances in which the AETR negotiations took place warrant, by way of exception, a procedure whereby the Member States of the Community individually deposit the instruments of ratification or accession in a concerted action but nonetheless act in the interest and on behalf of the Community;
Whereas, in order to ensure the supremacy of Community law in intra-Community transport, Member States should enter a reservation when depositing their instruments of ratification or accession whereby international transport operations between Member States are not to be regarded as international transport operations within the meaning of the Agreement;
Whereas the possibilities provided for in the Agreement itself for bilateral agreements between Contracting Parties derogating from the said Agreement as regards frontier zone and transit transport operations are a matter which in principle fall within the competence of the Community;
Whereas, if an amendment to the internal Community rules in the field in question necessitates a corresponding amendment to the Agreement, the Member States will act jointly to obtain such an amendment to the Agreement in accordance with the procedure laid down therein,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 543/69 shall be replaced by the following text: (1)OJ No C 157, 14.7.1975, p. 92. (2)OJ No C 263, 17.11.1975, p. 75. (3)OJ No L 77, 29.3.1969, p. 49. (4)See page 1 of this Official Journal.
"Article 2
1. This Regulation applies to carriage by road by means of vehicles registered in a Member State or in a third country for any journey made within the Community.
2. However, as from 1 January 1978: - the European Agreement concerning the work of crews of vehicles engaged in international road transport (AETR) shall apply to international road transport operations to and/or from third countries which are contracting parties to that Agreement, or in transit through such countries, for the whole of the journey where such operations are effected by vehicles registered in a Member State or in one of the said third countries.
- transport operations to and/or from a third country effected by vehicles registered in a third country which is not a contracting party to the Agreement shall be subject to the Agreement for any journey made within the Community.".
Article 2
1. In ratifying or acceding to the AETR the Member States, having regard to the Council recommendation of 23 September 1974, shall act on behalf of the Community.
The Member States shall inform the Secretary-General of the United Nations in writing that in their case ratification or accession was in accordance with this Regulation.
These measures shall be implemented as soon as possible and not later than 1 January 1978.
2. The instruments of ratification or accession shall be accompanied by the following reservation:
"Transport operations between Member States of the European Economic Community shall be regarded as national transport operations within the meaning of the AETR in so far as such operations do not pass in transit through the territory of a third State which is a Contracting Party to the AETR.".
3. Where amendments to Community provisions in the matter necessitate an adjustment to the Agreement, the Member States will initiate the amendment procedure provided for in Article 23 of the Agreement.
Article 3
Agreements to be reached with third countries pursuant to Article 2 (2) of the AETR shall be concluded by the Community. The measures provided for under Article 3 (2) of the AETR shall be adopted by the Council on a proposal from the Commission.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 12 December 1977.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0
] |
COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 1013/81 of 17 February 1981 on the conclusion of the Agreement in the form of an exchange of letters relating to the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Republic of Austria on the simplification of formalities in respect of goods traded between the European Economic Community, on the one hand, and Greece and Turkey, on the other hand, when the said goods are forwarded from Austria and concerning the implementation in the Community of Decisions No 1/80, No 2/80 and No 3/80 of the EEC-Austria Joint Committee - Community transit - amending the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Republic of Austria on the application of the rules on Community transit and the Appendices thereto
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Article 113 thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,
Whereas it is necessary to approve the Agreement in the form of an exchange of letters relating to the amendment of the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Republic of Austria on the simplification of formalities in respect of goods traded between the European Economic Community, on the one hand, and Greece and Turkey, on the other hand, when the said goods are forwarded from Austria (1); whereas the proposed amendment is the subject of recommendation No 1/80 of the EEC-Austria Joint Committee - Community transit ; whereas that recommendation provides that the amendments rendered necessary by the accession of Greece should be made to the Agreement;
(1) OJ No L 188, 19.7.1975, p. 1.
Whereas, moreover, Article 16 of the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Republic of Austria on the application of the rules on Community transit (2), signed on 30 November 1972, empowers the Joint Committee set up under that Agreement to adopt by decision certain amendments to the said Agreement and the Appendices thereto;
(2) OJ No L 294, 29.12.1972, p. 87.
Whereas the Joint Committee has decided to amend the Agreement of 30 November 1972 and the Appendices thereto in order, in particular, to take account of technical adjustments to the rules on Community transit following the accession of Greece, and in order that the Greek text of the Agreement may be equally authentic;
Whereas, moreover, the Joint Committee has decided, in particular, to make provision for the possibility of producing and completing Community transit documents by modern reproduction techniques and, at the same time, to extend to carriage by means of large containers the simplified procedures at present available when goods are transported by rail;
Whereas the Joint Committee has, moreover, laid down special provisions which make it possible, as long as customs duties and other charges have not been eliminated in intra-Community trade, to distinguish goods according to whether they have acquired Community status in the Community of Nine or in Greece;
Whereas the said amendments are, respectively, the subject of Decisions No 1/80 and No 2/80 of 18 September 1980 and Decision No 3/80 of 24 November 1980 of the Joint Committee ; whereas it is necessary to adopt implementing measures in respect of the said Decisions,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The Agreement in the form of an exchange of letters relating to the amendment of the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Republic of Austria on the simplification of formalities in respect of goods traded between the European Economic Community on the one hand and Greece and Turkey on the other hand when the said goods are forwarded from Austria is hereby approved on behalf of the Community.
The text of the Agreement is attached in Annex I.
Article 2
The President of the Council is hereby authorized to designate the person empowered to sign the Agreement in order to bind the Community.
Article 3
Decisions No 1/80, No 2/80 and No 3/80 of the EEC-Austria Joint Committee - Community transit - amending the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Republic of Austria on the application of the rules on Community transit and the Appendices thereto shall apply in the Community.
The text of the Decisions is attached in Annexes II, III and IV.
Article 4
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 17 February 1981.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
*****
COMMISSION DECISION
of 29 March 1988
concerning aid provided by the French Government to the Renault group, an undertaking chiefly producing motor vehicles
(Only the French text is authentic)
(88/454/EEC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 93 (2) thereof,
Having given notice in accordance with the above Article to interested parties to submit their comments and having regard to those comments,
Whereas:
I
At the request of the Commission, the French Government informed the Commission by letter of 2 May 1985 that it intended to provide during 1985 FF 3 000 million of new equity capital to Renault. It did not regard the transmission of this information as a notification, but as information sent in accordance with the requirements of Commission Directive 80/723/EEC of 25 June 1980 on the transparency of financial relations between Member States and public undertakings (1). The French Government has contested the need to notify such aids under Article 93 (3) of the Treaty in all its correspondence relating to new equity capital.
Furthermore, by letter dated 30 April 1985, the French Government informed the Commission of an FIM loan of FF 750 million to the 'Régie Nationale des Usines Renault', hereinafter referred to as RNUR. By a further letter dated 6 August 1985, the French Government informed the Commission that it had granted a second FIM loan of FF 500 million to 'Renault Véhicules Industriels', hereinafter referred to as RVI.
On 18 December 1985 the Commission decided to initiate the procedure under Article 93 (2) of the EEC Treaty with respect to the capital injection of FF 3 000 million granted to RNUR for 1985, the FIM loan of FF 750 million awarded in 1984 to RNUR, and the FIM loan of FF 500 million granted in 1985 to RVI. In view of the severe financial difficulties of Renault in 1984 and 1985, the Commission considered that, in accordance with its position of September 1984 on public authorities' holdings in company capital, the provision of capital contained aid elements falling within Article 92 (1). Furthermore, according to Commission Decision 85/378/EEC (2), all FIM loans constitute aid measures within the meaning of Article 92 (1) of the EEC Treaty.
The main reasons for initiating the procedure were the probable distortion of competition in view of the current situation in the car sector, the lack of information on the
specific utilization of the capital provision and the extent to which the FIM loans contributed to the development of truly innovative products.
By letter dated 29 January 1986, it gave the French Government notice to submit its comments. In accordance with the provisions of Article 93 (2) of the EEC Treaty, the other Member States and third parties were also given notice to submit their comments.
At the request of the Commission, the French Government informed the Commission by letter of 8 July 1986 that new equity capital amounting to FF 3 000 million was earmarked for Renault in 1986. Here again, the French Government informed the Commission on the basis of the transparency Directive referred to above, that the new capital did not constitute aid and was not earmarked for specific operations but would be used in general to improve the financial situation of the group in the shortest possible time.
On 29 July 1986, the Commission decided to initiate the Article 93 (2) procedure in respect of the non-notified FF 3 000 million capital contribution to RNUR which the French Government had decided to allocate within the 1986 budget provisions. The Commission considered that, in view of the continuing financial difficulties of the Renault group during 1986, the provision of new capital contained aid elements falling under Article 92 (1).
The main reasons that led the Commission to initiate the procedure were the probable distortion of competition given the current problems in the motor-vehicle industry, the lack of detailed information on the restructuring efforts currently under way in the Renault group, and the intended use of the share capital.
By letter dated 5 August 1986, the Commission gave the French Government notice to submit its comments. In accordance with Article 93 (2) of the EEC Treaty, the other Member States and interested parties were also given notice to submit their comments.
At the request of the Commission, the French Government informed the Commission by letters dated 23 February 1987 and 18 May 1987 that a complementary capital injection of FF 2 000 million within the 1986 budget was awarded to Renault and that a new capital injection of an unspecified level was to be committed in the 1987 budget. The new aid measures again aimed at the reinforcement of the financial position of the undertaking, the financing of its investment programmes and the pursuit of the restructuring efforts in question.
On 1 July 1987, the Commission decided to initiate the Article 93 (2) procedure in respect of the non-notified FF 2 000 million capital contribution that the French Government provided in 1986 and the FF 2 000 million capital contribution which it planned to grant Renault in 1987. The Commission considered that in view of the continuing financial difficulties of the Renault group the provision of new capital contained aid elements falling under Article 92 (1).
The main reasons for initiating the procedure were the likelihood of distortion of competition given the current situation in the motor vehicle industry and the lack of information on a generally agreed restructuring plan.
By letter dated 22 July 1987 the Commission gave the French Government notice to submit its comments. In accordance with Article 93 (2), the other Member States and third parties were also given notice to submit their comments.
All the abovementioned aids were implemented without the prior approval of the Commission as provided for in Article 93 (2) of the Treaty and were therefore illegal under Community law from the time they were granted.
By letter of 20 October 1987 from the Minister for Industry, the French Government notified the Commission of its intention to repay FF 12 000 million of long-term loans that Renault has outstanding with the Crédit National, in order to facilitate the change from Renault's special status as a 'régie' into a legal entity under normal company law.
On 4 November 1987, the Commission decided to initiate the Article 93 (2) procedure in respect of the notified aid plan of the French Government to write off 12 000 million of Renault's debts. Given that the debt write-off discharges the heavily indebted group of part of its financial burden and debt repayment, the Commission considered that it confers a competitive advantage on Renault vis-à-vis other Community manufacturers. Thus, the proposed measure contains aid elements falling under Article 92 (1). The aid element of the measure was not contested by the French Government.
The main reasons for opening the procedure were the danger of significant distortion of competition given the sensitivity of the motor-vehicle industry, the lack of information on the future restructuring plan, the allocation terms of the FF 12 000 million debt repayment and the particularly high level of aid involved. By letter dated 13 November 1987 the Commission gave the French Government notice to submit its comments. In accordance with Article 93 (2), the other Member States and third parties were also given notice to submit their comments.
II
As regards the procedure initiated on 18 December 1985, the French authorities presented their comments by letter dated 8 July 1986, in which it was argued that the capital contribution should not have been considered as falling within Article 92 (1) because it should be regarded as a normal obligation of the State as a shareholder. The FIM loans, which supported only 15 % of total investments in 1984/85, were used for the introduction of new technologies and innovations, and are therefore not incompatible with the common market.
As regards the procedure initiated on 29 July 1986, the French authorities submitted their comments by letter dated 15 October 1986 which contained a report explaining the main lines of the restructuring plan adopted by RNUR since 1985. As regards the assessment of the aid element of the capital contributions, reference is made to the letter of 8 July 1986.
Following the Commission's request of 31 March 1987, the information on the restructuring efforts by Renault and the FIM loans were supplemented by a memorandum sent by the French authorities by letter dated 19 June 1987. In the opinion of the French Government, the capital injections corresponded to the actions of a normal private investor and did not lead to distortions of intra-Community competition. Further details were provided on the technical restructuring carried out between 1983 and 1986. As regards the FIM loans of FF 750 million for RNUR and FF 500 million for RVI, technical descriptions of the two aided investment programmes were provided in order to prove that the loans only financed investments representing a technological breakthrough or containing significant innovative elements.
As regards the procedure opened on 1 July 1987, the French Government has not submitted comments or replied to a revised list of questions mainly concerning the investments aided by the FIM loans which was sent by the Commission by letter of 17 August 1987.
As regards the procedure initiated on 4 November 1987, the French authorities submitted their comments by letters dated 10 December 1987, 21 January, 4 February, 23 February and 29 February 1988, providing very detailed information on the financial and technical restructuring of the Renault group, on the proposed debt write-off, on the change of legal status of the RNUR and the effects of this change on the future fiscal treatment of the undertaking.
The arguments given by the French Government for a favourable decision on the different aid measures concerning Renault can be summarized as follows:
- The special status of Renault as a 'régie' has not resulted in preferential treatment by its shareholder given that the company remained obliged to produce profits and secure a return on invested capital. In addition, it has not benefited from any special fiscal measures as regards taxes or depreciation allowances,
- The decline of the motor-vehicle market since 1982 resulted in growing losses for the Renault group which caused a serious deterioration of its financial situation. This obliged the State to make additional financial means available in order to restore the financial situation, support its restructuring efforts and improve its competitiveness.
- The capital contributions of FF 8 000 million provided in 1985 and 1986 are the consequence of normal relations between a private shareholder and its undertaking, and are motivated by the legitimate interest of a shareholder to safeguard its existing assets. The French State thus acted towards Renault in a way which is fully consistent with the attitude of a private investor. The capital contributions were therefore not earmarked for specific operations. For the abovementioned reasons, these capital injections do not in the opinion of the French Government constitute aid within the meaning of Article 92 (1) and the information provided on this subject was therefore transmitted to the Commission purely within the framework of the transparency Directive,
- The French Government as shareholder expects Renault to return to profitability by 1987 as a result of the measures undertaken,
- The policy pursued linked to capacity reductions has not distorted competition within the Community within the meaning of Article 92,
- The FIM loans were granted only for operations representing a technological advance or embodying significant innovations,
(1) OJ No L 195, 29. 7. 1980, p. 35.
(2) OJ No L 216, 13. 8. 1985, p. 12.
- As regards the debt repayment of FF 12 000 million, the objective of the French Government is to place Renault in a situation comparable with its main European competitors by ending the privileged links with the French State. This implies the transformation of the 'Régie' status of Renault to a legal entity subject to normal company law,
- In order to achieve this change it is indispensable to bring Renault back to at least a zero net worth, i.e. to compensate at least for the negative net capital of FF 16 400 million at the end of 1986. On the basis of an expected profit of FF 3 000 million in 1987 and an extension of the residual depreciation period which will produce FF 1 400 million in 1987, the minimum amount needed to achieve a zero net worth is FF 12 000 million. This amount will not be awarded in the form of fresh capital but by means of debt write-off; the write-offs primarily concern debts at preferential rates and have the advantage of reducing the tax carry-forward advantage of Renault's accumulated losses.
Under the abovementioned procedures, four other Member States and two third parties concerned submitted observations.
III
The information obtained from the French Government under the various procedures, as well as during several bilateral meetings, has given a full picture of the forms and conditions of the public assistance measures, of their impact on intra-Community trade in the products concerned and of the restructuring plan of the Renault group.
The continuous losses since 1981 and in particular the record losses of 1984 led the French Government in January 1985 to request Renault to implement a drastic restructuring plan, which it would assist in the form of capital contributions and FIM loans.
Renault was by then in a disastrous position. The huge losses of 1984 were known and own resources had become negative. The rapid decline was caused by excessive overmanning, the lowest productivity level of any European car manufacturer, an outdated model range, considerable backwardness as regards new technologies and the failure of its plan to set up in the United States.
