utterance
stringlengths 594
850k
| label
sequencelengths 11
11
|
|---|---|
*****
COMMISSION DECISION
of 28 January 1983
establishing that the apparatus described as 'Tektronix - Transient Digitizer System, model WP2005, consisting of: R7912 Transient Digitizer, 605 Storage Monitor and 1350 Memory Display Unit' may be imported free of Common Customs Tariff duties
(83/58/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 28 July 1982, the Federal Republic of Germany requested the Commission to invoke the procedure provided for in Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 2784/79 in order to determine whether or not the apparatus described as 'Tektronix - Transient Digitizer System, model WP2005, consisting of: R7912 Transient Digitizer, 605 Storage Monitor and 1350 Memory Display Unit', ordered on 24 August 1978 and intended for use in examining laser-induced plasma-imaging of particle spectra and, in particular, in recording and digitalizing short signals for further processing with a computer, 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 15 December 1982 within the framework of the Committee on Duty-Free Arrangements to examine the matter;
Whereas this examination showed that the apparatus in question is a conversion system;
Whereas its objective technical characteristics, such as the precision of the conversion, 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 'Tektronix - Transient Digitizer System, model WP2005, consisting of: R7912 Transient Digitizer, 605 Storage Monitor and 1350 Memory Display Unit', which is the subject of an application by the Federal Republic of Germany of 28 July 1982, may be imported free of Common Customs Tariff duties.
Article 2
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 28 January 1983. | [
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 362/2003
of 27 February 2003
fixing the maximum export refund on common wheat in connection with the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 899/2002
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), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1324/2002(5), and in particular Article 4 thereof,
Whereas:
(1) An invitation to tender for the refund on exportation of common wheat to all third countries with the exclusion of Poland, Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia was opened pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 899/2002(6), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2331/2002(7).
(2) Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 provides that the Commission may, on the basis of the tenders notified, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 23 of Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92, decide to fix a maximum export refund taking account of the criteria referred to in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95. In that case a contract is awarded to any tenderer whose bid is equal to or lower than the maximum refund.
(3) The application of the abovementioned criteria to the current market situation for the cereal in question results in the maximum export refund being fixed 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
For tenders notified from 21 to 27 February 2003, pursuant to the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 899/2002, the maximum refund on exportation of common wheat shall be EUR 10,00/t.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 28 February 2003.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 27 February 2003. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COUNCIL DECISION of 30 March 1995 authorizing the Federal Republic of Germany and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to apply a measure derogating from Article 3 of the Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes (95/114/EC)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes - Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (1), and in particular Article 27 thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,
Whereas, pursuant to Article 27 (1) of Directive 77/388/EEC, the Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission, may authorize any Member State to introduce special measures for derogation from that Directive in order to simplify the procedure for charging the tax or to prevent certain types of tax evasion and advoidance;
Whereas, by official letters, received by the Commission on 4 July and 17 August 1994 respectively, the Federal Republic of Germany and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg have requested authorization to introduce a special measure concerning the construction and maintenance of a transfrontier motorway bridge crossing the river Moselle to the north of Perl and Schengen and linking the German A8 motorway going west from Saarbruecken with the Luxembourg A13 motorway going east from the Dudelange motorway junction;
Whereas, in accordance with Article 27 (3) of Directive 77/388/EEC the other Member States were informed on 16 September 1994 of the requests for authorization received from the Federal Republic of Germany and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg;
Whereas in the absence of a special measure, for each supply of goods and services used for the construction and maintenance of the bridge in question it would have to be established whether the place of taxation was in Germany or Luxembourg; whereas such taxation arrangements would give rise to considerable practical difficulties;
Whereas the purpose of this derogation is to simplify the procedure for charging the tax on the construction and maintenance of the bridge in question;
Whereas the derogation will not affect the amount of tax due at the final consumption stage and will therefore not affect the Community's own resources arising from value added tax,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
By way of derogation from Article 3 of Directive 77/388/EEC, the Federal Republic of Germany and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg are hereby authorized, in respect of the motorway bridge over the river Moselle to the north of Perl and Schengen linking the German A8 motorway going west from Saarbruecken with the Luxembourg A13 motorway going east from the Dudelange motorway junction, to consider, for the duration of the construction of the bridge, the whole of the construction site as being within the territory of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, and, with effect from the completion of the bridge, the whole of the bridge to be within the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany.
Article 2
This Decision is addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
Done at Brussels, 30 March 1995. | [
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1003/2006
of 30 June 2006
fixing the representative prices and the additional import duties for molasses in the sugar sector applicable from 1 July 2006
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 of 20 February 2006 on the common organisation of the market in sugar (1), and in particular Article 27(2) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), stipulates that the cif import price for molasses is to be considered the representative price. That price is fixed for the standard quality defined in Article 27 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006.
(2)
For the purpose of fixing the representative prices, account must be taken of all the information provided for in Article 29 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, except in the cases provided for in Article 30 of that Regulation and those prices should be fixed, where appropriate, in accordance with the method provided for in Article 33 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006.
(3)
Prices not referring to the standard quality should be adjusted upwards or downwards, according to the quality of the molasses offered, in accordance with Article 32 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006.
(4)
Where there is a difference between the trigger price for the product concerned and the representative price, additional import duties should be fixed under the terms laid down in Article 39 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006. Should the import duties be suspended pursuant to Article 40 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, specific amounts for these duties should be fixed.
(5)
The representative prices and additional import duties for the products concerned should be fixed in accordance with Article 34 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006.
(6)
The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sugar,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The representative prices and the additional duties applying to imports of the products referred to in Article 34 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 are fixed in the Annex hereto.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 July 2006.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 30 June 2006. | [
0,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COUNCIL DECISION of 24 September 1998 on the conclusion of the Additional Protocol to the Interim Agreement on trade and trade-related matters between the European Community, the European Coal and Steel Community and the European Atomic Energy Community, of the one part, and the Republic of Slovenia, of the other part, and to the Europe Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Slovenia, of the other part (98/658/EC)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 113 in conjunction with the first sentence of Article 228(2) thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,
Whereas the Commission has negotiated on behalf of the Communities an Additional Protocol to the Interim Agreement on trade and trade-related matters and to the Europe Agreement with the Republic of Slovenia;
Whereas it is necessary to approve this Additional Protocol,
HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Article 1
The Additional Protocol to the Interim Agreement on trade and trade-related matters between the European Community, the European Coal and Steel Community and the European Atomic Energy Community, of the one part, and the Republic of Slovenia, of the other part, and to the Europe Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, acting within the framework of the European Union, of the one part, and the Republic of Slovenia, of the other part, is hereby approved on behalf of the European Communities.
The text of the Additional Protocol is attached to this Decision.
Article 2
The President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person empowered to sign the Additional Protocol in order to bind the Community.
The President of the Council shall, on behalf of the Community, give the notification provided for in Article 3 of the Additional Protocol.
Done at Brussels, 24 September 1998. | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 3935/92 of 30 December 1992 amending Regulation (EEC) No 3855/89 laying down rules for implementing the import arrangements applicable to products falling within CN codes 0714 10 91, 0714 10 99, 0714 90 11 and 0714 90 19 and originating in the People's Republic of China
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 430/87 of 9 February 1987 concerning the import arrangements applicable to products falling within CN codes 0714 10 99, 0714 90 11 and 0714 90 19 and originating in certain third countries (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3909/92 (2), and in particular Article 2 thereof,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2727/75 of 29 October 1975 on the common organization of the market in cereals (3), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1738/92 (4), and in particular Article 12 (2) thereof,
Whereas Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3855/89 (5) lays down the detailed rules for administering the quota for manioc and similar products which the People's Republic of China may export to the Community at a levy subject to a ceiling of 6 % ad valorem; whereas that Regulation makes no provision for measures to be adopted where the quantities actually unloaded are less than the quantities appearing in the import licence or licences covering the operation; whereas, in accordance with the outcome of the consultations between the Commission and the Chinese authorities, provision should be made to carry forward the quantities found to be short for the benefit of the People's Republic of China as is customary for certain other exporting countries;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The following Article 10a is hereby inserted in Regulation (EEC) No 3855/89:
'Article 10a
1. Where it is found during release for free circulation that the quantities actually imported from and originating in the People's Republic of China are less than those stated in Sections 17 and 18 of import licences, the customs offices shall certify the quantities found to be short on the back of import licences.
2. By the end of the first six months of the following year at the latest, the Member States issuing the licences shall forward to the Commission a full list of quantities not imported, quoting the numbers of the relevant import licences and the names of the vessels concerned.
3. The Commission shall determine the total quantities found to be short on importation under cover of valid import licences and, where appropriate, shall carry those quantities forward to the quota authorized for the year following that during which the imports in question took place.'
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 December 1992. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 496/2000
of 6 March 2000
laying down measures for the application of Article 6(1a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 on the common organisation of the market in wine
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 of 16 March 1987 on the common organisation of the market in wine(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1677/1999(2), and in particular Article 6(1a) and (4) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) The production potential arrangements provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine(3) involve the granting of new planting rights, within a certain limit. These arrangements enter into force on 1 August 2000. The urgent need for additional rights in certain wine-growing regions has led the Council to amend Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 to permit Member States to grant some of the newly created rights in advance.
(2) Under Article 6(1a) of Regulation (EEC) No 822/87, as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1677/1999, the Member States may grant authorisation for new planting from 1 January 2000 until the end of the 1999/2000 wine year by using up to 20 % of the newly created planting rights allocating to them under Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999. These rights must be used in compliance with the provisions of Title II, Chapter I of that Regulation.
(3) Sound management of the system of allocating new planting rights under Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999, ensuring market equilibrium, requires knowledge of the exact situation with regard to the production potential involved.
(4) The Council acknowledges this requirement in Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999, in which it indicates that, to encourage Member States to compile an inventory, access to the regularisation of unlawfully planted areas, the increase in planting rights and support for restructuring and conversion should be limited to those who have compiled an inventory.
(5) It is therefore essential in such cases to determine the data relating to production potential before new rights are granted so as to avoid the risk of market disruption.
(6) The Management Committee for Wine has not delivered an opinion within the time limit laid down by its chairman,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Member States may grant the new planting rights referred to in Article 6(1a) of Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 only if information on wine potential as referred to in Article 2 of this Regulation has been submitted to the Commission. Member States must base on objective criteria their recognition that, owing to its quality, production of a quality wine psr or a table wine described by means of a geographical indication is far below demand.
Article 2
1. The information referred to in paragraph 2 may be broken down by region. It may also be presented for one region only.
2. Information must be submitted on:
(a) the total wine-growing area:
(i) broken down by category of wine in the case of areas planted with vines classified as wine-grape varieties (quality wines psr and table wines) including the area suitable for the production of wines described by a geographical indication; areas planted under each variety in excess of 5 % of the total area shall also be indicated; areas planted with varieties below that percentage shall be shown under "Other".
(ii) given separately in the case of areas planted with both vines classified as wine-grape varieties and varieties destined for another use; areas planted under each variety in excess of 5 % of the total area shall also be indicated; for this area class also, areas planted with varieties below that percentage shall be shown under "Other";
(b) the area of valid planting rights broken down into:
(i) new planting rights:
- granted to producers each marketing year,
- used for the same marketing year;
(ii) replanting rights held by producers.
3. The Commission must also be informed of the source(s) of the above information.
The information in point 2 should refer to:
- a historical reference year (to be fixed by the Member State),
- 1998, based on final figures,
- 1999, based on final or provisional figures.
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, 6 March 2000. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 114/2002
of 23 January 2002
determining the extent to which applications submitted in January 2002 for import licences for the tariff quota for beef and veal provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 2475/2000 for the Republic of Slovenia can be accepted
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2673/2000 of 6 December 2000 laying down detailed rules for the application of the tariff quota for beef and veal provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 2475/2000 for the Republic of Slovenia(1), and in particular Article 4(4) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2673/2000 fixes the quantity of fresh or chilled beef and veal originating in Slovenia which may be imported under special conditions from 1 January to 30 June 2002. The quantity of meat for which import licences have been submitted is such that applications may be granted in full.
(2) Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2673/2000 lays down that if, during the year of importation in question, the quantity for which licence applications are submitted for the first period specified in the preceding recital is less than the quantity available, the remaining quantity is to be added to the quantity available for the following period. In view of the quantity remaining for the first period, the quantity available for the country concerned for the second period, from 1 July to 31 December 2002, should be specified,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
1. Import licences shall be granted for the full quantities covered by applications submitted for the quota referred to in Regulation (EC) No 2673/2000 for the period 1 January to 30 June 2002.