Although some elements of the restructuring plan were put forward in 1984, the bulk of the restructuring measures were adopted in 1985. Briefly, the restructuring plan, which runs until 1990, contains the following main points:
- Drastic reduction in employment: between the end of 1984 and the end of 1987 employment at group level was reduced by 38 311 jobs, which corresponds to 18 % of the 1984 workforce. A further reduction is planned before the end of the restructuring plan,
- Closures of sites and capacity reductions: apart from the closure of five small subsidiaries not linked to the motor-vehicle industry, Renault's restructuring plan provided for the closure of various assembly lines in the car, truck and components divisions,
- Reorientation of investments: between 1983 and 1985 a serious effort was undertaken to increase investment as much as possible in modernization and the introduction of new technologies in the shortest possible time,
- Sales of assets: the Renault group has sold since 1985 a large number of companies and shareholdings which were either not directly linked to the motor-vehicle activities or were not essential thereto. Assets in the form of real estate have also been sold. Renault is currently negotiating the sale of further remaining assets. These sales have already produced over FF 2 000 million of cash-inflow,
- Reorganization of the distribution network: the number of affiliated dealers and distributors has been reduced continuously since 1984 by some 20 %,
- Reduction of input cost: a considerable reduction in the number of suppliers (20 % within two years) linked to an increase of outside sourcing permitted a better control and a relative reduction of input cost,
- Reduction of stocks: from 1985 onwards a more effective stock management has been pursued resulting in a 26 % reduction in assembled car stocks in two years,
- Definition of a new quality policy: since 1985 Renault has undertaken a series of internal measures to improve the quality standards of both its products and services,
- Renewal of product models: at the end of 1986 the average age of Renault's car models was reduced to 2,8 years, compared to 7 years in 1983,
- Training of personnel: along with the introduction of new technologies Renault introduced in 1985 a special training programme which not only improved product quality but also increased the mobility, flexibility and productivity of labour. As an illustration of these efforts, training hours increased by 63 % between 1983 and 1987,
- Redefinition of wage policy: since 1985, wages and salaries have increased considerably more slowly than the overall inflation rate in France, thus slowing down the burden of labour cost. In addition to assisting the Group's technical restructuring, the French Government also had to deal with the financial restructuring of the Group's two key undertakings, RNUR and RVI. As regards RVI, it is a public limited-liability company required by law to regain a net positive balance at least equal to 50 % of its equity capital before 30 June 1987 in order to avoid filing for bankruptcy. The recapitalization of RVI was achieved before the deadline by the following methods: its assets were reassessed at FF 1 800 million, a capital provision of FF 2 000 million by RNUR to RVI (using the last capital contribution from the State to RNUR in 1986 included in the third procedure), the transfer from RNUR to RVI of the Mack Trucks (USA) securities, worth FF 2 000 million, and the provision by three RVI creditor banks of FF 1 200 million obtained through equity warrant bonds. With the transfer of Mack Trucks to the RVI Group, the latter became the world's second largest manufacturer of heavy trucks of over 15 tonnes.
The proposed debt write-off of FF 12 000 million is tied to the change in status of RNUR into a public limited-liability company. In view of its legal obligation to re-establish, within two years following its change of status, its net position to achieve a minimum of half its equity capital, the change in status must necessarily be accompanied by a recapitalization of the company. The proposed repayment is calculated on the assumption that it will achieve a zero net worth after its change of status.
The total cost of the abovementioned objectives was estimated at FF 83 400 million between 1984 and 1990. Within this total, non-financial investments accounted for FF 53 100 million, financial investments FF 3 700 million, extraordinary restructuring costs FF 20 000 million. These last costs correspond to the charges involved in plant closures and redundancies.
As regards the productive investments, FF 43 500 million are earmarked for investments in the car division and FF 7 200 million in the truck and bus division.
In order to rationalize and reduce its activities, Renault had to close several production units and reduce the workforce employed in other units. The workforce reduction was partly achieved by early retirement schemes (FNE contracts) and repatriation schemes. The restructuring charges assumed so far by the RNUR account for FF 13 600 million. RVI spent FF 1 200 million on redundancy costs and production transfers and some FF 300 million on retraining and closure costs.
The restructuring cost over 1984-1990 is financed as follows:
1.2 // - cash flow excluding provisions for social costs: // FF 50 500 million, // - sale of assets: // FF 10 700 million, // - reduction of indebtedness: // FF 6 400 million, // - reduction of working capital: // FF 16 900 million, // - public capital contributions: // FF 10 600 million, // - private capital contributions: // FF 1 100 million.
The impact of the restructuring plan on the productive capacity is substantial. Overall assembly capacity will be reduced by at least 25 % by the end of the restructuring plan. As the utilization rate of component production capacity (mainly engines and transmissions) was lower, the capacity reductions will be all the greater.
IV
In its examination of the compatibility with the common market of the different public interventions in support of Renault's restructuring plan, the Commission has verified to what extent these measures contain aid elements under Articles 92 and 94 of the EEC Treaty.
The Commission initiated the Article 93 (2) procedure against a total of FF 10 000 million in capital contributions and FF 1 250 million in FIM loans. In connection with the latter procedure, the French Government informed the Commission that a capital contribution of FF 2 000 million provided for in the 1987 budget and included in the procedure by the Commission, had not been granted to Renault and would not be granted in the future. The Commission thus has to scrutinize only FF 8 000 million in capital contributions. In addition to the capital grants, a capital increase of FF 1 900 million based on sums earmarked in the State budget in 1983 and 1984 was granted in 1984. The Commission has not to date opened proceedings against these increases, considering that Renault's losses at the time were a temporary cyclical problem shared by the whole motor-vehicle industry.
However, the circumstances of the State capital contributions in 1985 and 1986, FF 3 000 and FF 5 000 million, were different. They corresponded to fresh capital made available by the French Government in its 1985 and 1986 budgets. Since spring 1985 onwards, when the adverse 1984 results were made public, Renault's financial situation has been very precarious. The accounts of 1984 and 1985, the most difficult years for the Renault group, show record losses totalling FF 23 500 million and a negative cash-flow of FF 14 200 million. At the end of 1985, its consolidated gross financial debt amounted to FF 76 500 million or 63 % of the 1985 turnover. This situation corresponds precisely to the Commission's position of September 1984 on public authorities' holdings in company capital when it considered that State aid was involved where fresh capital was contributed in circumstances that would not be acceptable to a private investor operating under normal market-economy conditions. This is the case where the financial position of a company, and particularly the structure and volume of its debt, is such that a normal return (in dividends or capital gains) cannot be expected within a reasonable time from the capital invested, or where, because of its inadequate cash-flow if for no other reason, the company would be unable to raise the funds needed for an investment programme on the capital market.
It can therefore be ruled out that a private investor could, within two years, provide FF 8 000 million in the form of equity capital.
Consequently, the FF 8 000 million capital injections, which maintained Renault artificially in business, constitute aid measures under Article 92 (1) of the EEC Treaty.
The two FIM loans also contain aid elements under Article 92 (1) of the EEC Treaty. Pursuant to Decision 85/378/EEC, all FIM loans are aids within the meaning of the abovementioned Article. According to the French authorities' latest information, the first loan of FF 750 million was awarded to RNUR in June 1984 at an interest rate of 8,4 %. The second loan of FF 500 million was granted to RVI in September 1985 at 8,75 %. Both are 10-year loans with a grace period of two years. The reference rate in France, which corresponds to the rate applied by the Crédit National for corporate investments, was 14,75 % in June 1984 and 13 % in September 1985. Thus, both loans were awarded at rates clearly below the normal French market rates. It should be noted that, in its letter of 8 July 1986, the French Government had communicated that both loans had an interest rate of 9,25 %, which is incorrect, as they were actually awarded at 8,4 % and 8,75 %. The Commission regrets the fact that the French Government provided incorrect information in its letter of 8 July 1986.
As already stated above, the aids in the form of FF 8 000 million in capital injections and FIM loans of FF 1 250 million are illegal in relation to Community law. In this respect it must be noted that - in view of the imperative character of the rules of procedure as laid down in Article 93 (3), which are also of importance as regards public policy, the direct effect of which the Court of Justice recognized in its ruling of 19 June 1973 in Case 77/72 (1) - the illegality of the aids at issue here cannot be cured ex post.
Moreover, in cases of aids incompatible with the common market, the Commission - making use of a possibility given to it by the Court of Justice in its Judgment of 12 July 1973 in Case 70/72 (2), confirmed in its Judgment of 24 February 1987 in Case 310/85 (3) can require Member States to recover aid granted illegally from recipients.
The proposed debt write-off of FF 12 000 million which Renault would obtain once its status is changed discharges the heavily indebted group of part of its financial charges and debt repayments which it normally would have to pay over the coming years. The debt write-off thus gives Renault a competitive advantage in relation to other Community manufacturers. It can be concluded that the amount of the debt write-off constitutes aid under Article 92 (1) of the EEC Treaty. It should be noted that the communications from the French Government under the latest procedure did not dispute the aid element of the debt repayment.
In conclusion, the Commission considers that the capital injections of FF 8 000 million and the two FIM loans of FF 1 250 million awarded to Renault, as well as the proposed debt repayment of FF 12 000 million, constitute aid measures falling under Article 92 (1) of the EEC Treaty. The aids provided to Renault affect trade between Member States because there is intensive intra-Community trade for all products manufactured by the Renault group. In fact, for passenger cars in 1986, trade between Member States amounted to 5 030 402 units, 17,4 % of which (878 927 units) were exported from France to the other Member States. As regards commercial vehicles, intra-Community trade in 1986 amounted to 424 154 units, 16,4 % of which were exports from France to the other Member States.
In 1986, Renault exported 494 866 cars to other Member States, i.e. 54 % of its total car production in France. In the commercial vehicles market, it exported in 1986 from France to Western Europe 4 564 trucks, representing 13 % of its total production in France.
(1) ECR (1973), p. 611.
(2) ECR (1973), p. 813.
(3) OJ No C 77, 24. 3. 1987, p. 3.
The aid intensity of the various aid measures in terms of investment between 1984 and 1990 cannot be calculated precisely because the aids are intended not only for the technical restructuring of the Group but also for the financial rationalization of RNUR and RVI. However, if capital injection are considered to be equivalent to a grant, as indicated in Chapter III, the gross aid intensity is calculated at 23 %. This percentage also corresponds to the estimated net intensity, as the undertaking was not taxed during the assisted period. This should be regarded as a maximum because, even if the equity capital held by the Government does not change after the restructuring has taken place, the intrinsic value of shares will most likely increased.
V
Article 92 (3) of the Treaty lists those aids which may be compatible with the common market. Compatibility with the Treaty must be determined in the context of the Community as a whole and not of a single Member State. In order to safeguard the proper functioning of the common market and taking into account the principles of Article 3 (f), the derogation from the principle of Article 92 (1) as set out in Article 92 (3) must be construed narrowly when an aid scheme or any individual award is scrutinized.
In particular, they may be applied only: when the Commission is satisfied that the free play of market forces alone, without the aids, would not induce the prospective aid recipient to adopt a course of action contributing to the attainment of one of the said objectives.
With regard to the exceptions provided for in Article 92 (3) (a) and (c) for aids that promote or facilitate the development of certain areas, the application of the aid scheme cannot benefit from the exception provided for Article 92 (3) (a) since the standard of living is not abnormally low, nor is there serious underemployment in France. Nor does the grant incorporate the requisite features of aid to facilitate the development of certain economic areas within the meaning of Article 92 (3) (c) inasmuch as it is not conditional on initial investment or job creation as explained in the 1979 Commission Communication on the principles of coordination of regional aid systems (1). Moreover, the majority of Renault's production plants are located outside assisted areas, and the aid grants are not awarded under the French regional aid system (PAT). The French Government has not in fact attempted to justify the aids in question on regional grounds.
As regards the exception provided for in Article 92 (3) (b) of the EEC Treaty, it is evident that the aid in question was not intended to promote the execution of an important project of common European interest, or to remedy a serious disturbance in the French economy. Nor has the French Government requested exemption on these grounds.
With regard to the exception provided for in paragraph 3 (c) of Article 92 of the EEC Treaty in favour of 'aid to facilitate the development of restructuring aids to be compatible with the common market if a number of criteria are fulfilled (2).
The criteria must be viewed in the light of the two principles of Article 92 (3) (c), i.e. the aid must be necessary for the development of the sector from a Community standpoint, and the safeguard clause which provides that the aid must not alter trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest (3).
These criteria were systematically verified in order to assess the compatibility of the restructuring aids for Renault, i.e. FF 8 000 million of fresh capital and FF 12 000 million of proposed debt write-off (4):
1. Sectoral aid should be limited to cases where it is justified by circumstances in the industry concerned. Aid should lead to a restoration of long-term viability by resolving problems rather than preserve the status quo and put off decisions and changes which are inevitable.
In 1983/1984, the European motor-vehicle industry was facing difficulties due both to a cyclical decline and to a structural crisis in the heavy trucks' sector. This crisis particularly affected the French industry, because of very low demand and a considerable productivity gap vis-à-vis its competitors. This situation particularly holds for the Renault group. Since, then, Renault has implemented a restructuring plan which is restoring its long-term viability by concentrating on reducing capacities for cars, commercial vehicles and their components. This plan has already shown its beneficial effects in that the RNUR as well as RVI returned to profitability in 1987.
The seven years over which the restructuring plan is to be implemented is a normal period in view of the fact that the Renault group is a conglomerate comprising 269 entities at 31 December 1986, employing 182 448 persons and with a very broad range of activities. As
(1) OJ No C 31, 3. 2. 1979, p. 9.
(2) Eight Competition Report, point 176.
(3) See Court of Justice Judgment of 17. 9. 1980, Case 730/79, Phillip Morris, ECR (1980), p. 2671.
(4) Aid to modernization through FIM loans is discussed in Chapter VI.
the restructuring involves a number of measures in a variety of activities, the time required is considerable and is comparable to the efforts already undertaken by other groups in the sector;
2. Nevertheless, since adjustment takes time, a limited use of resources to reduce the social and economic costs of change is admissible in certain circumstances and subject to strict conditions.
The French authorities have indicated that a substantial part of the public assistance was intended to offset the high social costs of the 38 311 redundancies which hab already taken place between 1984 and 1987 as well as a further reduction in the workforce by the end of the plan period;
3. Unless granted over relatively short periods, aids should be progressively reduced and clearly linked to the restructuring of the sector concerned.
The final aid package of FF 12 000 million is aimed entirely at the repayment of debt and cannot serve as fresh capital with which new investments can be financed; it is chiefly intended to repay loans awarded at preferential rates. The French Government has undertaken not to award any further aid to Renault in the future. From 1987 onwards, the remaining restructuring efforts are and will be entirely financed from the company's cash-flow which became positive in 1986. Consequently, once the change of status has taken place, the Renault group will be put legally and financially on the same footing as its competitors.
Moreover, through the debt repayment as well as the measures agreed by Renault in respect of the tax system, it will be possible to reduce the tax carry-forward advantages from FF 38 000 million at the end of 1986 to only FF 6 000 million at the end of 1988. The balance will largely be absorbed in 1989. Renault will thus pay corporate taxes on its profits from 1990 onwards.
4. The intensity of aid should be proportionate to the problem it is designed to resolve so that distortions of competition are kept to a minimum.
The aid measures, which correspond to some 24 % of the total cost of the restructuring plan to be carried out between 1984 and 1990, not only support the investments but also the rationalization costs and the financial reorganization, i.e. the reduction of the debt burden through the FF 12 000 million write-off. The Commission can conclude that the aid in the form of capital contributions was necessary to allow the technical restructuring of the company and restore its long-term technical viability. In addition, in view of the severe indebtedness of Renault, and the plan to change the status of the Régie into a normal company subject to commercial law, it is essential to reduce some of the enormous net debt (FF 55 000 million at the end of 1986) to ensure its long-term financial viability. Under French commercial law, every company should have a net worth equal to at least half its capital. The Commission considers that the proposed debt write-off of FF 12 000 million represents a sufficient and necessary amount in order to put the undertaking at zero net worth after changing its status as a first step towards achieving a net worth situation within two years as it is legally required to do. At the end of 1986, RNUR had a negative net capital of FF 16 400 million. The latest estimates of RNUR's net worth at end 1987 show a negative total of FF 11 800 million. The difference is to be covered by the FF 12 000 million write-off. The Commission has made sure that alternative or additional means to increase the net worth of the company, such as re-evaluation of remaining corporate and financial assets and sales of other assets than the ones already foreseen in the restructuring plan could not contribute to a reduction of the FF 12 000 million without endangering the financial position of the company and its credibility vis-à-vis the private capital markets on which it will depend in the future. It is noteworthy that even after the aid the Renault group will be by far the most indebted car manufacturer in the Community (net financial debt after the write-off will represent 25 % of turnover in 1988).