2. The quantity available for the period referred to in Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2673/2000 running from 1 July to 31 December 2002 shall be 10420 t.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 24 January 2002.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 23 January 2002. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 487/89 of 27 February 1989 on the supply of olive oil as food aid
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3972/86 of 22 December 1986 on food-aid policy and food-aid management (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1870/88 (2), and in particular Article 6 (1) (c) thereof,
Whereas Council Regulation (EEC) No 1420/87 of 21 May 1987 laying down implementing rules for Regulation (EEC) No 3972/86 on food-aid policy and food-aid management (3) lays down the list of countries and organizations eligible for food-aid operations and specifies the general criteria on the transport of food aid beyond the fob stage;
Whereas following the taking of a decision on the allocation of food aid the Commission has allocated to to Algeria 1 200 tonnes of olive oil;
Whereas it is necessary to provide for the carrying-out of this measure in accordance with the rules laid down by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2200/87 of 8 July 1987 laying down general rules for the mobilization in the Community of products to be supplied as Community food aid (4); whereas it is necessary to specify the time limits and conditions of supply and the procedure to be followed to determine the resultant costs,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Olive oil shall be mobilized in the Community, as Community food aid for supply to the recipients listed in the Annex in accordance with Regulation (EEC) No 2200/87 and under the conditions set out in the Annex Supplies shall be awarded by the tendering procedure.
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, 27 February 1989. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
*****
COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 3785/87
of 14 December 1987
extending Regulation (EEC) No 3972/86 on food-aid policy and food-aid management
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Article 235 thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,
Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (1),
Whereas Regulation (EEC) No 3972/86 (1) is applicable until 31 December 1987 and whereas it should be extended for a period of six months;
Whereas the Treaty has not provided the necessary powers, other than those of Article 235,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
In the second paragraph of Article 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 3972/86, '31 December 1987' is replaced by '30 June 1988'.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 January 1988.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 14 December 1987. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
*****
COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 3129/86
of 13 October 1986
amending Regulation (EEC) No 2915/79 with regard to the inclusion of vacherin mont d'or cheese in subheading 04.04 A of the Common Customs Tariff and amending Regulation (EEC) No 950/68 on the Common Customs Tariff
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 of 27 June 1968 on the common organization of the market in milk and milk products (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1335/86 (2), and in particular Article 14 (6) thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,
Whereas Council Regulation (EEC) No 2915/79 of 18 December 1979 determining the groups of products and the special provisions for calculating levies on milk and milk products and amending Regulation (EEC) No 950/68 on the Common Customs Tariff (3), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 748/86 (4), provides for reduced levies for certain types of cheese;
Whereas the additional agreements concluded between the European Economic Community and EFTA countries following the accession of Spain and Portugal admit vacherin mont d'or cheese to the list of cheeses qualifying for the reduced levy; whereas, accordingly, this cheese must be inserted under subheading 04.04 A of the Common Customs Tariff and for this purpose the descriptions of goods listed in Annex II (a) and (b) of Regulation (EEC) No 2915/79 must be supplemented and vacherin mont d'or cheese added by way of exception;
Whereas Council Regulation (EEC) No 774/86 of 28 February 1986 laying down the arrangements applicable to trade in certain agricultural products with Austria, Finland, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland as a result of the accession of Spain and Portugal (5) authorizes the above change as from 1 March 1986 pending the entry into force of the aforementioned agreements;
Whereas the tariff nomenclature resulting from the application of Regulation (EEC) No 2915/79 is taken from the Common Customs Tariff; whereas the Common Customs Tariff adopted by Regulation (EEC) No 950/68 (6), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1355/86 (7), should therefore be amended,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
1. Points (a) and (b) in Annex II to Regulation (EEC) No 2915/79 are hereby replaced by the following:
1.2 // // // 'CCT heading No // Description // // // a) ex 04.04 A // Emmentaler, Gruyère, Sbrinz, Bergkaese, Appenzell, vacherin fribourgeois, vacherin mont d'or and tête de moine, not grated or powdered, of a minimum fat content of 45 % of weight in the dry matter, matured for at least 18 days in the case of vacherin mont d'or, at least two months in the case of vacherin fribourgeois and at least three months in the other cases: // // - Whole cheeses with rind, of a free-at-frontier value of not less than 348,46 ECU and less than 372,64 ECU per 100 kg net weight // // - Pieces packed in vacuum or inert gas, with rind on at least one side, of a net weight of not less than 1 kg but less than 5 kg and of a free-at-frontier value of not less than 372,64 ECU and less 1.
1.2 // // // CCT heading No // Description // // // b) ex 04.04 A // Emmentaler, Gruyère, Sbrinz, Bergkaese, Appenzell, vacherin fribourgeois, vacherin mont d'or and tête de moine, not grated or powdered, of a minimum fat content of 45 % by weight in the dry matter, matured for at least 18 days in the case of vacherin mont d'or, at least two months in the case of vacherin fribourgeois and at least three months in the other cases: // // - Whole cheeses with rind, of a free-at-frontier value of not less than 372,64 ECU per 100 kg net weight // // - Pieces packed in vacuum or inert gas, with rind on at least one side, of a net weight of not less than 1 kg and a free-at-frontier value of not less than 396,82 ECU per 100 kg net weight // // - Pieces packed in vacuum or inert gas, of a net weight of not more than 450 g and of a free-at-frontier value of not less than 430,67 ECU per 100 kg net weight' // //
2. In the Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 950/68, the description of the goods under subheading 04.04 A is hereby replaced by the following:
'A. Emmentaler, Gruyère, Sbrinz, Berkaese, Appenzell, vacherin fribourgeois, vacherin mont d'or and tête de moine, not grated or powdered'.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
It shall apply with effect from 1 September 1986.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Luxembourg, 13 October 1986. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION of 20 September 1995 declaring a concentration to be compatible with the common market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement (Case IV/M.582 - Orkla/Volvo) (Only the English text is authentic) (Text with EEA relevance) (96/204/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (1), and in particular Article 8 (2) thereof,
Having regard to the EEA Agreement, and in particular Article 57 (1) thereof,
Having regard to the Commission decision of 23 May 1995 to initiate proceedings in the case,
Having given the undertakings concerned the opportunity to make known their views on the objections raised by the Commission,
Having regard to the opinion of the Advisory Committee on Concentrations (2),
Whereas:
(1) On 18 April 1995 AB Fortos and Orkla AS notified the Commission of a proposed concentration by which they intend to combine their respective beverage interests into a new joint venture.