The statistics on intra-Comunity trade in the products concerned, the declining market shares of Renault in the Community (in 1982, RNUR held 15,7 % of the car market as against only 12 % in 1987; RVI's share of the Community heavy trucks' market fell from 14,3 % in 1982 to some 12 % in 1987) as well as the fact that sales prices for its vehicles exceeded the annual inflation rates in France and were not lower than these of its competitors, show that the aids were therefore not used to implement a low-price policy aimed at maintaining or augmenting Renault's market position;
5. Industrial problems and unemployment should not be transferred from one Member State to another. The restructuring of Renault has led to a reduction in its market share and has not prevented full utilization of capacity by other Community car manufacturers since 1985. The same observation also applies for heavy trucks in the sense that the restructuring of RVI did not prevent a considerable increase in the degree of capacity utilization of other European truck manufacturers. The aids to Renault have thus not led to job losses in other Member States.
In conclusions, the restructuring aids awarded to Renault have led to the restoration of the company's viability and, trhough the elements of the restructuring, have contributed to the solution of the structural problems which the motor vehicle industry was facing in 1983/1984. For those reasons, the Commission considers that the restructuring aids facilitated the development of the sector concerned at Community level without adversely affecting trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest.
The Renault restructuring plan will be concluded only by the end of 1990 and depends on the implementation of future restructuring measures, such as capacity reductions and future sales of assets. At the same time. the Commission has assessed the case on the basis of important undertakings by the French authorities as regards future relations between Renault and the State. Indeed, in the letter of 23 February 1988, the French Government has unertaken to proceed with the FF 12 000 million debt write-off only after the change of status of the RNUR has been adopted by law and to abstain in the future from any further aid in the form of new capital for Renault.
Any future earnings which might be generated by the sale of American Motors Corporation (AMC) at the end of 1992 will not be included when calculating the necessary debt write-off. This was necessary because these future earnings, which could reach FF 2 400 million in the form of royalties and conditional payments, are subject to future market uncertainties and could therefore not be taken into account in the evaluation of the amount of debt repayment. However, the incidence of the sale of AMC on the net worth was negative to the tune of FF 1 200 million in 1986, which artificially increased the necessary capital injection.
It cannot therefore be excluded that Renault might be in a position to distort competition in one or more of the markets in which it is present and in doing so adversely affect trading conditions within the Community to an extent contrary to the common interest. Consequently, if the Commission considers that the exception under Article 92 (3) (c) is applicable to the restructuring aids - in the form of FF 8 000 million capital contributions and FF 12 000 million debt write-off - granted to Renault, it should at least impose specific conditions to discourage Renault from any possible distortions.
VI
The FIM loans, which do not correspond to individual restructuring aids but constitute applications of a specific aid system, were examined from the standpoint of their compatibility with the main objective of the scheme, i.e. the introduction of new products or processes.
The French Government provided a document annexed to its letter of 25 June 1987 describing the investments aided by the FIM loans to RNUR and RVI.
The Commission has subjected this information to an in-depth technical analysis in order to determine the extent to which the aided investments constitute genuine innovations at Community level at the time they were made. Because of several contradictions contained in the document in the document as well as obvious links between the investments and State-aided R&D programmes within Renault, the Commission requested the French Government by letter of 17 August 1987 to provide further explanations on this subject.
The French Government declared during several bilateral meetings that it would provided no further information on this matter.
The conclusions of the Commission's technical analysis were that, as regards the FF 750 million FIM loan to RNUR to finance investments of FF 1 226 million in the production of a vehicle with particularly low fuel consumption, only some 7 % of the investment could be regarded as innovative at Community level at the time it was made. As regards the FIM loans of FF 500 million awarded to RVI for investments of FF 1 180 million, only about one third contained a clearly innovative element in the sense defined above.
In conclusions, the vast majority of the investments partly aided by the two FIM loasns contributed to the modernization and product rejuvenation of RNUR and RVI, but were not intended to develop innovative products of processes. In Decision 85/378/EEC concerning the approval of FIM aid schemes, the Commission concluded that neither the priority interests of French industry nor the modernization of industries as such could be regarded as of sufficient Community interest to justify exemption lunder Article 92 (3). It considered that, on the contrary, the aids were liable to alter intra-Community trade to an extent contrary to the common interest when they are awarded in such important individual cases, since they greatly strengthen the position of the recipient undertaking in relation to its competitors for intra-Community trade. This factor was the main reason for the adoption of the negative decisions concerning the planned FIM loan in the mineral-water and glass-packaging sectors (Commission Decision 87/194/EEC (1)) and the loan awarded in the brewery trade (Commission Decision 87/303/EEC (2)). Thus both FIM loans awarded to Renault do not fulfil one of the essential conditions attached to the FIM loan scheme, as communicated by the French authorities when they notified the scheme in question, the condition on which the Commission based its Decision of 19 December 1984 approving the FIM aid scheme. Therefore, the aid awarded through the FIM loans to Renault cannot benefit from the exemption provided for in Article 92 (3) (c) of the EEC Treaty.
As pointed out above in IV, the Commission can in such cases require Member States to recover from recipients the illegally granted aid.
Consequently, the aid element contained in these FIM loans should be abolished by the reimbursement of the loans or by making these loans subject to normal market conditions, as well as by the recovery of the interest relief obtained by Renault until the abovementioned change in the conditions of the loan. In quantifying the aid element, the Commission first calculated the difference between the reference market rate at the time of the loans (14,75 % in June 1984 and 13 % in September 1985) and the rate at which the loans were granted (8,4 % and 8,75 %); the interest subsidy is thus 6,35 % on the loan granted to the RNUR and 4,25 % on the loan to RVI. The interest subsidy was calculated for the period from when the loans were granted to the date of this Decision, i.e. end March 1988. The interest subsidy represents a benefit of FF 174,13 million on the FF 750 million loan, and of FF 53,12 million of the loan of FF 500 million, thus giving a total of FF 227,25 million at end March 1988. The amount of aid to be recovered must be increased by FF 5,25 million per month elapsing between the date of this decision and the reimbursement or adaptation of the conditions governing the loans in question,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
The restructuring aids to Renault in the form of capital contributions of FF 8 000 million awarded in 1985 and 1986 and a proposed debt write-off of FF 12 000 million to be awarded in 1988 after the change of status of the RNUR are considered to be compatible with the common market pursuant to Article 92 (3), provided that the French Government:
1. fulfills its commitment not to proceed with the payment in full or in part of the FF 12 000 million intended for the repayment of debts before changing the legal status of the RNUR, in accordance with its notification of 20 October 1987, into a company subject to commercial law, without prejudice to the ownership of the capital of the undertaking. The French Government is hereby required to use the FF 12 000 million solely to repay debts, and in particular those at preferential rates. If the change in status does not take place before 31 December 1988, this authorization shall be null and void;
2. fulfills its commitment to refrain from granting any further aid in the form of capital contributions and any other forms of discretionary aid to the Renault group;
3. fulfills its commitment as regards the completion of the Renault restructuring plan by the end of 1990 in accordance with the details communicated to the Commission;
4. ensures that any future earnings resulting from contracts relating to the sale of American Motors Corportion (AMC) are transferred to the State.
The French Government shall provide the Commission in the second quarter of 1989, 1990 and 1991 with an annual report on Renault's accounts, capacities, production, pricing policy and intra-Community exports by product as well as a detailed survey of all restructuring measures, debt repayment and sales of assets undertaken in the past calendar year.
Article 2
The aids awarded in the form of FIM loans of FF 750 million to RNUR in 1984 and FF 500 million to RVI in 1985 are incompatible with the common market within the meaning of Article 92 of the Treaty. The French
Government shall abolish the aid element contained in these FIM loans by requesting their reimbursement or by applying a normal market interest rate to them and recovering the interest subsidy of FF 227,25 million awarded to Renault up to the date of adoption of this Decision.
Article 3
The French Government shall inform the Commission of the measures taken to comply with this Decision within two months from its notification.
Article 4
This Decision is addressed to the French Republic.
Done at Brussels, 29 March 1988.
|
[
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
*****
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 156/85
of 21 January 1985
concerning a fifth amendment to Regulation (EEC) No 500/84 allocating import quotas fixed for certain products originating in the United States of America
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN
COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 349/84 of 6 February 1984 suspending tariff concessions and increasing duties under the Common Customs Tariff with regard to certain products originating in the United States of America and establishing quantitative restrictions with regard to other products originating in that country (1), as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1346/84 (2), and in particular Article 3 (2) thereof,
Whereas Commission Regulation (EEC) No 500/84 (3), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3264/84 (4), broke down the import quotas fixed for certain products originating in the United States of America into two parts, of which the first is distributed amongst the Member States and the second constitutes a Community reserve;
Whereas it is necessary to adjust, for two Member States, the allocation of the shares for polyethylene, notably because of urgent supply requirements which have occurred and to ensure that the impact of the measure remains within the limits of the objective pursued; whereas this adjustment is limited to increasing the share of certain polyethylenes and decreasing the share of others within the global quota fixed by the Council for this product;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Quota Administration Committee,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 500/84 is hereby amended in accordance with 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, 21 January 1985.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 1110/89 of 27 April 1989 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1417/78 on the aid system for dried fodder
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1117/78 of 22 May 1978 on the common organization of the market in dried fodder (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3996/87 (2), and in particular Article 6 (2) thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission (3),
Whereas Regulation (EEC) No 1417/78 (4), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 2256/88 (5), stipulates a minimum protein content requirement for the granting of aid for dried fodder; whereas, to encourage improvement in the quality of the products in question, this minimum protein content,
specified in Article 5 of the said Regulation, should be increased from 1 May 1990,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1 In the first indent in point (b) in the first subparagraph of Article 5 of Regulation (EEC) No 1417/78 ´14 %' is replaced by ´15 %'.
Article 2 This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
It shall apply from 1 May 1990.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Luxembourg, 27 April 1989.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 2279/79 of 17 October 1979 opening the possibility of terminating long-term storage contracts for concentrated grape must
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 337/79 of 5 February 1979 on the common organization of the market in wine (1), as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1303/79 (2), and in particular Articles 8 (3) and 9 (5) thereof,
Whereas Article 11a of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2015/76 (3), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 2278/79 (4), lays down the conditions under which long-term storage contracts for concentrated grape must may be cancelled;
Whereas the crop from the 1978/79 marketing year is relatively early ; whereas consequently, enrichment of crops, where it is necessary, must be carried out before most of the long-term storage contracts for concentrated grape must have expired ; whereas it is therefore advisable to open the possibility of terminating the contracts referred to in Article 11a of the said 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
1. The possibility of terminating long-term storage contracts for concentrated grape must, as referred to in Article 11a of Regulation (EEC) No 2015/76, is hereby opened.
2. The storage contracts referred to in paragraph 1 shall be terminated at the request of the producers concerned.
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 8 October 1979.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 17 October 1979.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1125/2003
of 26 June 2003
fixing the export refunds on products processed from cereals and rice
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 of 30 June 1992 on the common organization of the market in cereals(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1666/2000(2), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 3072/95 of 22 December 1995 on the common organization of the market in rice(3), as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 411/2002(4), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Article 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 and Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 3072/95 provide that the difference between quotations or prices on the world market for the products listed in Article 1 of those Regulations and prices for those products within the Community may be covered by an export refund.
(2) Article 13 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 cereals, rice and broken rice on the Community market on the one hand and prices for cereals, rice, broken rice and cereal products on the world market on the other. The same Articles provide that it is also important to ensure equilibrium and the natural development of prices and trade on the markets in cereals and rice and, furthermore, to take into account the economic aspect of the proposed exports, and the need to avoid disturbances on the Community market.
(3) Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1518/95(5), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2993/95(6), on the import and export system for products processed from cereals and from rice defines the specific criteria to be taken into account when the refund on these products is being calculated.
(4) The refund to be granted in respect of certain processed products should be graduated on the basis of the ash, crude fibre, tegument, protein, fat and starch content of the individual product concerned, this content being a particularly good indicator of the quantity of basic product actually incorporated in the processed product.
(5) There is no need at present to fix an export refund for manioc, other tropical roots and tubers or flours obtained therefrom, given the economic aspect of potential exports and in particular the nature and origin of these products. For certain products processed from cereals, the insignificance of Community participation in world trade makes it unnecessary to fix an export refund at the present time.
(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) The refund must be fixed once a month. It may be altered in the intervening period.
(8) Certain processed maize products may undergo a heat treatment following which a refund might be granted that does not correspond to the quality of the product; whereas it should therefore be specified that on these products, containing pregelatinized starch, no export refund is to be granted.
(9) The Management Committee for Cereals has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its chairman,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The export refunds on the products listed in Article 1(1)(d) of Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 and in Article 1(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 3072/95 and subject to Regulation (EC) No 1518/95 are hereby fixed as shown in the Annex to this Regulation.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 27 June 2003.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 26 June 2003.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 494/97 of 18 March 1997 modifying Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2868/88 establishing detailed rules for the application of the Joint International Inspection Scheme adopted by the North-West Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1956/88 of 9 June 1988 (1), establishing detailed rules for the application of the Joint International Inspection Scheme adopted by the North-West Atlantic Fisheries Organization as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 3067/95 (2) and in particular Article 4 thereof,
Whereas Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2868/88 (3) fixes certain rules for the implementation of the Joint International Inspection Scheme and Council Regulation (EEC) No 1956/88;
Whereas the Council in the interests of improving control and the enforcement of measures within the NAFO Regulatory Area, has adopted Council Regulation (EC) No 3067/95 and modified Regulation (EEC) No 1956/88 with respect to the Joint International Inspection Scheme;
Whereas it is appropriate to establish detailed rules for the application of new provisions of the said scheme particularly those concerning the inspection of community fishing vessels operating in the NAFO zone and presumed to have committed a major apparent infringement;
Whereas it is appropriate that details of the competent authorities of the Member States concerned should be listed in the Annex to this regulation;
Whereas it is therefore appropriate to modify Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2868/88;
Whereas the measures adopted by the regulation are in conformity with the opinion of the Management Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Regulation (EEC) No 2868/88 is hereby amended as follows:
1. The following Articles 4 (a) and 4 (b) are inserted:
'Article 4 (a)
1. Where the appropriate authorities of the flag Member State are notified, pursuant to paragraph 10 (iii) of the Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 1956/88, by a NAFO inspector of an apparent serious infringement, as listed in paragraph 9 of the Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 1956/88, committed by a fishing vessel flying its flag or where the Commission receives such information, these appropriate authorities and the Commission shall immediately inform each other thereof.
2. As a result of receiving the information pursuant to paragraph 1 and of being notified by another Contracting Party or by Community inspectors assigned to the scheme of an apparent serious infringement as listed in paragraph 9 of the Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 1956/88, committed by a Community vessel, the Commission in cooperation with the flag Member State, shall ensure that the vessel is inspected within 72 hours by a duly authorized inspector.
3. The Commission and the flag Member State shall cooperate in order to determine as soon as possible if the inspection referred to in paragraph 2 is to be conducted by a Community inspector assigned to the scheme or by an inspector designated by the appropriate authorities of the flag Member State.
4. The duly authorized inspector shall board the fishing vessel concerned and shall examine the elements that make up the apparent serious infringement detected by the NAFO inspector and shall as soon as possible transmit to the appropriate authority of the flag Member State and to the Commission the results of his examination.
5. Following the notification of his results and if the apparent infringement is serious, in accordance with the definition of infringements in paragraph 9 of the Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 1956/88, the appropriate authority of the flag Member State shall, if the situation requires, within 24 hours, itself require or authorize the duly authorized inspector to require the vessel to proceed to a designated port in accordance with paragraph 10 (ii) of the Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 1956/88.
The time limit referred to in the first subparagraph may be extended by the Commission at the request of a Member State addressed to the Commission, up to a maximum of 72 hours.
In the event of a diversion, the duly authorized inspector shall take all necessary measures to ensure security and continuity of the evidence including, as appropriate, sealing the vessel's hold for eventual dockside inspection.
6. On arrival at the port of diversion, the suspect vessel shall be the subject of a thorough inspection carried out under the authority of the flag Member State, which may be attended by a NAFO inspector from any other Contracting Party wishing to take part. The Flag Member State shall immediately inform the Commission of the results of the inspection, using the form in Annex I to this Regulation, and of the measures it has taken to deal with the infringement.
7. In the appropriate authority of the flag state does not require the vessel to be diverted to a port in accordance with paragraph 10 (ii) of the Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 1956/88, it shall immediately inform the Commission of the reasons on which its decision was based. The Commission shall in due course inform the Executive Secretariat of NAFO of that decision and of the reasons therefor.
Article 4 (b)
1. When the Community inspectors suspect that a fishing vessel flying the flag of a Contracting Party has committed one of the serious infringements listed in paragraph 9 of the Annex to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1956/88, the inspectors in question shall, within 24 hours, inform the appropriate authorities of the flag state concerned and the Executive Secretariat of NAFO thereof, supplying them with all the elements on the basis of which they cited that vessel for having committed an apparent serious infringement. The Commission shall send the Member States a copy of the notification addressed to the Executive Secretariat of NAFO.
2. The Commission shall decide, with the agreement of the Contracting Party responsible for the vessel, if a Community inspector is to remain on board when the vessel is diverted. The Commission shall also decide if a Community inspector is to be present during the thorough inspection of the suspect vessel, in port.`
2. In Article 9, the introductory words are replaced by the following:
'Each Member State shall notify to the Commission by 25 January each year for the period 1 July to 31 December, and by 25 August each year for the period 1 January to 30 June, the information required in points 1 and 2 of this Article, in accordance with the model in Annex II, and also the information required in point 3 of this Article, in accordance with the model in Annex III:`.
3. The following point 3 is added to Article 9:
'3. Any significant difference between the Community fishing vessel's position recorded in the "NAFO report" and the actual position established at the time of the vessel's inspection.`
4. The following Article 9 (a) is inserted:
'Article 9 (a)
The transmission of information between the Member States' competent authorities and the Commission shall take place via the appropriate authorities whose details are set out in Annex IV.`
5. Annexes I to IV to this Regulation are added.
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, 18 March 1997.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0
] |
COUNCIL DECISION
of 30 March 2009
endorsing the European Air Traffic Management Master Plan of the Single European Sky ATM Research (SESAR) project
(2009/320/EC)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to Article 1(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 219/2007 of 27 February 2007 on the establishment of a Joint Undertaking to develop the new generation European air traffic management system (SESAR) (1),
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,
Having regard to the Council Resolution of 30 March 2009 on endorsement of the European Air Traffic Management Master Plan of the Single European Sky ATM Research (SESAR) project,
Whereas, the initial version of the European Air Traffic Management Master Plan, resulting from the definition phase of the SESAR project, with major contributions from relevant private stakeholders, constitutes the basis for establishing the SESAR Joint Undertaking’s work programme and the development phase of the SESAR project, subject to the conclusion of sufficient membership agreements,
HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Sole Article
The European Air Traffic Management Master Plan of the Single European Sky ATM Research (SESAR) project is hereby endorsed.
Done at Brussels, 30 March 2009.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 485/96 of 19 March 1996 on the issuing of import licences for bananas under the tariff quota for the second quarter of 1996 and on the submission of new applications (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 404/93 of 13 February 1993 on the common organization of the market in bananas (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 3290/94 (2), and in particular Article 20 thereof,
Whereas Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1442/93 (3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1164/95 (4), lays down detailed rules for the application of the arrangements for importing bananas into the Community; whereas Commission Regulation (EC) No 478/95 (5), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 702/95 (6), lays down additional rules for the application of the tariff quota arrangements laid down in Articles 18 and 19 of Regulation (EEC) No 404/93;
Whereas Article 9 (3) of Regulation (EEC) No 1442/93, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 478/95, lays down that, where, in the case of a given quarter of origin, for a country or group of countries referred to in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 478/95, the quantities covered by import licence applications from one or more of the categories of operators appreciably exceed the indicative quantity fixed, a reduction percentage to be applied to applications shall be set; whereas, however, that provision does not apply to applications relating to 150 tonnes or less;
Whereas, pursuant to Article 9 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1442/93, the indicative quantities for import under the tariff quota are laid down for the second quarter of 1996 in Commission Regulation (EC) No 357/96 (7);
Whereas in the case of the quantities covered by licence applications that are either less than or not significantly more than the indicative quantities fixed for the quarter in question, licences are issued for the quantities applied for; whereas, however, for certain origins, the quantities applied for considerably exceed the indicative quantities or the percentages set out in the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 478/95; whereas, therefore, a reduction percentage should be set to be applied to each licence application for the origin or origins involved and category of licence in question;
Whereas, the maximum quantity for which such licence applications may still be submitted should be set taking account of the indicative quantities fixed by Regulation (EC) No 357/96 and the applications accepted at the end of the application period running from 1 to 7 March 1996;
Whereas this Regulation should apply immediately to permit licences to be issued as quickly as possible;
Whereas the Management Committee for Bananas has not issued an opinion within the time limit laid down by its chairman,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Import licences shall be issued under the tariff quota for the import of bananas, provided for in Articles 18 and 19 of Regulation (EEC) No 404/93, for the second quarter of 1996:
(a) for the quantity indicated in the licence application, multiplied by reduction coefficients of 0,7213, 0,8072 and 0,5212 for applications indicating the origins 'Dominican Republic`, 'Costa Rica: category B` and 'Others` respectively;
(b) for the quantity indicated in the licence application where the application is for a quantity of 150 tonnes or less;
(c) for the quantity indicated in the licence application where it refers to an origin other than that referred to in point (a) above.
Article 2
The quantities for which licence applications may still be lodged in respect of the second quarter of 1996 are laid down in the Annex hereto.
Article 3
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 19 March 1996.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
*****
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 3582/86
of 24 November 1986
concerning the stopping of fishing for herring by vessels flying the flag of Ireland
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2057/82 of 29 June 1982 establishing certain control measures for fishing activities by vessels of the Member States (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3723/85 (2), and in particular Article 10 (3) thereof,
Whereas Council Regulation (EEC) No 3721/85 of 20 December 1985, fixing, for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, provisional total allowable catches for 1986 and certain conditions under which they may be fished (3), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3221/86 (4), provides for herring quotas for 1986;
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 herring in the waters of ICES divisions V b (EC zone), VI, and VII b, c by vessels flying the flag of Ireland or registered in Ireland have reached the quotas allocated for 1986; whereas Ireland has prohibited fishing for these stocks as from 11 November 1986; whereas it is therefore necessary to abide by that date,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Catches of herring in the waters of ICES divisions V b (EC zone), VI and VII b, c by vessels flying the flag of Ireland or registered in Ireland are deemed to have exhausted the quotas allocated to Ireland for 1986.
Fishing for herring in the waters of ICES divisions V b (EC zone), VI and VII b, c by vessels flying the flag of Ireland or registered in Ireland is prohibited, as well as the retention on board, the transhipment and the landing of such stocks captured by the abovementioned vessels after the date of application of this Regulation.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
It shall apply with effect from 11 November 1986.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 24 November 1986.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1303/2008
of 18 December 2008
correcting Regulation (EC) No 983/2008 adopting the plan allocating to the Member States resources to be charged to the 2009 budget year for the supply of food from intervention stocks for the benefit of the most deprived persons in the Community
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 43(g) in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
As a result of an administrative oversight, the wrong agencies have been listed in Annex III to Commission Regulation (EC) No 983/2008 (2), concerning intra-Community transfers of sugar, as the agencies authorised to receive sugar for Lithuania and Portugal respectively. A correction of these errors is necessary to ensure the proper implementation of the plan.
(2)
Regulation (EC) No 983/2008 should therefore be corrected accordingly. The correction should apply from the day of entry into force of that Regulation.
(3)
The measure provided for in this Regulation is in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
In Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 983/2008, the fourth column, ‘Recipient’, is amended as follows:
1.
In point 2, ‘Ministério das Finanças, Direcção-Geral das Alfândegas e dos Impostos Especiais sobre o Consumo, Direcção de Serviços de Licenciamento, Portugal’ is replaced by ‘IFAP, Portugal’.
2.
In point 4, ‘NMA, Lietuva’ is replaced by ‘Lietuvos žemės ūkio ir maisto produktų rinkos reguliavimo agentūra, Lietuva’.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
It shall apply from 10 October 2008.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 18 December 2008
|
[
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2331/2002
of 23 December 2002
amending Regulation (EC) No 899/2002 opening an invitation to tender for the refund for the export of common wheat to all third countries except Hungary, Poland, Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 of 30 June 1992 on the common organisation of the market in cereals(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1666/2000(2),
Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 of 29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 on the granting of export refunds on cereals and the measures to be taken in the event of disturbance on the market for cereals(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1163/2002(4), and in particular Article 4 thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Negotiations with a view to adopting trade agreements between the Community and Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia establishing certain concessions in the form of Community tariff quotas for certain agricultural products and the total liberalisation of trade in other agricultural products have recently been concluded. In the cereals sector, one of the concessions provided for is the abolition of export refunds, in particular with respect to common wheat.
(2) With a view to adopting these agreements, and in order to clarify the export terms at the beginning of 2003 for all exporters in the cereals sector, in particular in view of the period of validity of export licences, export refunds for common wheat should be abolished from 1 January 2003.
(3) The destinations laid down in Commission Regulation (EC) No 899/2002(5), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1520/2002(6), should therefore be amended.
(4) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Regulation (EC) No 899/2002 is hereby amended as follows:
1. The title is replaced by the following:
"Commission Regulation (EC) No 899/2002 of 30 May 2002 opening an invitation to tender for the refund for the export of common wheat to all third countries except Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, the Czech Republic, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia."
2. Article 1(2) is replaced by the following:
"2. The invitation to tender shall cover common wheat for export to all third countries except Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, the Czech Republic, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia."
3. The title of Annex I is replaced by the following:
"Weekly tender for the refund for the export of common wheat to all third countries except Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, the Czech Republic, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia."
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
It shall apply from 1 January 2003.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 23 December 2002.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 933/2007
of 3 August 2007
amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 lists the natural and legal persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation.
(2)
On 17 July 2007, the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council amended the list of natural and legal persons, entities and bodies to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply. Annex I should therefore be amended accordingly,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 is hereby amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 3 August 2007.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2394/2001
of 7 December 2001
opening public sales of wine alcohol for use as bioethanol in the European Community
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2826/2000(2),
Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1623/2000 of 25 July 2000 laying down detailed rules for implementing Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine with regard to market mechanisms(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2047/2001(4), and in particular Article 92 thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Regulation (EC) No 1623/2000 lays down, inter alia, the detailed rules for disposing of stocks of alcohol obtained from distillation under Articles 27, 28 and 30 of Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 and held by the intervention agencies.
(2) Public sales of wine alcohol for use in the fuel sector in the Community should be organised with a view to reducing Community stocks of wine alcohol and to some extent ensuring supplies to firms approved under Article 92 of Regulation (EC) No 1623/2000. Community stocks of wine alcohol held by the Member States come from distillation under Articles 35, 36 and 39 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 of 16 March 1987 on the common organisation of the market in wine(5), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1677/1999(6), and under Articles 27, 28 and 30 of Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999.
(3) In accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 2799/98 of 15 December 1998 establishing agrimonetary arrangements for the euro(7), the selling price and securities must be expressed, and payments made, in euro.
(4) Given that there are risks of fraud by substitution of alcohol, it would appear necessary to reinforce checks on the final destination of the alcohol, allowing the intervention agencies to call on the help of international control agencies and to check the alcohol sold by means of nuclear magnetic resonance analyses.
(5) 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
Three lots of alcohol (references 9/2001 EC, 10/2001 EC and 11/2001 EC) comprising 300000 hectolitres, 50000 hectolitres and 30000 hectolitres respectively at 100 % vol are hereby put up for public sale for use in the fuel sector within the Community. The alcohol has been obtained from distillation as provided for in Articles 35 and 36 of Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 and Articles 27, 28 and 30 of Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 and is held by the Spanish and Italian intervention agencies.
Article 2
The location and references of the vats making up the lots, the quantity of alcohol in each vat, the alcoholic strength and the characteristics of the alcohol are as set out in the Annex hereto. The lots shall be awarded to the three firms approved under Article 92 of Regulation (EC) No 1623/2000.
Article 3
All communications concerning this public sale shall be sent to the following Commission department: Commission of the European Communities Directorate-General for Agriculture, Unit D-4 Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 200 B - 1049 Brussels Fax: (32-2) 295 92 52 Telex: 22037 AGREC B, 22070 AGREC B (Greek) e-mail address: [email protected].
Article 4
The public sales shall take place in accordance with Articles 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 98, 100 and 101 of Regulation (EC) No 1623/2000 and Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 2799/98.
Article 5
The price of the alcohol for public sale shall be EUR 21 per hectolitre of alcohol at 100 % vol.
Article 6
The performance security shall be EUR 30 per hectolitre of alcohol at 100 % vol. Unless a standing guarantee is provided, before removing any alcohol and by the day of issue of the removal order at the latest, the firms awarded the lots shall lodge a performance security with the intervention agency concerned to ensure that the alcohol in question is used as bioethanol in the fuel sector.
Article 7
Against payment of EUR 10 per litre and within 30 days of the publication of the notice of public sale, the firms approved under Article 92 of Regulation (EC) No 1623/2000 may obtain samples of the alcohol put up for sale from the intervention agency concerned. After that date, samples may be obtained in accordance with Article 98(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 1623/2000. Samples issued to the approved firms shall amount to not more than five litres per vat.
Article 8
The intervention agencies in the Member States in which the alcohol put up for sale is stored shall carry out appropriate checks to verify the nature of the alcohol at the time of end use. To that end, they may:
- apply, mutatis mutandis, the provisions of Article 102 of Regulation (EC) No 1623/2000,
- carry out checks on samples using nuclear magnetic resonance to verify the nature of the alcohol at the time of end use.
The costs shall be borne by the companies to which the alcohol is sold.
Article 9
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 7 December 2001.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2952/95 of 20 December 1995 amending Regulation (EC) No 2684/95 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2505/95 on improving the Community production of peaches and nectarines
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2505/95 of 24 October 1995 on improving the Community production of peaches and nectarines (1), and in particular Article 6 thereof,
Whereas the amount of the aid referred to in Article 2 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2684/95 (2) was fixed in ecus on 21 November 1995; whereas the operative event for the agricultural conversion rate applicable to that aid may have occurred on 1 January 1995, before the date of abolition of the correcting factor of 1,207509;
Whereas the agricultural conversion rate applicable on 1 January 1995 relates to amounts in ecus multiplied by that correcting factor and may therefore not be applied to amounts fixed after 1 February 1995 without them being adjusted beforehand; whereas, to prevent errors and ensure greater clarity, the amount of aid in ecus that must be used in this case should be indicated;
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
The following sentence is hereby added to Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 2684/95:
'Where the operative event for the agricultural conversion rate occurred on 1 January 1995, the amount of the aid shall be ECU 4 141.`
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 21 November 1995.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 20 December 1995.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
1,
1,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1340/2004
of 22 July 2004
amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff
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)
Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 established a nomenclature of goods hereinafter referred to as the Combined Nomenclature, which is set out in Annex I to this Regulation.
(2)
In order to determine the added sugar content of fruit juices of heading 2009, Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 incorporated, in additional note 5(a) to Chapter 20 of the Combined Nomenclature, certain values laid down by Council Regulation (EEC) No 950/68 of 28 June 1968 on the common customs tariff (2). The value for apple juice was 11.
(3)
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1776/2001 of 7 September 2001 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (3) inserted an additional note 5(b) to Chapter 20, amending additional note 5. According to additional note 5(b) fruit juices with added sugar only retain their original character of fruit juices of heading 2009 if their fruit juice content is 50 % or more.
(4)
The method of calculating fruit juice content using the Brix value determined in accordance with additional note 2(b) to Chapter 20 and the standard value used in additional note 5(a) to Chapter 20 is described in the Combined Nomenclature explanatory note to heading 2009 (4).
(5)
Following the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1776/2001 and the explanatory note to heading 2009, it was found that some concentrated apple juice of a Brix value of less than 67 was excluded from heading 2009 by virtue of additional note 5 and on the basis of the apple juice content calculated in accordance with the explanatory note, even though it was natural apple juice with no added sugar, from which water had been removed to produce the concentrate.