(2) After examination of the notification the Commission has concluded that the notified concentration falls within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 4064/89 and falls to be assessed by the Commission in cooperation with the EFTA Surveillance Authority in accordance with Article 58 of and Protocol 24 to the EEA Agreement.
I. THE PARTIES
(3) AB Fortos ('Fortos`) is a wholly-owned subsidiary of AB Volvo ('Volvo`), the Swedish motor vehicle group. Fortos, in turn is owner of BCP Branded Consumer Products AB ('BCP`) which owns AB Pripps, Bryggerier ('Pripps`), a Swedish beverage company, and Hansa Bryggeri A/S ('Hansa`) another beverage company which is based in and operates in Norway. Fortos is also the owner of Falcon Bryggerier AB ('Falcon`) which is a company producing beer, soft drinks and mineral water in Sweden.
(4) Orkla AS ('Orkla`) is a Norwegian company whose activities are concentrated in branded consumer products, chemicals and financial investments. Orkla owns the whole of the share capital of Ringnes A/S ('Ringnes`), a Norwegian beverage producer.
II. THE OPERATION
(5) The operation involves the creation, by Fortos and Orkla, of a jointly-owned beverage company 'BCP-JV`. This will be achieved by the creation of a new company [. . .] (3). The result of these steps in that the interests of Orkla and Fortos in Pripps, Hansa and Ringnes will be owned by BCP-JV. This company will produce, market and distribute a range of beers, soft drinks and mineral waters in both Sweden and Norway. These beverages include both those manufactured under its own name and those produced under licence, e.g. Carlsberg, Coca-Cola, etc.
(6) It is the aim of BCP-JV to become a significant, Scandinavian, beverage operation which is able to compete in a market which is expanding and becoming more international in nature. With this in mind, it is indicated in the business plan of the joint venture that the involvement of other shareholders will be sought, including [. . .] (4).
III. COMMUNITY/EEA DIMENSION
(7) Volvo and Orkla have a combined aggregate worldwide turnover of ECU 19 543 million; both companies also have a Community-wide turnover in excess of ECU 250 million (that of Volvo being ECU [. . .] (5) million and Orkla ECU [. . .] (6) million) of which not more than two-thirds is achieved in one and the same Member State. The operation therefore has a Community dimension.
(8) Both Volvo and Orkla have turnovers exceeding ECU 250 million in the territory of the EFTA States. Consequently, this case falls to be assessed by the Commission, in cooperation with the EFTA-Surveillance Authority, in accordance with Article 58 and Protocol 24 of the EEA Agreement.
(9) According to Article 8 of and Protocol 3 to the EEA Agreement, products set out at point 2202 of the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System and beers brewed from substances other than malt are not covered by the Agreement. This Decision is based on Article 57 of the EEA Agreement in accordance with the merger regulation and therefore does not relate to the Norwegian market for these products. However, these products are considered in so far as their production and distribution is relevant for the purpose of the assessment set out below for Norway.
IV. CONCENTRATION
Joint control
(10) Fortos and Orkla will own, respectively, 49 and 51 % of the shares of BCP-JV: however, BCP-JV is to issue a convertible bond by means of which Fortos's financial stake in BCP-JV will increase to 55 % and Orkla's interest will fall to 45 %.
(11) The parties have agreed to enter into a shareholders' agreement which provides that Fortos and Orkla will have equal influence over BCP-JV. Decisions affecting the development of commercial policy and competitive strategy, adoption and implementation of annual and long-term budgets and business plans as well as decisions regarding strategic or financial objectives shall be taken jointly by Fortos and Orkla.
(12) BCP-JV's board of directors will consist of four members with both Fortos and Orkla appointing two each. The chairman, who will be appointed jointly, will be one of the Orkla board members but will have no casting vote.
(13) The parties have prepared and jointly approved a business plan for the period 1995 to 1998 which indicates the direction BCP-JV intends to follow and the financial savings and positions that will result from the operation.
(14) On the basis of the foregoing it can be concluded that BCP-JV will be jointly controlled by Orkla and Fortos.
Autonomous economic entity
(15) The three beverage companies involved in the transaction, Hansa, Pripps and Ringnes, currently operate as independent companies in Norway and Sweden. BCP-JV will acquire the assets and liabilities of these existing undertakings including trademarks and know-how. The shareholders are to invest financial resources in BCP-JV which are sufficient to enable it to fulfil its plans to become an independent operator and a significant, international, beverage company.
(16) Consequently, BCP-JV will be an autonomous, economic entity.
Cooperative aspects
(17) In addition to its sake in BCP-JV, Fortos also retains a majority shareholding in Falcon, another beverage company active in the Swedish market. However, Orkla will leave the beverage market through the creation of BCP-JV and consequently it is apparent that coordination can not arise as only one parent, Fortos, remains active in the market of the joint venture (7). Therefore the operation does not lead to any relevant risk of coordination.
(18) Consequently, it is concluded that BCP-JV is concentrate in nature and that the present operation constitutes a concentration within the meaning of Article 3 of the merger regulation.
V. RELEVANT PRODUCT MARKETS
(19) The parties have identified three relevant product markets principally affected by the creation of BCP-JV being; beer, carbonated soft drinks (CSD) and mineral water. As regards CSD in Norway, the Commission is not competent (as explained in paragraph 9) to undertake any assessment in respect of BCP-JV. For Sweden no overlap for CSD occurs and no threat to potential competition (due to the power of international licensors such as Coca-Cola) takes place. Consequently, whilst not concluding that CSDs are a relevant product market in themselves, they are not assessed further in this Decision. Non-carbonated soft drinks account for a very small volume in Norway and Sweden and therefore have not been analysed separately.
Beer
(a) Norway
(20) Beer is classified by alcoholic strength by volume (ABV) as shown in the table below which also indicates the rates of excise duty applicable to each level of alcoholic strength:
TABLE
TABLE
(21) Accordingly it has to be considered whether the above beer classification needs to be taken into account in defining the different relevant product markets. The revised beer classes, which were introduced with effect from 1 January 1995, do not change the assessment set out below.