(6)
Scientific studies show that since 1968, when the standard figure of 11 for apple juice was introduced, new varieties of apple have been cultivated for the production of concentrated juice. Their high acidity means the unconcentrated juice can reach an average Brix value of 13. The 1968 figure of 11 should therefore be revised upwards to 13 to ensure that natural fruit juices made from the new apple varieties are not excluded from heading 2009.
(7)
This means amending additional note 5(a) to Chapter 20 of the Combined Nomenclature (Annex I to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87), by deleting the entry ‘- apple juice: 11’ and merging it with ‘- other fruit or vegetable juices, including mixtures of juices: 13’.
(8)
The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
In additional note 5(a) to Chapter 20 of the Combined Nomenclature at Annex I to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 the second indent ‘- apple juice: 11’ is deleted.
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, 22 July 2004.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2240/2002
of 16 December 2002
on the supply of cereals as food aid
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1292/96 of 27 June 1996 on food-aid policy and food-aid management and special operations in support of food security(1), as modified by Regulation (EC) No 1726/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council(2), and in particular Article 24(1)(b) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) The abovementioned Regulation lays down the list of countries and organisations eligible for Community aid and specifies the general criteria on the transport of food aid beyond the fob stage.
(2) Following the taking of a number of decisions on the allocation of food aid, the Commission has allocated cereals to certain beneficiaries.
(3) It is necessary to make these supplies in accordance with the rules laid down by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2519/97 of 16 December 1997 laying down general rules for the mobilisation of products to be supplied under Regulation (EC) No 1292/96 as Community food aid(3). It is necessary to specify the time limits and conditions of supply to determine the resultant costs,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Cereals shall be mobilised in the Community, as Community food aid for supply to the recipient listed in the Annex, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 2519/97 and under the conditions set out in the Annex.
The tenderer is deemed to have noted and accepted all the general and specific conditions applicable. Any other condition or reservation included in his tender is deemed unwritten.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 16 December 2002.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 75/2009
of 26 January 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 27 January 2009.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 26 January 2009.
|
[
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1888/2004
of 29 October 2004
fixing the import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 1 November 2004
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 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 as regards import duties in the cereals sector (2), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 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 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)
Pursuant to Article 10(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003, the cif import prices are calculated on the basis of the representative prices for the product in question on the world market.
(3)
Regulation (EC) No 1249/96 lays down detailed rules for the application of Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 as regards import duties in the cereals sector.
(4)
The import duties are applicable until new duties are fixed and enter into force.
(5)
In order to allow the import duty system to function normally, the representative market rates recorded during a reference period should be used for calculating the duties.
(6)
Application of Regulation (EC) No 1249/96 results in import duties being fixed as set out in Annex I to this Regulation,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
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 given in Annex II.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 November 2004.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 29 October 2004.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
*****
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 487/90
of 27 February 1990
amending, in regard to the sizing of apples, Regulation (EEC) No 920/89 laying down quality standards for carrots, citrus fruit and dessert apples and pears
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic 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 (EEC) No 1119/89 (2), and in particular the second subparagraph of Article 2 (3) thereof,
Whereas Annex III to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 920/89 (3), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 421/90 (4), sets out quality standards for dessert apples and pears;
Whereas these standards include minimum sizes set by quality class; whereas for both large fruit and for other apple varieties the class II size no longer corresponds to production and marketing requirements; whereas by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1901/89 (5), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3008/89 (6), a derogation was introduced for the 1989/90 marketing year allowing the use of minimum sizes more suited to the state of the market; whereas these new sizes should therefore be definitively introduced;
Whereas the Management Committee for Fruit and Vegetables has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its chairman,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
In Annex III Part III, 'Provisions concerning sizing', to Regulation (EEC) No 920/89 the minimum sizes required for apples are amended to read:
1.2.3.4.5 // // Extra // I // II // III // 'Apples: // // // // // - large fruit varieties // 70 mm // 65 mm // 65 mm // 50 mm // - other varieties // 60 mm // 55 mm // 55 mm // 50 mm'
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 July 1990.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 27 February 1990.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2204/2002
of 12 December 2002
on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid for employment
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 994/98 of 7 May 1998 on the application of Articles 92 and 93 of the Treaty establishing the European Community to certain categories of horizontal State aid(1), and in particular point (a)(iv) and point (b) of Article 1(1) thereof,
Having published a draft of this Regulation(2),
Having consulted the Advisory Committee on State Aid,
Whereas:
(1) Regulation (EC) No 994/98 empowers the Commission to declare, in accordance with Article 87 of the Treaty, that under certain conditions aid for employment is compatible with the common market and not subject to the notification requirement of Article 88(3) of the Treaty.
(2) Regulation (EC) No 994/98 also empowers the Commission to declare, in accordance with Article 87 of the Treaty, that aid that complies with the map approved by the Commission for each Member State for the grant of regional aid is compatible with the common market and is not subject to the notification requirement of Article 88(3) of the Treaty.
(3) The Commission has applied Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty to employment aid in and outside assisted areas in numerous decisions and has also stated its policy, in the guidelines on aid to employment(3), in the notice on monitoring of State aid and reduction of labour costs(4), in the guidelines on national regional aid(5) and in Commission Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises(6). In the light of the Commissions experience in applying those provisions, it is appropriate, with a view to ensuring efficient supervision and simplifying administration without weakening Commission monitoring, that the Commission should make use of the powers conferred by Regulation (EC) No 994/98.
(4) This Regulation is without prejudice to the possibility for Member States to notify aid for employment. Such notifications will be assessed by the Commission in particular in the light of the criteria set out in this Regulation, in Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 or in accordance with any relevant Community guidelines or frameworks. This is currently the case for the sector of maritime transport. The guidelines on State aid for employment(7) cease to apply from the date of entry into force of this Regulation, as do the notice on monitoring of State aid and reduction of labour costs and the notice on an accelerated procedure for processing notifications of employment aid(8). Notifications pending at the entry into force of this Regulation will be assessed in accordance with its provisions. It is appropriate to lay down transitional provisions concerning the application of this Regulation to employment aid granted before its entry into force and in breach of the obligation in Article 88(3) of the Treaty.
(5) The promotion of employment is a central aim for the economic and social policies of the Community and of its Member States. The Community has developed a European employment strategy in order to promote this objective. Unemployment remains a significant problem in some parts of the Community, and certain categories of worker still find particular difficulty in entering the labour market. For this reason there is a justification for public authorities to apply measures providing incentives to enterprises to increase their levels of employment, in particular of workers from these disadvantaged categories.
(6) This Regulation applies only to employment measures which fulfil all the conditions of Article 87(1) of the Treaty and thus constitute State aid. A number of employment policy measures do not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) because they constitute aid to individuals that does not favour certain undertakings or the production of certain goods, or because they do not affect trade between Member States or because they are general measures to promote employment which do not distort or threaten to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods. Such general measures, which may include general reduction of the taxation of labour and social costs, boosting investment in general education and training, measures to provide guidance and counselling, general assistance and training for the unemployed and improvements in labour law are therefore unaffected by this Regulation. This is also the case of measures which are deemed not to meet all the criteria of Article 87(1) of the Treaty and therefore do not fall under the notification requirement of Article 88(3) of the Treaty by virtue of Commission Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to de minimis aid(9).
(7) Having regard to those considerations, the purpose and effect of the aid exempted by this Regulation should be to promote employment in accordance with the European employment strategy, in particular of workers from disadvantaged categories, without adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest. Employment aid granted to a firm on an individual basis may have a major impact on competition in the relevant market because it favours that firm over others which have not received such aid. By being granted only to a single firm, such aid is likely to have only a limited effect on employment. For this reason individual awards of employment aid should continue to be notified to the Commission, and this Regulation should exempt aid only if given in the form of schemes.
(8) This Regulation should exempt any aid granted under a scheme that meets all the relevant requirements of this Regulation. With a view to ensuring efficient supervision and simplifying administration without weakening Commission monitoring, aid schemes should contain an express reference to this Regulation.
(9) This Regulation should not exempt from notification State aid in the shipbuilding and coal-mining sectors, for which special rules are laid down in, respectively, Council Regulation (EC) No 1540/98(10) and Council Regulation (EC) No 1407/2002(11).
(10) This Regulation should apply in the transport sector. However, having regard to the particular characteristics of competition in that sector, it is not appropriate to exempt aid for the creation of employment.
(11) The Commission has a consistently less favourable view of aid targeted at particular sectors, including, but not limited to, sensitive sectors experiencing overcapacity or crisis. Aid schemes which are targeted at specific sectors should not therefore be covered by the exemption from notification provided by this Regulation.
(12) In accordance with the established practice of the Commission, and with a view to better ensuring that aid is proportionate and limited to the amount necessary, thresholds should be expressed in terms of aid intensities in relation to a set of eligible costs, rather than in terms of maximum aid amounts.
(13) In order to determine whether or not aid is compatible with the common market pursuant to this Regulation, it is necessary to take into consideration the aid intensity and thus the aid amount expressed as a grant equivalent. The calculation of the grant equivalent of aid payable in several instalments and aid in the form of a soft loan requires the use of market interest rates prevailing at the time of grant. With a view to a uniform, transparent, and simple application of the State aid rules, the market rates for the purposes of this Regulation should be deemed to be the reference rates, provided that, in the case of a soft loan, the loan is backed by normal security and does not involve abnormal risk. The reference rates should be those which are periodically fixed by the Commission on the basis of objective criteria and published in the Official Journal of the European Communities and on the Internet.
(14) Having regard to the differences between enterprises of different sizes, different ceilings of aid intensity for the creation of employment should be set for small and medium sized enterprises and large enterprises. In order to eliminate differences that might give rise to distortions of competition, in order to facilitate coordination between different Community and national initiatives, and for reasons of administrative clarity and legal certainty, the definition of "small and medium-sized enterprises" (SMEs) used in this Regulation should be that laid down in Commission Recommendation 96/280/EC of 3 April 1996 concerning the definition of small and medium-sized enterprises(12). That definition was also used in Regulation (EC) No 70/2001.
(15) The ceilings of aid intensity should be fixed, in the light of the Commissions experience, at a level that strikes the appropriate balance between minimising distortions of competition and the objective of promoting employment. In the interests of coherence, the ceilings should be harmonised with those fixed in the guidelines on national regional aid and in Regulation (EC) No 70/2001, which allowed aid to be calculated by reference to the creation of employment linked to investment projects.
(16) Employment costs form part of the normal operating costs of any enterprise. It is therefore particularly important that aid should have a positive effect on employment and should not merely enable enterprises to reduce costs which they would otherwise bear.
(17) Without rigorous controls and strict limits, employment aid can have harmful effects which cancel out its immediate effects on job creation. If the aid is used to protect firms exposed to intra-Community competition, it could have the effect of delaying adjustments needed to ensure the competitiveness of Community industry. In the absence of rigorous controls, such aid may be concentrated in the most prosperous regions, contrary to the objective of economic and social cohesion. Within the single market, aid granted to reduce costs of employment can lead to distortions of intra-Community competition and deflections in the allocation of resources and mobile investment, to the shifting of unemployment from one country to another, and to relocation.
(18) Aid to create jobs should be subject to the condition that the created job should be maintained for a certain minimum period. The period set in this regulation should override the five-year rule set out in point 4.14 of the guidelines on national regional aid.
(19) Aid to maintain jobs, meaning financial support given to a firm to persuade it not to lay off its workers, is similar to operating aid. Subject to any sectoral rules, therefore, such as those which exist in the sector of maritime transport, it should be authorised only in specific circumstances and for a limited period. It should continue to be notified to the Commission and should not be covered by the exemption from such notification provided by this Regulation. The limited circumstances in which it can be authorised include those where, in accordance with Article 87(2)(b) of the Treaty, it is intended to make good the damage caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences; another instance is under the conditions applying to operating aid in the guidelines on national regional aid, in regions eligible for the derogation under Article 87(3)(a) of the Treaty concerning the economic development of areas where the standard of living is abnormally low or where there is serious underemployment, including ultra-peripheral regions; a third instance is where such aid is granted in the context of the rescue and restructuring of a company in difficulty, in accordance with the provisions of the relevant Community guidelines(13).
(20) A particular type of aid is aid granted to employers for the conversion of temporary or fixed-term employment contracts into contracts of indeterminate duration. Such measures should not be covered by the exemption from such notification provided by this Regulation and should be notified so that the Commission can determine whether they have positive employment effects. It should in particular be ensured that such measures do not allow the employment to be aided both at the creation of the post and at the conversion of the contract, in such a way that the ceiling for aid for initial investment or for creation of employment is exceeded.
(21) Small and medium-sized enterprises play a decisive role in job creation. At the same time, their size may present a handicap to the creation of new employment because of the risks and administrative burden involved in the recruitment of new personnel. Similarly, job creation can contribute to the economic development of less favoured regions in the Community and thus improve economic and social cohesion. Enterprises in those regions suffer from the structural disadvantage of the location. It is therefore appropriate that small and medium-sized enterprises, and enterprises in assisted regions, should be able to benefit from aid to create employment.
(22) Large firms in non-assisted areas do not suffer from particular difficulties and employment costs are part of their normal operating expenses. For this reason, and in order to maximise the incentive effect of aid to create jobs in SMEs and in regions eligible for the derogations under Article 87(3)(a) and (c) of the Treaty, large firms in regions not eligible for these derogations should not be eligible for aid to create employment.
(23) Certain categories of worker experience particular difficulty in finding work, because employers consider them to be less productive. This perceived lower productivity may be due either to lack of recent experience of employment (for example, young workers, long-term unemployed) or to permanent handicap. Employment aid intended to encourage firms to recruit such individuals is justified by the fact that the lower productivity of these workers reduces the financial advantage accruing to the firm and by the fact that the workers also benefit from the measure and are likely to be excluded from the labour market unless employers are offered such incentives. It is therefore appropriate to allow schemes providing such aid, whatever the size or location of the beneficiary.
(24) The categories of worker considered to be disadvantaged should be defined, but it should be possible for Member States to notify aid to promote the recruitment of other categories they consider to be disadvantaged, with supporting arguments.
(25) Workers with a disability may need permanent help to enable them to remain in the labour market, going beyond aid for initial recruitment and possibly including participation in sheltered employment. Schemes providing aid for such purposes should be exempted from notification provided that the aid can be shown to be no more than necessary to compensate for the lower productivity of the workers concerned, the ancillary costs of employing them or the costs of establishing or maintaining sheltered employment. This condition is designed to prevent enterprises benefiting from such aid from selling below competitive prices in markets also served by other enterprises.
(26) This Regulation should not prevent the cumulation of aid for the recruitment of disadvantaged workers or for the recruitment or employment of disabled workers with other aid granted in respect of employment costs, since in such cases it is legitimate to provide an incentive for workers from these categories to be employed in preference to others.
(27) In order to ensure that the aid is necessary and acts as an incentive to employment, this Regulation should not exempt aid for the creation of employment or for recruitment which the beneficiary would already undertake under market conditions alone.
(28) This Regulation should not exempt aid for the creation of employment where this is cumulated with other State aid, including aid granted by national, regional or local authorities, or with Community assistance, in relation to the same eligible costs or to the costs of investments to which the employment concerned is linked, when such cumulation exceeds the thresholds fixed in this Regulation or in the Community rules on State aid for investment, in particular the Guidelines on national regional aid and Regulation (EC) No 70/2001. The only exceptions to this principle should be for aid for the recruitment of disadvantaged workers or for the recruitment or employment of disabled workers.
(29) It is appropriate that large amounts of aid should remain subject to an individual assessment by the Commission before they are put into effect. Accordingly, aid amounts exceeding a fixed amount over a certain period to a single enterprise or establishment are excluded from the exemption provided for in this Regulation and remain subject to the requirements of Article 88(3) of the Treaty.
(30) Aid measures to promote employment or other aid with objectives connected with employment and labour markets may be of a different nature from measures exempted by this Regulation. Such measures should be notified under Article 88(3).
(31) In the light of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, this Regulation should not exempt export aid or aid favouring domestic over imported products. Such aid would be incompatible with the Community's international obligations under that Agreement and should not therefore be exempted from notification, nor authorised if so notified.