(22) It is important to note that the consumption of Class II beer is dominant in Norway accounting for some 90 % (8) of total consumption in both 1993 and 1994.
(23) The Norwegian Lov om omsetning av alkoholholdig drikk m.v. of 2 June 1989 No 27 ('Alcohol Act 1989`) restricts, in Section 3-1, the sale of Class III beers to the AS Vinmonopolet (the State-owned retail monopoly) or to the hotel and catering industry if the outlet has the appropriate licence from the local authority. Such beers accounted for less than 1 % (9) of total consumption in 1993 and 1994. Similarly there is limited evidence to suggest that consumers substitute Class 0 beers for CSD: such beers accounted for some 3 % (10) of total consumption in 1993 and 1994.
(24) Class III and Class 0 beers account for very small amounts of total consumption and the competitive assessment of the case would not be affected if these products were defined as separate product markets or not.
Substitution of Class II beer
(25) It is necessary to assess whether any substitution of Class II beers ('pils`) takes place in respect to other beverages. At the outset it is considered that as both the intermediate and the ultimate consumer buys pils beer for its alcoholic properties and taste they are unlikely to wish to substitute it for another beverage.
(26) As regards price differences between pils beers and other non-alcoholic drinks it is apparent that brewery retail list prices show a considerable difference between the products, e.g. 0,5 litre of Coca-Cola being some 50 % of the price of the equivalent volume of pils beer. Whilst not strictly comparable, such a difference is repeated for other alcoholic beverages: the lowest retail list price of the AS Vinmonopolet for a bottle of wine is currently some NOK 60, the brewery retail list price of a 0,7 litre bottle of pils beer is some NOK 14. Therefore in terms of price alone there is unlikely to be substitution between these products.
(27) Such price differences are repeated for the ultimate customer. For the retail sector customers are typically faced with prices three to four times higher for beer when compared to CSD. Similarly, in the hotel and catering industry pils beer is an estimated 40 % more expensive than an equivalent amount of CSD. Consequently in terms of price alone there is unlikely to be substitution between these products by the ultimate consumer.
(28) Therefore it is concluded that there is no likelihood of substitution between pils beers and the other products mentioned above.
Different competitive environments between the retail trade and the hotel and catering industry
(29) Canadean Limited's The 1995 West Europe Beer Report (the 'Canadean Report`) which is a generally used source in the sector, categories the sale of beer between sales by the retail trade and sales by the hotel and catering industry. The report concludes that the division between these two types of customer amounted to 75 %/25 % respectively for both 1993 and 1994 in Norway. Therefore it is necessary to investigate whether the relations between suppliers and these customer types result in different competitive environments for these categories of customers.
(30) The retail industry comprises four retail chains which account for some 97 % of the Norwegian grocery market with these stores stocking a wide range of bottled beers which is, in general, the only form available to the retail trade. This fact differentiates it from the hotel and catering industry where the bulk of supplies are made by way of tank or keg (barrel). The means of distribution is, in general, similar for both with the brewery delivering beer from the brewery to the retail store or bar or restaurant.
(31) The retail trade, in general, is supplied with beer at list prices which are lower than the equivalent prices to the hotel and catering industry; on the other hand the hotel and catering industry benefits from discounts to a greater degree than those available to the retail trade. The resulting net prices are, in general, lower for the hotel and catering industry than the retail trade.
(32) The ultimate customer in the hotel and catering industry is purchasing a product that differs from the retail industry in so far as the customer is buying a degree of service and atmosphere not present in the retail industry when the beer is consumed at home. This fact has been recognized by the European Court of Justice which has stated that 'From the consumer's point of view, the latter sector, comprising in particular public houses and restaurants, may be distinguished from the retail sector on the grounds that the sale of beer in public houses does not solely consist of the purchase of a product but is also linked with the provision of services . . . it follows that in the present case the reference market is that for the distribution of beer in premises for the sale and consumption of drinks` (11).
(33) Finally, it is unlikely that the hotel and catering industry would purchase bottled beer from retail outlets for sale in bars, etc. This is because the hotel and catering industry would find it impractical to handle and transport the bottled volumes required between the two types of sale outlet.
(34) For all the above reasons the Commission has concluded that the relevant product markets are the sale of beer to the retail and hotel and catering industries.
(b) Sweden
(35) As in Norway beer is categorized into classes according to its alcoholic strength as follows:
TABLE
(36) The market shares of these various classes, which differ in their stratification to Norway, are much less divergent in Sweden with Class I having 17 % of the total volume of the beer market in 1994, Class II 49 % and Class III 34 %.
(37) The Systembolaget (the Swedish State retail sales, alcohol monopoly), which generally sells Class III beer, plays a more important role in the market for beer, accounting for some 18 % of total beer consumption in 1994, than the AS Vinmonopolet in Norway which has sales accounting for less than 1 % of total beer consumption. In this respect it is understood that the Swedish competition authority has previously split beer into different product markets according to its alcoholic class.
(38) However as noted below there is no overlap between the parties in the beer market in Sweden. Therefore, it is not necessary to have a precise conclusion on this point for the assessment of this case and the assessment set out below only relates to the possible adverse effects of the exclusion of a potential competitor.
Bottled water
(39) The parties both sell bottled water in Norway: Ringnes [. . .] (12) million litres (a share of [. . .] (13) of sales of bottled water in Norway) and Hansa with [. . .] (14) million litres (share of [. . .] ) (15). Bottled water in Norway is an emerging market with relatively low consumption per capita, at about six to eight litres, and growing at high rates (30 % in 1994). This level of consumption is in strong contrast with the level of consumption in more mature markets, such as France (97 litres per capita per year), Italy (94 litres) or Germany (85 litres). Bottled water in Norway is bottled not only from a source but also from the tap water used to manufacture soft drinks. Therefore, and because of the absence of any brand image of this product for Norwegian consumers and the absence of barriers to entry, any bottler of soft drinks in Norway can easily produce and market bottled water. The market is in a phase of take-off and is not characterized by the proliferation of brands typical of more developed markets nor by the commercial barriers characterizing mature markets (in terms of massive advertising, access to shelf space and brand notoriety).