(32) In order to ensure transparency and effective monitoring, in accordance with Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 994/98, it is appropriate to establish a standard format in which Member States should provide the Commission with summary information whenever, in pursuance of this Regulation, an aid scheme is implemented, with a view to publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities. For the same reasons, it is appropriate to establish rules concerning the records that Member States should keep regarding the aid scheme exempted by this Regulation. For the purposes of the annual report to be submitted to the Commission by Member States, it is appropriate for the Commission to establish its specific requirements. In order to facilitate administrative treatment and in view of the wide availability of the necessary technology, the summary information and the annual report should be provided in computerised form.
(33) Having regard to the Commissions experience in this area, and in particular the frequency with which it is generally necessary to revise State aid policy, it is appropriate to limit the period of application of this Regulation. Pursuant to Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 994/98, it is necessary to include transitional arrangements whereby aid schemes already exempted by this Regulation will, on its expiry, continue to be exempted for another six months,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION
Article 1
Scope
1. This Regulation shall apply to schemes which constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty and which provide aid for the creation of employment, provide aid for the recruitment of disadvantaged and disabled workers or provide aid to cover the additional costs of employing disabled workers.
2. This Regulation shall apply to aid in all sectors, including the activities relating to the production, processing and marketing of products listed in Annex I to the Treaty.
It shall not apply to any aid granted in the coal or shipbuilding sectors, nor to any aid for the creation of employment, within the meaning of Article 4, granted in the transport sector. Such aid shall remain subject to prior notification to the Commission in accordance with Article 88(3) of the Treaty.
3. This Regulation shall not apply:
(a) to aid to export-related activities, namely aid directly linked to the quantities exported, to the establishment and operation of a distribution network or to other current expenditure linked to the export activity;
(b) to aid contingent upon the use of domestic in preference to imported goods.
Article 2
Definitions
For the purpose of this Regulation:
(a) "aid" means any measure fulfilling all the criteria laid down in Article 87(1) of the Treaty;
(b) "small and medium-sized enterprises" means enterprises as defined in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 70/2001;
(c) "gross aid intensity" means the aid amount expressed as a percentage of the relevant costs. All figures used shall be taken before any deduction for direct taxation. Where aid is awarded in a form other than a grant, the aid amount shall be the grant equivalent of the aid. Aid payable in several instalments shall be discounted to its value at the moment of granting. The interest rate to be used for discounting purposes and for calculating the aid amount in a soft loan shall be the reference rate applicable at the time of grant;
(d) "net aid intensity" means the discounted aid amount net of tax expressed as a percentage of the relevant costs;
(e) "number of employees" means the number of annual working units (AWU), namely the number of persons employed full time in one year, part-time and seasonal work being AWU fractions;
(f) "disadvantaged worker" means any person who belongs to a category which has difficulty entering the labour market without assistance, namely a person meeting at least one of the following criteria:
(i) any person who is under 25 or is within two years after completing full-time education and who has not previously obtained his or her first regular paid employment;
(ii) any migrant worker who moves or has moved within the Community or becomes resident in the Community to take up work;
(iii) any person who is a member of an ethnic minority within a Member State and who requires development of his or her linguistic, vocational training or work experience profile to enhance prospects of gaining access to stable employment;
(iv) any person who wishes to enter or to re-enter working life and who has been absent both from work and from education for at least two years, and particularly any person who gave up work on account of the difficulty of reconciling his or her working life and family life;
(v) any person living as a single adult looking after a child or children;
(vi) any person who has not attained an upper secondary educational qualification or its equivalent, who does not have a job or who is losing his or her job;
(vii) any person older than 50, who does not have a job or who is losing his or her job;
(viii) any long-term unemployed person, i.e. any person who has been unemployed for 12 of the previous 16 months, or six of the previous eight months in the case of persons under 25;
(ix) any person recognised to be or to have been an addict in accordance with national law;
(x) any person who has not obtained his or her first regular paid employment since beginning a period of imprisonment or other penal measure;
(xi) any woman in a NUTS II geographical area where average unemployment has exceeded 100 % of the Community average for at least two calendar years and where female unemployment has exceeded 150 % of the male unemployment rate in the area concerned for at least two of the past three calendar years;
(g) "disabled worker" means any person either:
(i) recognised as disabled under national law; or
(ii) having a recognised, serious, physical, mental or psychological impairment;
(h) "sheltered employment" means employment in an establishment where at least 50 % of the employees are disabled workers who are unable to take up work in the open labour market;
(i) "wage cost" comprises the following components actually payable by the beneficiary of the State aid in respect of the employment concerned:
(i) the gross wage, i.e. before tax; and
(ii) the compulsory social security contributions.
(j) a job is "linked to the carrying-out of a project of investment" if it concerns the activity to which the investment relates and if it is created within three years of the investment's completion. During this period, the jobs created following an increase in the utilisation rate of the capacity created by the investment are also linked to the investment;
(k) "investment in tangible assets" means an investment in fixed physical assets relating to the creation of a new establishment, the extension of an existing establishment, or the engagement in an activity involving a fundamental change in the product or production process of an existing establishment (in particular through rationalisation, diversification or modernisation). An investment in fixed assets undertaken in the form of the takeover of an establishment which has closed or which would have closed had it not been purchased shall also be regarded as tangible investment;
(l) "investment in intangible assets" means investment in transfer of technology by the acquisition of patent rights, licences, know-how or unpatented technical knowledge.
Article 3
Conditions for exemption
1. Subject to Article 9, aid schemes fulfilling all the conditions of this Regulation shall be compatible with the common market within the meaning of Article 87(3) of the Treaty and shall be exempt from the notification requirement of Article 88(3) of the Treaty provided that:
(a) any aid that could be awarded under such scheme fulfils all the conditions of this Regulation;
(b) the scheme contains an express reference to this Regulation, by citing its title and publication reference in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
2. Aid granted under the schemes referred to in paragraph 1 shall be compatible with the common market within the meaning of Article 87(3) of the Treaty and shall be exempt from the notification requirement of Article 88(3) provided that the aid granted fulfils all the conditions of this Regulation.
Article 4
Creation of employment
1. Aid schemes for the creation of employment and any aid that could be awarded under such scheme shall fulfil the conditions of paragraphs 2, 3 and 4.
2. Where the employment is created in areas or in sectors which do not qualify for regional aid pursuant to Article 87(3)(a) and (c) at the moment the aid is granted, the gross aid intensity shall not exceed:
(a) 15 % in the case of small enterprises;
(b) 7,5 % in the case of medium-sized enterprises.
3. Where the employment is created in areas and in sectors which qualify for regional aid pursuant to Article 87(3)(a) and (c) at the moment at which the aid is awarded, the net aid intensity shall not exceed the corresponding ceiling of regional investment aid determined in the map applying at the time the aid is granted, as approved by the Commission for each Member State: for this purpose, regard shall be had, inter alia, to the multisectoral framework for regional aid for large investment projects(14).
In the case of small and medium-sized enterprises, and unless the map provides otherwise for such enterprises, this ceiling shall be increased by:
(a) 10 percentage points gross in areas covered by Article 87(3)(c), provided that the total net aid intensity does not exceed 30 %; or
(b) 15 percentage points gross in areas covered by Article 87(3)(a), provided that the total net aid intensity does not exceed 75 %.
The higher regional aid ceilings shall only apply if the beneficiary's contribution to financing is at least 25 % and if the employment is maintained within the qualifying region.
When employment is created in the production, processing and marketing of products listed in Annex I to the Treaty, in areas which qualify as less favoured areas under Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999(15), these higher aid ceilings or, if applicable, the higher aid ceilings of that Regulation, shall apply.
4. The ceilings fixed in paragraphs 2 and 3 shall apply to the intensity of the aid calculated as a percentage of the wage costs over a period of two years relating to the employment created under the following conditions:
(a) the employment created must represent a net increase in the number of employees, both in the establishment and in the enterprise concerned, compared with the average over the past 12 months;
(b) the employment created shall be maintained for a minimum period of three years, or two years in the case of SMEs; and
(c) the new workers employed as a result of the creation of employment must have never had a job or have lost or be losing their previous job.
5. Where aid is granted for the creation of employment under a scheme exempted under this Article, additional aid may be granted in case of recruitment of a disadvantaged or disabled worker in accordance with the terms of Articles 5 or 6.
Article 5
Recruitment of disadvantaged and disabled workers
1. Aid schemes for the recruitment by any enterprise of disadvantaged and disabled workers and any aid that could be awarded under such scheme shall fulfil the conditions of paragraphs 2 and 3.
2. The gross intensity of all aid relating to the employment of the disadvantaged or disabled worker or workers concerned, calculated as a percentage of the wage costs over a period of one year following recruitment, shall not exceed 50 % for disadvantaged workers or 60 % for disabled workers.
3. The following conditions shall apply:
(a) where the recruitment does not represent a net increase in the number of employees in the establishment concerned, the post or posts must have fallen vacant following voluntary departure, retirement on grounds of age, voluntary reduction of working time or lawful dismissal for misconduct and not as a result of redundancy, and
(b) except in the case of lawful dismissal for misconduct the worker or workers must be entitled to continuous employment for a minimum of 12 months.
Article 6
Additional costs of employment of disabled workers
1. Aid schemes for the employment of disabled workers and any aid that could be awarded under such a scheme shall fulfil the conditions of paragraphs 2 and 3.
2. The aid, together with any aid provided under Article 5, shall not exceed the level needed to compensate for any reduced productivity resulting from the disabilities of the worker or workers, and for any of the following costs:
(a) costs of adapting premises;
(b) costs of employing staff for time spent solely on the assistance of the disabled worker or workers;
(c) costs of adapting or acquiring equipment for their use,
which are additional to those which the beneficiary would have incurred if employing workers who are not disabled, over any period for which the disabled worker or workers are actually employed.
Where the beneficiary provides sheltered employment, aid may in addition cover, but shall not exceed, the costs of constructing, installing or expanding the establishment concerned, and any costs of administration and transport which result from the employment of disabled workers.
3. Schemes exempted by this Article shall provide that aid be subject to the condition that the beneficiary maintain records allowing verification that the aid granted to it meets the provisions of this Article and Article 8(4).
Article 7
Necessity for the aid
1. This Regulation shall only exempt aid under Article 4 if before the employment concerned is created:
(a) either an application for aid has been submitted to the Member State by the beneficiary; or
(b) the Member State has adopted legal provisions establishing a legal right to aid according to objective criteria and without further exercise of discretion by the Member State.
2. Aid shall enjoy exemption under Article 4 in cases where:
(a) the employment created is linked to the carrying-out of a project of investment in tangible or intangible assets; and
(b) the employment is created within three years of the investment's completion,
only if the application referred in paragraph 1(a), or the adoption referred to in paragraph 1(b), takes place before work on the project is started.
Article 8
Cumulation
1. The aid ceilings fixed in Articles 4, 5 and 6 shall apply regardless of whether the support for the aided employment or recruitment is financed entirely from State resources or is partly financed by the Community.
2. Aid under schemes exempted by Article 4 of this Regulation shall not be cumulated with any other State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty, or with other Community funding, in relation to the same wage costs, if such cumulation would result in an aid intensity exceeding that fixed by this Regulation.
3. Aid under schemes exempted by Article 4 of this Regulation shall not be cumulated:
(a) with any other State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty, or with other Community funding, in relation to costs of any investment to which the created employment is linked and which has not yet been completed at the time the employment is created, or which was completed in the three years before the employment is created; or
(b) with any such aid or funding in relation to the same wage costs or to other employment linked to the same investment,
if such cumulation would result in an aid intensity exceeding the relevant ceiling of regional investment aid determined in the guidelines on national regional aid and in the map approved by the Commission for each Member State or the ceiling in Regulation (EC) No 70/2001. Where the relevant ceiling has been adapted in a particular case, in particular by the application of State aid rules applying in a particular sector, or by an instrument applying to large investment projects, such as the applicable multisectoral framework for regional aid for large investment projects, the adapted ceiling shall apply for the purposes of this paragraph.
4. By way of derogation from paragraphs 2 and 3, aid under schemes exempted by Articles 5 and 6 of this Regulation may be cumulated with other State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty, or with other Community funding, in relation to the same costs, including with aid under schemes exempted by Article 4 of this Regulation which complies with paragraphs 2 and 3, provided that such cumulation does not result in a gross aid intensity exceeding 100 % of the wage costs over any period for which the worker or workers are employed.
The first subparagraph shall be without prejudice to any lower limits on aid intensity that may have been set pursuant to the Community framework for State aid for research and development(16).
Article 9
Aid subject to prior notification to the Commission
1. Aid schemes which are targeted at particular sectors shall not be exempted from notification under this Regulation and shall remain subject to the notification requirement of Article 88(3) of the Treaty.
2. This Regulation shall not exempt from notification the grant of aid to a single enterprise or establishment exceeding a gross aid amount of EUR 15 million over any three-year period. The Commission shall assess such aid, if granted under a scheme which is otherwise exempted by this Regulation, by reference solely to the criteria of this Regulation.
3. This Regulation is without prejudice to any obligation on a Member State to notify individual grants of aid under obligations entered into in the context of other State aid Instruments, and in particular the obligation to notify, or to inform the Commission of, aid to an enterprise receiving restructuring aid within the meaning of the Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty and the obligation to notify regional aid for large investment projects under the applicable multisectoral Framework.
4. Aid schemes to promote the recruitment of categories of worker who are not disadvantaged within the meaning of Article 2(f) shall remain subject to the notification requirement of Article 88(3) of the Treaty unless exempted under Article 4. On notification, Member States shall submit, for appraisal by the Commission, arguments showing that the workers concerned are disadvantaged. In this respect, Article 5 shall apply.
5. Aid to maintain jobs, namely financial support given to an undertaking to retain workers who would otherwise be laid off, shall remain subject to the notification requirement of Article 88(3) of the Treaty. Subject to any sectoral rules, such aid may be authorised by the Commission only where, in accordance with Article 87(2)(b) of the Treaty, it is intended to make good the damage caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences or, under the conditions applying to operating aid in the guidelines on national regional aid, in regions eligible for the derogation under Article 87(3)(a) concerning the economic development of areas where the standard of living is abnormally low or where there is serious underemployment.
6. Aid for the conversion of temporary or fixed-term employment contracts into contracts of indeterminate duration shall remain subject to the notification requirement of Article 88(3) of the Treaty.
7. Aid schemes for job-sharing, for provision of support for working parents and similar employment measures which promote employment but which do not result in a net increase in employment, in the recruitment of disadvantaged workers, or in the recruitment or employment of disabled workers shall remain subject to the notification requirement of Article 88(3) of the Treaty and shall be assessed by the Commission in accordance with Article 87.
8. Other aid measures with objectives connected with employment and labour markets, such as measures to encourage early retirement, shall also remain subject to the notification requirement of Article 88(3) of the Treaty and shall be assessed by the Commission in accordance with Article 87.
9. Individual cases of employment aid granted independently of any scheme shall remain subject to the notification requirement of Article 88(3) of the Treaty. Such aid will be assessed in the light of this Regulation and may be authorised by the Commission only if it is compatible with any specific applicable rules which may have been laid down in respect of the sector in which the beneficiary operates and only if it can be shown that the effects of the aid on employment outweigh the impact on competition in the relevant market.
Article 10
Transparency and monitoring
1. On implementation of an aid scheme exempted by this Regulation, Member States shall, within 20 working days, forward to the Commission, with a view to its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities, a summary of the information regarding such aid scheme in the form laid down in Annex I. This shall be provided in computerised form.
2. Member States shall maintain detailed records regarding the aid schemes exempted by this Regulation and the individual aid granted under those schemes. Such records shall contain all information necessary to establish that the conditions for exemption, as laid down in this Regulation, are fulfilled, including information on the status of any company whose entitlement to aid depends on its status as an SME. Member States shall keep a record regarding an aid scheme for 10 years from the date on which the last individual aid was granted under such scheme. On written request, the Member State concerned shall provide the Commission, within a period of 20 working days or such longer period as may be fixed in the request, with all the information which the Commission considers necessary to assess whether the conditions of this Regulation have been complied with.
3. Member States shall compile a report on the application of this Regulation in respect of each whole or part calendar year during which this Regulation applies, in the form laid down in Annex II, in computerised form. Member States shall provide the Commission with such report no later than three months after the expiry of the period to which the report relates.
Article 11
Entry into force, period of validity, and transitional arrangements
1. This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
It shall remain in force until 31 December 2006.
2. Notifications pending at the time of entry into force of this Regulation shall be assessed in accordance with its provisions.