(40) In view of the initial take-off stage of the bottled water consumption in Norway, of the specific characteristics of the market outlined above and the lack of any significant barriers to entry in terms of brand support and advertising or saturation of the market, it is unlikely that the operation will significantly impede effective competition. In any event it has to be noted that the undertakings submitted by the parties in this case imply de facto, through the sale of Hansa's bottling assets, that there will be no reinforcement of Ringnes's previous position.
VI. THE RELEVANT GEOGRAPHIC MARKETS
(41) The main impact of the notified operation will be felt in Norway. Ringnes does not have any significant sales or market share for beverages in Sweden, so the overlap of the parties' activities and any possible competition concern under the merger regulation with the notified operation will therefore arise in Norway. The analysis will focus on Norway and will deal with Sweden to the extent that Ringnes could be a potential competitor to the Swedish breweries.
Beer
Brands
(42) Beer is a consumer product sold generally in glass bottles and under a brand name. In particular in Norway, domestic brands such as Hansa and Ringnes, and also a number of Norwegian brands sold mainly in certain regional areas, account for most (over 90 %) of consumption. The main foreign brands sold in Norway under licence (Carlsberg, Heineken, Tuborg and Guinness) and in most cases adapted to Norwegian alcohol specifications, represent together 10,6 million litres, i. e. around 5 % of consumption by volume (source: report of the Association of Norwegian Soft-drink Producers and Brewers).
Distribution
(43) Beer is a bulky product, subject to significant transport costs. The incidence of transport is particularly high in Norway for two basic reasons: the geographic conditions of Norway, where distances by road tend to be large and the fact that beer is distributed directly from the breweries to each retail outlet, be it in the food retailing or the hotel and catering markets. In Norway, most food products are distributed by wholesalers, in several cases linked to the large food retailing chains. The only exceptions to the general system are currently beverages, tobacco and fresh agricultural products, which are delivered by the producers to each selling point. The sale in Norway of beverages, and in particular beer, requires therefore the setting up of a dense distribution network, entailing significant costs and time. Such a distribution network could only be used for beverages and would have few alternative uses, since the retailing chains and their associated wholesalers have taken over distribution to their selling points for all other packaged food products. The impact of transport and distribution costs has confined a number of breweries in Norway to a regional dimension, in the sense that they concentrate the bulk of their sales in their home and surrounding districts.
Legal barriers isolating the Norwegian market
(44) There are a number of regulatory barriers that hinder the development of imports into Norway, and that, in any case, hamper seriously the price competitiveness of imported beer into Norway. These barriers are related to the alcohol legislation and the environmental taxes applied in Norway.
Alcohol legislation
(45) The basic regulatory texts applicable in Norway are The Alcohol Act of 1989 and the Beer Act of 1912. According to these regulations, sales of beers with an alcohol content by volume (abv) higher than 7 % are prohibited in Norway. Sales of beers with an abv higher than 4,75 % are restricted to the outlets of the AS Vinmonopolet (State Monopoly) and to hotels and restaurants that are licensed to serve these beers. These types of beers cannot be sold in foodstores with the consequence that while beers below 4,75 % abv can potentially be sold in around 5 300 outlets, the Vinmonopolet only has about 110 sales points. In order to appreciate the effects on possible imports of this legislation, it has to be noted that the typical abv of beers produced in the EU is between 5 and 5,5 %. This fact has been confirmed by both importers of beer into Norway and the leading breweries in the European Union.
(46) Beers with an abv above 4,75 % (generally imported beers) have therefore traditionally been taxed nearly twice as much as beers below 4,75 % (generally brewed by Norwegian firms). From the figures on prices supplied by the parties, it appears that the tax represents about two-thirds of the manufacturers' prices for a typical bottle of beer, so the effect of the tax is significant as to the price competitiveness of beers produced outside Norway. The tax per bottle of a typical pils will represent around 45 % of the retail price so the tax has an important impact on prices to consumers.
(47) Sections 8-12 and 9-2 of the Alcohol Act of 1989 prohibit discounts on the sales of beer to consumers and the advertising of beers with an abv above 2,5 %. This has the consequence of severely restricting the introduction of new beers into Norway, since it effectively limits the use of important marketing activities (advertising and promotions on selling points) to induce consumers to switch to new brands.
(48) Finally, the Beer Act of 1912 requires that all beer sold in Norway shall indicate its tax class on the label, the indication of the alcohol content being insufficient. This further complicates the imports of beers by requiring re-labelling of imported beer.
Environmental legislation
(49) Bottles that are not re-used or re-filled in Norway (one-way bottles) bear a special tax on the basis of environmental legislation. This tax represents a basic amount of Nkr 0,7 per bottle plus a variable, additional tax of a minimum of Nkr 3 per bottle which is reduced according to the rate of recycling of one-way bottles. Currently this additional tax represents Nkr 1,05 per bottle. Finally, a fee of Nkr 0,08 per bottle is paid to the company carrying out the recycling of glass containers. The total charge for bottles that are not re-used or re-filled in Norway amounts therefore to Nkr 1,83 per bottle, to be compared to a manufacturer's price of around Nkr 2,5 per bottle of 35 cl excluding taxes. Domestically bottled beer does not bear this environmental tax, since Norwegian brewers have set up a system to collectively recollect and re-use all beer bottles. Cans, the other traditional container for beer, still pay a higher tax, since there is no reduction as yet on the Nkr 3 tax per can. Cans are almost absent from the Norwegian market for beer. They represent an estimated 0,4 % of total consumption in Norway (source: Canadean Report).
Trade flows
(50) According to the notification, imports are estimated to represent 2,6 % of consumption in Norway in 1994. These imports are concentrated on Class 0 and Class II beers and target the city areas of the south. Statistics of the Confederation des Brasseurs du Marché Commun (CBMC), and the Canadean report show that imports of beer into Norway have remained at below 1 % of consumption in the period 1980 to 1991, and increased to 1,5 % in 1993. Imports have therefore significantly increased in 1994. Market operators attribute this increase to the removal of the purity law in Norway, the removal of the Vinmonopolet monopoly to import beer, and the acceptance in Norway of bottles of standard 33 cl size with the entry into force of the EEA Agreement in 1994. In spite of the significant increase of imports into Norway in this year, imports still remain very low when compared to other countries. In Sweden and in the Community, imports represented around 7 to 8 % of consumption in 1994 (source: Canadean report) and have considerably grown in terms of share of consumption since 1990. According to a Norwegian importer of beer, imports are not likely to increase further unless the legislation is changed in Norway; under the current legislation it estimates imports cannot exceed 2 to 3 % of consumption.
(51) Similarly there are few exports: Ringnes's beer exports amounted to [. . .] (16) of its sales in 1994. Hansa did not make any exports and, as these two companies account for the greater portion of Norwegian production, they can be taken as being indicative of the market as a whole. General sources (The Association of Norwegian Soft-drink Producers and Brewers and the Canadean report) indicate that exports represent less than 1 % of production.
Negotiations with clients
(52) Both in the hotel and catering and food retailing markets, the Norwegian suppliers negotiate directly with Norwegian customers. In spite of the progressive internationalization of food retailers, through mergers or alliances, all Norwegian breweries consulted by the Commission in its enquiry have stated that no negotiations, in particular regarding prices and discounts, are carried out directly with the international alliances of retailing chains.
Views of market operators
(53) Finally, the international brewers together with Norwegian national brewers contacted by the Commission consider that the Norwegian beer market is national in character with the international brewers confirming the above difficulties for import penetration.
Conclusion
(54) In view of the characteristics of the beer consumed in Norway, the impact of general and specific legislation in Norway affecting beer and bottles, the specificities of distribution of beer in Norway, the negligible trade flows between Norway and other countries, and the views of breweries and importers consulted by the Commission in its enquiry, it is concluded that the Norwegian beer market is national in character.
(55) To a certain extent, the market in Sweden represents similar characteristics, although it is more open to imports. In any case, since there is no overlap of the parties' activities in Sweden, the only possible competition concerns might arise with respect to Ringnes being a potential entrant in Sweden. Therefore the precise geographic market definition may be left open for the purposes of assessing the present case.
VII. ASSESSMENT
Norway
(a) Overall market position of the parties
(56) The parties have calculated their market shares, in the relevant product and geographic markets defined above as follows.
(57) TABLE
(58) In arriving at their calculation of market share the parties have employed the Canadean Report together with data from the Norwegian Soft-Drinks Association and Brewers report adjusted for imports and breweries which are not members of the Association.
(59) The Commission has recalculated this market, in respect of 1994, employing the same sources but also taking into account data supplied by the parties' competitors in Norway. The total market thereby established is some [ . . . ] (17) million litres greater which would reduce the parties' combined market share, in 1994, to [ . . . ] (18).
(b) Beer sold to food retailers
(i) Structure of supply
(60) The consumption of beer in the take-home segment in Norway in million litres (Canadean report), the parties' sales and their market share can be estimated as follows:
TABLE
(61) The main competitors of the parties are Mack, located in Tromsø and with about two-thirds of its sales concentrated in the north of Norway, Christianssand ('CB`) located in the County of Agder and concentrating the bulk of its sales in the south of Norway, and Borg and Aass, both located near Oslo and concentrating the bulk of their respective sales in the south east of Norway. All of these competitors have a market share in the retail market below 10 %. Ringnes has several breweries and bottling plants spread over Norway, so its sales of beer are in a strict sense, the only ones being distributed on a national basis. Hansa's plant is located in Bergen, and its beers are distributed mainly on the west coast of Norway.
(62) None of the competitors offer a national brand to compete with Ringnes national brand, and none of them has a national distribution network. Only the Hansa brand is sometimes qualified as a national brand or as an emerging national brand in Norway by food retailers and competitors of the parties.
(63) Norwegian breweries carry significant excess capacity. Brewing capacity can be estimated with a certain accuracy. The parties have submitted in their notification that Moss, CB, Mack, Borg, Aass and Grans carry a combined brewing excess capacity of 90 million litres, representing around 40 % of production in Norway. However, increases in production of beer to be sold to food retailers without incurring significant investment costs are dependent on tank capacity and bottling capacity as well. Bottling capacity is more difficult to estimate, since it can be increased by increasing the number of shifts. Indications by the parties themselves and competitors indicate however, that there is indeed certain excess capacity. It is accepted that there are indications that production of beer in Norway can materially be increased by both the parties and their competitors.
(64) However, it is more doubtful that competitors could increase their production to compete with the merged entity, if for instance, prices were to increase as a result of the proposed merger. There are three basic issues to consider in this respect: the distribution costs, the access to retailers' shelves and the pricing policies followed in the past by the Norwegian brewers.
Distribution costs
(65) The distribution system for beer in Norway has been described above under market definition. The impact of distribution costs for beer have been estimated by Ringnes as representing approximately [. . .] (19) of total costs. For Mack, due to its location, the impact of distribution costs are significantly higher. Answers from other competitors, however, tend to confirm this magnitude of the impact of distribution costs. Distribution costs play therefore a significant role in attaining a competitive price level, the more so since manufacturing technology is fairly standard and all breweries in Norway import their raw materials at similar conditions. Distribution is therefore one of the main areas to compete on prices. In this respect, all competitors have pointed out the importance of volume in order to achieve competitive costs in the transport of beverages. In particular, the combination of sales of cola drinks, with a much higher volume, is considered vital to achieve a competitive distribution for beer. In this respect it has to be noted that the parties will combine a large market share in beer with a large share of CSD sales.
Access to retailers
(66) Access to shelf space has been mentioned by competitors, in particular micro-breweries, as one of the main bottlenecks to gain sales. The conditions of access to retailers' shelves will be discussed in more detail below, but in any case, competitors of the parties have expressed fears that: (i) the financial resources of the merged entity, (ii) its combination of a broad brand portfolio including the only national brands in Norway, certain regional brands and the main foreign brands of beer, (iii) being the main supplier of Coca-Cola products and (iv) offering a large range of other packaged food products to retailers, shelf space availability for competitors can be severely restricted by the merged entity in future.
Pricing of beers
(67) Given the structure of the market after the merger, with the merged entity being much larger than any of its competitors in terms of sales and resources, it is to be expected that other breweries in Norway will tend to focus on their regional markets rather than competing with Ringnes/Hansa. Furthermore, an examination of the main brewers' price lists excluding the alcohol tax in the last three years indicates that the breweries concentrating their sales in the Oslo area, have tended to adjust their prices following those of Ringnes, which seems to confirm that their competitive capacity is limited, with the result that prices of the 35 cl pils bottle are aligned for Ringnes, Aass and Borg.