Aid schemes implemented before the date of entry into force of this Regulation, and aid granted under these schemes, in the absence of a Commission authorisation and in breach of the obligation in Article 88(3) of the Treaty, shall be compatible with the common market within the meaning of Article 87(3) of the Treaty and shall be exempted under this Regulation if they fulfil the conditions laid down in Article 3(1)(a) and Article 3(2). Any aid which does not fulfil these conditions shall be assessed by the Commission in accordance with the relevant frameworks, guidelines, communications and notices.
3. At the end of the period of validity of this Regulation, aid schemes exempted under this Regulation shall remain exempted during an adjustment period of six months.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 12 December 2002.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1487/95 of 28 June 1995 establishing the supply balance for the Canary Islands for products from the pigmeat sector and fixing the aid for products coming from the Community
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1601/92 of 15 June 1992 introducing specific measures for the Canary Islands concerning certain agricultural products (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 3290/94 (2), and in particular Articles 3 (4) and 4 (4) thereof,
Whereas in application of Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1601/92, it is necessary to determine for the pigmeat sector and for the 1995/96 marketing year, on the one hand, the quantities of meat and processed products of the forecast supply balance with benefit from an exemption from the duty on imports from third countries or from an aid for deliveries originating from the rest of the Community, and on the other hand, the quantities of pure-bred breeding animals originating in the Community which benefit from an aid with a view to developing the potential for production in the archipelago of the Canaries;
Whereas it is appropriate to fix the amount of the aids referred to above for the supply to the archipelago, on the one hand, in meat and, on the other hand, of breeding animals originating in the rest of the Community; whereas these aids must be fixed taking into account in particular the costs of supply from the world market, conditions due to the geographical situation of the archipelago and the basis of the current prices on export to third countries for the animals or products concerned;
Whereas the common detailed rules for the implementation of the supply arrangements for the Canary Islands are adopted in Commission Regulation (EC) No 2790/94 (3), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2883/94 (4);
Whereas, in the interests of clarity, Commission Regulation (EC) No 752/95 of 3 April 1995 fixing the aid for the supply of products from the pigmeat sector to the Canary Islands under the arrangements provided for in Articles 2 to 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1601/92 (5) should be repealed;
Whereas in application of Regulation (EEC) No 1601/92, the supply arrangements will apply from 1 July; whereas, therefore, this Regulation should apply immediately;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Pigmeat,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Pursuant to Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 1601/92, the quantities of the forecast supply balance with products from the pigmeat sector which benefit from exemption from the import duty on products coming from third countries or which benefit from Community aid shall be as fixed in Annex I.
Article 2
1. The aid provided for in Article 3 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1601/92 for products included in the forecast supply balance which come from the Community market shall be as fixed in Annex II.
2. Products benefiting from the aid shall be specified in accordance with the provisions of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3846/87 (6), and in particular point 7 of its Annex.
Article 3
The aid provided for in Article 4 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1601/92 for the supply to the Canary Islands of pure-bred breeding pigs of Community origin as well as the number of animals benefiting from the aid shall be as fixed in Annex III.
Article 4
Regulation (EC) No 752/95 is hereby repealed.
Article 5
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
It shall apply from 1 July 1995.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 28 June 1995.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
*****
COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 114/86
of 20 January 1986
extending until 31 December 1986 the validity of Regulations (EEC) No 3721/85, No 3730/85, No 3734/85 and No 3777/85 concerning fisheries
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 170/83 of 25 January 1983 establishing a Community system for the conservation and management of fishery resources (1), and in particular Article 11 thereof,
Having regard to the proposals from the Commission,
Whereas the Council adopted on 20 and 31 December 1985 respectively the following Regulations:
- Regulation (EEC) No 3721/85 fixing, for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, provisional total allowable catches for 1986 and certain conditions under which they may be fished (2),
- Regulation (EEC) No 3730/85 allocating certain catch quotas between Member States for vessels fishing in the Norwegian economic zone and the fishery zone around Jan Mayen (3),
- Regulation (EEC) No 3734/85 laying down for 1986 certain measures for the conservation and management of fishery resources to vessels flying the flag of Norway (4),
- Regulation (EEC) No 3777/85 amending Regulation (EEC) No 3721/85 fixing, for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, provisional total allowable catches for 1986 and certain conditions under which they may be fished (5);
Whereas the Council had initially limited the term of validity of these Regulations to the period from 1 to 25 January 1986; whereas these Regulations concern measures which are intended to regulate fishing throughout all of 1986; whereas it is therefore necessary to extend their validity until 31 December 1986,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
In Article 9 of Regulation (EEC) No 3721/85,
in Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 3730/85,
in Article 9 of Regulation (EEC) No 3734/85,
in Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 3777/85,
the text of the second paragraph shall be replaced by the following:
'It shall apply until 31 December 1986.'
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, 20 January 1986.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1057/2005
of 6 July 2005
establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 of 21 December 1994 on detailed rules for the application of the import arrangements for fruit and vegetables (1), and in particular Article 4(1) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations, the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products and periods stipulated in the Annex thereto.
(2)
In compliance with the above criteria, the standard import values must be fixed at the levels set out in the Annex to this Regulation,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The standard import values referred to in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 shall be fixed as indicated in the Annex hereto.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 7 July 2005.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 6 July 2005.
|
[
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 795/94 of 8 April 1994 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1621/93 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 regarding the system for fixing the import levies for cereals
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 of 30 June 1992 on the common organization of the market in cereals (1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2193/93 (2), and in particular Articles 10, 11 and 12 thereof,
Whereas Article 5 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1621/93 (3) provides for a fluctuation of ECU 1 before the levy is amended; whereas, to guarantee a greater stability of the levy amount, that amount should be increased to ECU 1,50 per tonne;
Whereas Article 1 (2) (b) of Regulation (EEC) No 1621/93 provides for the application of coefficients of equivalence to compensate for deviations in quality from the standard quality for which the threshold price is fixed;
Whereas yellow/white millet from China and 'Bullrush' millet from east Africa (Sudan, Tanzania, Kenya) have been on offer on the world market for some time and these varieties are not listed in Annex I to Regulation (EEC) No 1621/93;
Whereas, with a view to determining caf prices, it is necessary to fix coefficients of equivalence for those qualities taking into account the standard Community qualities for millet on the one hand, and the difference in price and characteristics between those qualities and the qualities listed in Annex I to Regulation (EEC) No 1621/93 on the other;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Regulation (EEC) No 1621/93 is hereby amended as follows:
1. the third subparagraph of Article 5 is replaced by the following:
'The levy shall be amended only if the calculation shows a fluctuation of more than ECU 1,50 per tonne in relation to the levy as previously fixed.';
2. in Annex I, the following varieties are added to the heading 'Millet':
'China Yellow/White 0 East Africa (Sudan, Tanzania, Kenya) Bullrush 5'
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 April 1994.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0
] |
*****
COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 1011/88
of 21 March 1988
on the application of Decision No 3/87 of the EEC-Norway Joint Committee amending Protocol 3 with a view to determining the rules for the application of Decision No 3/86 in the case of Spain and the Canary Islands, Ceuta and Melilla
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Article 113 thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,
Whereas an Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Republic of Norway (1), was signed on 14 May 1973 and entered into force on 1 July 1973;
Whereas, by virtue of Article 28 of Protocol No 3 concerning the definition of the concept of 'originating products' and methods of administrative cooperation, which forms an integral part of the above Agreement, the Joint Committee has adopted Decision No 3/87 amending that Protocol;
Whereas it is necessary to apply that Decision in the Community,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Decision No 3/87 of the EEC-Norway Joint Committee shall apply in the Community.
The text of the Decision is attached to this Regulation.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
It shall apply with effect from 1 July 1987.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 21 March 1988.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1213/94 of 27 May 1994 concerning a protective measure applicable to imports of garlic from China
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1032/72 of 18 May 1972 on the common organization of the market in fruit and vegetables (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 3669/93 (2), and in particular Article 29 (2) thereof,
Whereas Council Regulation (EEC) No 2707/72 (3) lays down the conditions for applying protective measures to fruit and vegetables;
Whereas, pursuant to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1859/93 (4), the release into free circulation in the Community of garlic imported from third countries is subject to the presentation of an import licence; whereas, pursuant to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2448/93 (5), the issue of such licences for garlic originating in China was suspended from 2 September to 31 December 1993;
Whereas on 26 April 1994 France requested the Commission to take protective measures against imports of garlic originating in China; whereas on 10 May 1994 that request was supplemented by additional information;
Whereas 21 951 tonnes of garlic originating in China were imported into the Community between January and November 1993, representing an increase of 121 % over the same period in 1993 and 254 % with regard to the average quantity imported in the same period during the years 1988 to 1990; whereas, from January to April 1994, import licences have been issued in request of 3 244 tonnes;
Whereas, given their price, continuation of these imports could cause serious disturbances on the Community market such as to jeopardize the objectives of Article 39 of the EC Treaty and in particular to cause serious harm to Community producers; whereas, on account of these circumstances, protective measures should be taken before the beginning of the 1994/95 marketing year;
Whereas, to that end, the issue of import licences for the 1994/95 marketing year should be restricted to a certain quantity, apportioned as between periods of time, and issue should be suspended when that quantity is reached,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
1. For the period from the date of entry into force of this Regulation to 31 May 1995, import licences for garlic (CN code 0703 20 00) originating in China shall be delivered in respect of 10 000 tonnes only of which no more than 5 000 tonnes shall be delivered before 31 August 1994.
2. When the Commission, on the basis of the information submitted by Member States pursuant to Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1859/93, notes that the quantities referred to in paragraph 1 have been reached, account taken of quantities covered by unused or partly used import licences, it shall immediately inform the Member States. The Member States shall then immediately suspend the issue of the said licences.
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 not apply to quantities for which an import licence was issued prior to the date of entry into force.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 27 May 1994.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION of 9 December 1991 establishing the conditions governing the notification of chemical substances existing on the market of the former German Democratic Republic prior to 18 September 1981 which do not appear on the inventory provided for in Article 13 of Directive 67/548/EEC (Only the German text is authentic) (92/3/EEC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Directive 90/660/EEC of 4 December 1990 on the transitional measures applicable in Germany with regard to certain Community provisions relating to the protection of the environment, in connection with the internal market (1),
Whereas Article 1 (2) of Directive 90/660/EEC provides that the Federal Republic of Germany shall take the measures necessary to ensure that substances and preparations which do not comply with Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (2), as last amended by Directive 90/517/EEC (3), are not placed on the territory of the Community other than the territory of the former German Democratic Republic; whereas any substance which does not appear on the inventory provided for in Article 13 of Directive 67/548/EEC (European inventory of existing commercial chemical substances - Einecs (4)) must be notified in accordance with the provisions of that Directive; whereas the conditions governing the notification of substances existing on the market of the former German Democratic Republic prior to 18 September 1981 which do not appear on the inventory shall be laid down by the Commission;
Whereas any derogations from Community law provided for in connection with regard to the specific situation existing in the territory of the former German Democratic Republic must be temporary and cause the least possible disturbance to the functioning of the common market and must also reflect the high standard of protection for man and the environment achieved in the Community;
Whereas it seems, therefore, to be appropriate to subject chemical substances existing on the market of the former German Democratic Republic prior to 18 September 1981 which do not appear on the inventory to a simplified notification procedure with certain minimum requirements, similar to Article 6 (1) of Directive 67/548/EEC,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
This Decision concerns the conditions governing the notification of substances existing on the market of the former German Democratic Republic prior to 18 September 1981 which do not appear on the inventory provided for in Article 13 of Directive 67/548/EEC.
Article 2
Substances covered by this Decision are those which do not appear on the inventory provided for in Article 13 of Directive 67/548/EEC for which proof can be furnished to the satisfaction of the German competent authorities established pursuant to Article 7 (1) of Directive 67/548/EEC, that they existed on the market in the territory of the former German Democratic Republic prior to 18 September 1981.
Article 3
For all substances defined in Article 2 the provisions of Directive 67/548/EEC are applicable unless otherwise specified.
Article 4
1. Manufacturers or importers of substances defined in Article 2, which are situated in the territory of the former German Democratic Republic and have to notify the substance, have to submit to the German competent authorities a provisional notification as soon as possible, but not later than 31 March 1992. The provisional notification shall include:
(a) a declaration concerning the unfavourable effects of the substance in terms of the various foreseeable uses;
(b) the proposed classification and labelling of the substance in accordance with Directive 67/548/EEC;
(c) proposals for any recommended precautions relating to the safe use of the substance;
(d) a technical dossier supplying the information necessary for evaluating the foreseeable risks, whether immediate or delayed, which the substance may entail for man and the environment, and containing all available relevant data for this purpose.
2. The technical dossier referred to in Article 4 (1) (d) shall contain as a minimum the information and results of the studies referred to in Annex VII, Section 1 and 2, Section 3 points 3.1, 3.2, 3.6, 3.8, 3.9 and 3.10, and Section 4 points 4.1.1, 4.1.5 and 4.1.6 of Directive 67/548/EEC; in addition, it shall contain a mutagenicity test, in which the substance should be examined in a bacteriological (reverse mutation) test with and without metabolic activation. Where information and results of studies additional to these minimal requirements are available they shall also be submitted; this includes also studies referred to in Annex VIII of Directive 67/548/EEC. The results of studies shall be submitted together with a detailed and full description of the studies conducted and of the methods used or a bibliographical reference to them. Studies which have been initiated before 3 October 1990 and which have not been carried out in accordance with the methods laid down in Annex V of Directive 67/548/EEC and the principles of good laboratory practice provided for in Directive 87/18/EEC (5), may be accepted, if the data are adequate for the purpose of risk assessment.
3. Substances defined in Article 2 which have not been provisionally notified according to paragraph 1 and 2 may not be placed on the market in the territory of the former German Democratic Republic after 31 March 1992.
Article 5
The German competent authorities shall examine the conformity of the data submitted in provisional notifications in order to assess compliance with the requirements of Article 4 (1) and (2). They shall send without delay copies of the provisional notification dossiers or summaries thereof to the Commission, which the Commission shall forward to the other Member States. The information will be exchanged according to Article 10 (1) of Directive 67/548/EEC.
Article 6
1. The German competent authorities shall evaluate the data submitted in provisional notifications and examined in accordance with Article 5, and shall where necessary decide, on a case by case basis and in consultation with the Commission, what additional data are required to complete the notification dossier.
2. The decision on additional data requirements has to be taken in view of the overall aim of Directive 67/548/EEC to assess the potential risks to man and the environment of chemical substances. It has to take into account in particular the available data, the intended use, and the tonnages of the substance to be marketed. The additional data shall not exceed those required pursuant to Article 6 (1) of Directive 67/548/EEC.
3. Decisions on additional information and testing requirements shall be communicated to the notifiers without undue delay.
4. The data required additionally have to be submitted to the German competent authorities by a date to be determined by them on a case by case basis, but not later than 12 months after the date on which the additional information and testing requirements were communicated to the notifier.
Article 7
1. Upon receipt of the additional data submitted in conformity with Article 6 the German competent authorities shall decide in consultation with the Commission whether the notification is finally accepted and communicate their decision to the notifier.
2. After a decision has been taken to accept a notification, the German competent authorities shall send without delay copies of the completed notification dossiers or summaries thereof to the Commission, which the Commission shall forward to the other Member States. The information shall be exchanged according to Article 10 of Directive 67/548/EEC.
Article 8
1. Substances which have been provisionally notified in accordance with Article 4 (1) and (2) and have been examined in accordance with Article 5 may be placed on the market of the Community, provided their label bears, in addition to the provisional label derived from the classification based on the tests already carried out, the warning: 'Caution - substance not yet fully tested'.
2. Substances shall no longer be placed on the market of the Community according to paragraph 1, if:
(a) additional data required according to Article 6 have not been submitted within the deadline; or
(b) the German competent authorities have decided not to accept the notification dossier according to Article 7 (1) and have communicated this decision to the notifier.
Article 9
Substances for which the notification dossier has been accepted in accordance with Article 7 (1) of this Decision will be considered as notified pursuant to Article 6 (1) of Directive 67/548/EEC. These substances shall be subject to the same obligations as other substances notified pursuant to Article 6 (1) of Directive 67/548/EEC, particularly with respect to additional information or studies.
Article 10
This Decision shall enter into force on 9 December 1991.
Article 11
This Decision is addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany. Done at Brussels, 9 December 1991.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Decision
of 6 July 2001
amending Decision 94/442/EC setting up a conciliation procedure in the context of the clearance of the accounts of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) Guarantee Section
(notified under document number C(2001) 1756)
(2001/535/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the financing of the common agricultural policy(1), and in particular Article 7(5) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) In order to ensure that the Conciliation Body can continue to function while its members are gradually replaced, members' terms of office should be renewable for a shorter term after the initial term of three years. The special rules to apply to the term of office of the Chariman of the Body should be made clearer. To that end, Commission Decision 94/442/EC of 1 July 1994 setting up a conciliation procedure in the context of the clearance of the accounts of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) Guarantee Section(2), as last amended by Decision 2000/649/EC(3), should be adopted.
(2) The EAGGF Committee has delivered a favourable opinion,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
Decision 94/442/EC is hereby amended as follows:
1. The second and third subparagraphs of Article 3(2) are replaced by the following: "The Chairman and the members shall be appointed by the Commission for an initial term of office of three years after the EAGGF Committee has been consulted in accordance with Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999. Their terms of office may be renewed for a year at a time only, and the Committee must be informed. However, where the Chairman to be appointed is already a member of the Body, his/her initial term of office as Chariman shall be three years.
Furthermore, after the EAGGF Committee has been consulted as before in accordance with Article 14(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999, the Commission shall appoint substitute members who meet the criteria laid down in the first subparagraph and who shall be called on in the order of the Commission's list."
2. Article 3(3) shall be replaced by the following: "After his/her term of office has expired, the member or, where applicable, the Chairman shall remain in office until he/she is replaced or his/her term of office is renewed."
3. The first subparagrpah of Article 3(4) is replaced by the following: "Before the expiry of the three-year period, a member's term of office may be terminted as a result of voluntary or compulsory resignation, or death. In such cases the member shall be replaced for the remainder of his/her term by the first available substitute member. However, should the Chariman resign or die, the member who is to perform the Chariman's duties for the remainder of the latter's term of office shall be appointed by the Commission after the EAGGF Committee has been consulted in accordance with Article 14(1) Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999."
Article 2
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 6 July 2001.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Decision
of 27 December 2001
on the eligibility of expenditure on a number of operations to be incurred by certain Member States in 2002 in implementing the control, inspection and surveillance systems applicable to the common fisheries policy
(notified under document number C(2001) 4613)
(2002/6/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Decision 2001/431/EC of 28 May 2001 on a financial contribution by the Community to certain expenditure incurred by the Member States in implementing the control, inspection and surveillance systems applicable to the common fisheries policy(1), and in particular Article 13 thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Spain, France, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Austria, Portugal, Finland, Sweden and the United Kingdom have forwarded to the Commission their fisheries control programmes for the period 1 January 2001 to 31 December 2003 together with applications for a financial contribution towards the expenditure to be incurred in carrying out the programmes. The applications are broken down for 2001, 2002 and 2003.
(2) Applications concerning the operations listed in Article 2 of Decision 2001/431/EC may qualify for Community funding. Priority will be given to those operations which best contribute to overcoming the shortcomings highlighted in the Report on the Monitoring of the Implementation of the Common Fisheries Policy(2). The priorities selected will include the extension of the satellite monitoring system (VMS), the introduction of modern control technologies and training and exchanges of national officials.
(3) The rate of the Community contribution for each operation, the conditions on which the expenditure is reimbursed and, for each Member State and each operation, the total amount of eligible expenditure in 2002 should be laid down.
(4) In order to provide support for extending the satellite monitoring system to vessels operating under the conditions laid down in the recovery plans introduced for certain cod stocks and the putting in place of electronic logbooks, the rate of the Community contribution should be raised to 100 % of the eligible expenditure; however, in order to observe the limits set in Article 11 of Decision 2001/431/EC, maximum amounts need to be laid down.
(5) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
This Decision establishes for 2002 the amount of the eligible expenditure for each Member State, the rates of the Community financial contribution and the conditions on which the contribution may be granted.
Article 2
Expenditure incurred in putting in place the mechanisms and IT networks necessary for exchanges of information linked to control, as set out in Annex I, shall qualify for a financial contribution of 50 % of the eligible expenditure within the limits laid down in Annex I.
Article 3
Expenditure relating to experiments with, and the implementation of, new technologies to improve the monitoring of fishing activities, as set out in Annex II, shall qualify for a financial contribution of 50 % of the eligible expenditure within the limits laid down in Annex II.
However, the rate of the contribution for investments to extend the satellite monitoring system (VMS) to vessels other than those referred to in Article 3(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93(3), and to types of reporting other than position reports, and to put in place electronic logbooks shall be 100 % of the eligible expenditure, on condition that:
- the maximum admissible cost of purchasing satellite tracking devices installed in Community fishing vessels does not exceed EUR 3500 per vessel;
- the financial contribution towards the purchase of satellite tracking devices is reduced to 50 % for that part of the expenditure in excess of EUR 2300 per vessel;
- the financial contribution towards the purchase of satellite tracking devices under national arrangements shall be 50 % of the eligible expenditure up to a limit of EUR 2000 per vessel.
Article 4
Expenditure incurred in providing training for national officials involved in monitoring activities provided for by Belgium, Greece, Italy, Austria and Sweden, as referred to in Annex III, shall qualify for a financial contribution of 50 % of the eligible expenditure within the limits laid down in Annex III.
Article 5
This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Belgium, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, Ireland, the Italian Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Portuguese Republic, the Republic of Finland, the Kingdom of Sweden and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Done at Brussels, 27 December 2001.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
*****
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 401/86
of 21 February 1986
laying down detailed rules for granting export refunds on certain agricultural products exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex II of the Treaty
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2727/75 of 29 October 1975 on the common organization of the market in cereals (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1018/84 (2), and in particular Article 12 (2) thereof,
Whereas Council Regulation (EEC) No 3035/80 of 11 November 1980 laying down general rules for granting export refunds on certain agricultural products exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex II to the Treaty, and the criteria for fixing the amount of such refunds (3), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1982/85 (4), provides that the rate of refunds for goods falling within heading No 19.03 of the Common Customs Tariff may be differentiated according to their destination; whereas from 19 July to 1 November 1985, the goods in question were subject to a different rate of refund when exported to the United States or Canada than when exported to other non-member countries; whereas Canada was included in this measure on account of its special trading relations with the United States; whereas importing conditions in the United States were modified on 1 November 1985 to an extent that justifies restoring fair terms of competition for exporters on the market of these two non-member countries where the goods exported are entered for consumption therein after 1 November 1985;
Whereas the measures laid down in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
1. Goods falling within heading No 19.03 of the Common Customs Tariff and entered for consumption in the United States or Canada after 1 November 1985 and for which the refund was fixed in advance between 19 July and 31 October 1985 shall be eligible for the rate of refund applicable to other non-member countries in force on the day the application for advance fixing certificates was lodged.
2. Goods falling within heading No 19.03 of the Common Customs Tariff and entered for consumption in the United States or Canada after 1 November 1985 and for which the refund was not fixed in advance shall be eligible for the rate of refund applicable to other non-member countries in force on the day the goods were exported.
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 November 1985.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 21 February 1986.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 435/2008
of 19 May 2008
amending Regulation (EC) No 1371/2005 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of grain-oriented flat-rolled products of silicon-electrical steel originating in the United States of America and Russia and repealing the anti-dumping duties imposed by Regulation (EC) No 1371/2005 on imports of grain-oriented flat-rolled products of silicon-electrical steel originating in Russia
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 Articles 9 and 11(3) thereof,
Having regard to the proposal submitted by the Commission after consulting the Advisory Committee,
Whereas:
A. MEASURES IN FORCE
(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 (the ‘definitive Regulation’).
(2)
By Decision 2005/622/EC (3), the Commission accepted price undertakings offered by two cooperating exporting producers whose exports to the Community of GOES are subject to a company-specific duty of 31,5 % (AK Steel Corporation, USA) and 11,5 % (Novolipetsk Iron and Steel Corporation (‘NLMK’), Russia). The anti-dumping duties applicable to imports from all other companies, except Viz Stal, Russia, which is subject to a duty of 0 %, are 37,8 % for the USA and 11,5 % for Russia.
B. REQUEST FOR REVIEW
(3)
The Commission was notified in early 2007 that NLMK had acquired 100 % of Viz Stal. Evidence was provided regarding the production, sales and distribution of GOES under the new corporate structure. As a consequence, the circumstances on the basis of which the measures were established appeared to have changed in a lasting way and the dumping margin under the new corporate structure appeared to be significantly different as compared to the level of the measures in force.
(4)
Having determined that there was sufficient prima facie evidence that the individual duties in force for NLMK and Viz Stal were no longer appropriate, and after consulting the Advisory Committee, the Commission initiated ex officio, by a notice (‘notice of initiation’) published in the Official Journal of the European Union, a partial interim review in accordance with Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation (4). The investigation was limited to the examination of the level of dumping for the two Russian exporting producers NLMK and Viz Stal in order to calculate one single measure for the new joint company. As stated in the notice of initiation, this examination would be made on the basis of data collected during the investigation that led to the imposition of the existing measures.
C. PRODUCT UNDER REVIEW
(5)
The product under review is grain-oriented flat-rolled products of silicon-electrical steel, of a thickness of more than 0,16 mm, currently classifiable within CN codes ex 7225 11 00 (of a width of 600 mm or more) and ex 7226 11 00 (of a width of less than 600 mm).
(6)
GOES are produced from hot-rolled coils of silicon-alloyed steel of different thicknesses of which the particular grain structure is uniformly directed in order to allow for magnetic conductivity with a high degree of efficiency. Inefficiency with regard to this magnetic conductivity is called ‘core loss’, which is the prime indicator of the quality of the product.
(7)
The market is typically divided into high conductivity or high permeability grades and regular grades. The high permeability grades allow lower core losses to be achieved for any given thickness of the sheets. Such characteristics are especially relevant for industrial producers of electrical power transformers.
D. INVESTIGATION
(8)
The Commission advised the Community producers of GOES, all known Community importers and users as well as all known exporting producers in the USA and Russia of the initiation of the review.
(9)
The Commission requested information from all the abovementioned parties and from the other parties who made themselves known within the time limit set in the notice of initiation of the investigation. The Commission also gave the interested parties the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing.
E. RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION
1. Determination of dumping
(10)
As stated above, the calculation of the dumping margin for the merged entity was based on the data collected during the investigation period of the investigation that led to the imposition of the existing measures (‘the original investigation period’). On this basis, a weighted average of the dumping margins established for NLMK and Viz Stal results in a dumping margin of 0,7 % for the new merged entity.
2. Lasting nature of changed circumstances
(11)
In accordance with Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation, it was also examined whether the changed circumstances could reasonably be said to be of a lasting nature. In this regard, the new company, OJSC Novolipetsk Steel, cooperated in the investigation and provided relevant information. With regard to the product flow of this company’s exports to the Community, cooperation was also obtained from the following unrelated companies:
-
Tuscany Intertrade UK, Edinburgh, United Kingdom,
-
Moorfield Commodities Company, Lugano, Switzerland.
On-the-spot investigations were made at the premises of both of these companies.
(12)
Formerly, NLMK exported to the Community via its related company Stinol AG (Switzerland). However, it was found that, since the beginning of 2006, all sales by NLMK to the Community have been made via the independent traders Tuscany Intertrade UK and Moorfield Commodities Company. Stinol AG has been a dormant company since the end of 2005.
(13)
Viz Stal was formerly part of the Duferco group and exported via Duferco subsidiaries such as Duferco SA Switzerland and Duferco Commerciale Italy. Since May 2006, all of Viz Stal’s sales to the Community have been made via the independent trader Moorfield Commodities Company.
(14)
It was also verified that, since its establishment, the new entity, OJSC Novolipetsk Steel, as regards its imports into the Community, has only sold via these two traders thereby continuing to use the same sales channels for sales of GOES to the Community market.
(15)
In regard to import prices from the two former companies, NLMK and Viz Stal, following the acceptance of a price undertaking in August 2005, NLMK submitted all relevant monitoring information, as required by the terms of the undertaking, to the Commission on a quarterly basis. Following the takeover by NLMK, Viz Stal has voluntarily reported its sales since August 2006 under the framework of the undertaking. It was verified that the current price undertaking for the former NLMK was respected by both the former NLMK and Viz Stal companies.
(16)
It was found, in fact, that the prices at which Viz Stal, whose products are subject to 0 % anti-dumping duty, has sold GOES on the Community market since August 2006 were higher than those at which the company had sold during the original investigation period. It was also noted that Viz Stal accounted for the bulk of sales of both companies during the original investigation period, and continued to export significantly greater quantities of GOES to the EC than NLMK.
(17)
Since the existing measures were imposed in August 2005, Community and world market prices have increased significantly. With continuing high world demand for steel products, it is not expected that market prices for GOES will fall in the short- to medium-term. In light of this fact, as well as the fact that Viz Stal (which continued in 2006 to account for significantly greater sales quantities of GOES to the EC than NLMK and was found not to be dumping during the original investigation) has increased its prices since August 2006, it is considered that the findings in recital (10) above are of a lasting nature.
F. CONCLUSION
(18)
It was found in the original investigation that NLMK and Viz Stal accounted for the entirety of known imports of GOES into the Community from Russia (5). It was also found that OJSC Novolipetsk Steel continues to account for all exports of GOES from Russia to the Community. In light of this, as well as the fact that the dumping margin for OJSC Novolipetsk Steel is at a de minimis level, it is concluded that the anti-dumping measures concerning imports of GOES from Russia should be repealed and the proceeding terminated in accordance with Article 9(3) of the basic Regulation.
(19)
In light of this conclusion, the Commission decided by Decision 2008/384/EC (6) that the undertaking accepted from NLMK by Decision 2005/622/EC should be repealed.
G. DISCLOSURE
(20)
Interested parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to repeal the measures concerning imports of GOES from Russia and to terminate the proceeding. All parties were given an opportunity to comment. The comments received were not of a nature to change the conclusions.
(21)
Following disclosure, the Community industry claimed that it has not been substantiated that, as mentioned in recital (17) above, market prices for GOES will not fall in the short- to medium-term and, as a result, the termination of the proceeding is not warranted. In support of its claim that the proceeding should not be terminated, the Community industry states that during the next two years, world capacities for the production of GOES will be expanded by more than 40 % and will significantly exceed demand. The bulk of these capacity increases will occur in the People’s Republic of China. In these circumstances, the Community industry considers that Russia will be pushed away from the Chinese market and will redirect its exports to the European Union (‘EU’). In light of the above, the Community industry considers that the termination of the proceeding is not based on changed circumstances of a lasting nature.
(22)
It is noted, however, that the current investigation has examined the dumping margin for the new merged entity. This has been found to be at a de minimis level as described in recitals (10) and (18) above. As stated in recital (11) above, an examination has been made as to whether or not this dumping margin, as well as the new structure of the company, can be considered to be of a lasting nature. The investigation has confirmed the lasting nature of these changed circumstances. The fact that Russian exporters might export additional quantities to the EU in the coming years does not alter the conclusion regarding the lasting nature of these changed circumstances,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Articles 1(1) and 1(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1371/2005 shall be replaced by the following:
‘1. A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of grain-oriented flat-rolled products of silicon-electrical steel of a thickness of more than 0,16 mm, originating in the United States of America, falling within CN codes ex 7225 11 00 (products of a width of 600 mm or more) (TARIC code 7225110010) and ex 7226 11 00 (products of a width of less than 600 mm) (TARIC codes 7226110011 and 7226110091).
2. The rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty applicable, before duty, to the net free-at-Community-frontier price of the products described in paragraph 1 and manufactured by the companies below shall be as follows:
Country
Company
Anti-dumping duty
TARIC additional code
United States of America
AK Steel Corporation,
703 Curtis Street,
Middletown,
Ohio
31,5 %
A669
All other companies
37,8 %
A999’
Article 2
The anti-dumping duties on imports of grain-oriented flat-rolled products of silicon-electrical steel of a thickness of more than 0,16 mm, originating in Russia, falling within CN codes ex 7225 11 00 (products of a width of 600 mm or more) (TARIC code 7225110010) and ex 7226 11 00 (products of a width of less than 600 mm) (TARIC codes 7226110011 and 7226110091) imposed by Regulation (EC) No 1371/2005 are hereby repealed and the proceeding with respect to imports originating in Russia is hereby terminated.
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 May 2008.
|
[
0,
1,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.