Conclusion
(68) The parties have submitted that the merged entity will be subject to local competition in all areas. The main reasons argued to support this hypothesis is that local brewers carry excess capacity and that retail chains will seek a second supplier as an alternative to Ringnes/Hansa in Norway, with the result that the overall market share of the merged entity will be lower than the addition of Ringnes and Hansa respective pre-merger market shares. Even if the merged entity would lose some sales as a result of the notified concentration, its market share will certainly remain at a very high level, both in absolute terms and, above all, in relation to its competitors. Furthermore, the evidence gathered during the investigation indicates that it would be difficult for the regional competitors to actually use their space capacity to increase their production and gain sales in competition with the merged entity. In any case, the strong market position of the merged entity would prevent an efficient development of the regional suppliers at a national level. It is concluded that in view of the absolute market shares, the significant gap in terms of sales volumes and market shares between the merged entity and its nearest competitors, the differences in the extension of brand portfolios, and the evidence offered by the pricing of beers in Norway in the recent years, the regional breweries will not be able to exert a significant competitive constraint on the merged entity.
(ii) Countervailing power by food retailers
(69) The structure of the food retailing sector in Norway is highly concentrated, with the four leading associations of chains (NorgesGruppen, Hakon-Gruppen, NKL-Coop and Rema) accounting for about 97 % of food retailing sales. Each of these groups centralizes the purchases and negotiations with producers for all the retail chains either owned or associated. Food retailers in Norway are following a policy of vertical integration, by setting-up their own wholesaling operations or establishing tight contractual relations with independent wholesalers. Traditionally, suppliers of groceries in Norway delivered their products to each retail outlet. At present, most of the packaged food products are distributed to the retail outlets by the chains themselves, through their own wholesalers or by independent wholesalers on their behalf. Retail chains have pushed producers to drop their own distribution to the selling points, sometimes against the will of the producers (a recent example is offered by a chocolate manufacturer whose products were delisted until it accepted to deliver to the retailer's wholesaler). Wholesalers consider that their logistics, economies of scale and efficiency allow them to reduce distribution costs by more than 50 %. Beverages, tobacco and fresh food products are the only categories of products where the suppliers remain in charge of deliveries to each selling point. Market sources attribute the exception for beverages to the returnable system arising from the environmental taxation for bottles, which has been explained above under geographic market definition.
(70) The parties have submitted that the retail chains dominate the market for beverages, since their high degree of concentration and their progressive vertical integration provides them with strong negotiating tools. Furthermore, their position would be reinforced by their association with international alliances of retailers, such as NAF International (NKL/Coop), the AMS Alliance (Hakon-Gruppen) or by transnational acquisitions (the Swedish retailer ICA has an important capital stake in Hakon-Gruppen). The two other main chains, Rema and NorgesGruppen, are negotiating to enter into international alliances/cooperation, and ICA-Hakon-Gruppen participates in a Viking Retail alliance with the Finnish retailer Kesko.
(71) The main negotiating tools that, according to the parties, allow the retailers to have a sufficient countervailing power are de-listing or shielding of certain products, their control of promotion programmes and activities at the selling points and the introduction of private labels.
International Alliances
(72) The Commission enquiry has found little supporting evidence that international alliances of retailers currently play a significant role in the Norwegian beer market. The parties have confirmed that at present, they do not carry out any direct negotiations for beverages with international alliances of retailers and this has been further confirmed by all market operators contacted by the Commission during its enquiries. If it is a fact that retailers are progressively associating with retailers in other countries, the functions and objectives of these alliances are very different depending on the particular alliance and generally there are no significant examples of centralized purchasing. In particular, given the specificities of the beer market in Norway (low abv, importance of national brands, lack of trade flows, and in particular virtual absence of exports) it does not seem reasonable to anticipate a change in the current situation leading to an effective influence of international alliances in the Norwegian beer market from the point of view of prices, product ranges and conditions of supply of beer to Norwegian retailers.
Negotiating tools
(73) The parties have supplied certain examples of delisting or shielding of food products by Norwegian or Swedish food retailers. As to delistings in Norway, they have presented three examples. The first one concerns a chocolate manufacturer, whose product range was partially delisted by all four retailers as it refused to allow wholesalers to carry out the distribution of its products. It is worth noting however, that the Norwegian retailers had at least an alternative supplier of chocolate products who had agreed to change its distribution policy. As to examples in the beer market, in particular regarding the parties' products, two examples are offered: (i) the delisting of the [ . . . ] (20) brand in most of the stores of [ . . . ] (21), a chain belonging to the [ . . . ] (22) focusing on a 'discounter` concept, and the further reduction of shelf space for [ . . . ] (23) brands, (ii) the delisting and shielding of [ . . . ] (24) brands in [ . . . ] (25), a chain belonging to [ . . . ] (26). Although a certain margin of negotiation for retailers cannot be totally denied, it has to be noted that the two examples of delisting/shielding are limited in scope. [ . . . ] (27) is an [ . . . ] (28) beer, a segment that represents a very small part of consumption in Norway (around [ . . . ] (29) of consumption). Sales of [ . . . ] (30) amounted to [ . . . ] (31) million litres in 1994, representing a negligible proportion of Ringnes total sales of beer ([ . . . ] (32) million litres). Furthermore, the examples show that delisting/shielding is done at the level of each individual sub-chain belonging to the retailer's group, not at a centralized level. The four firm concentration ratio therefore overstates the strength of retailers in this respect. Furthermore, it has to be noted that, unlike in other countries where the retailers' organizations are more integrated, listing fees or payments to purchase shelf space are not current practice in the Norwegian market for beer, as indicated by all suppliers approached by the Commission during its investigation.
(74) If delisting/shielding of brands can be regarded as extreme measures, retailers have certain control over the exposure of products in the selling points, and of promotions. Promotions do not play a major role in beer, since price discounts to the final consumers are legally prohibited for beer containing alcohol. Alcohol-free beer can be offered at discounted prices to consumers, but the low volume of this segment makes it unattractive. The discounts for activities or promotions on the sales points without price reductions for consumers have started to be used in Norway recently, but still seem to play a very limited role. Agreements between Ringnes and retailers regarding promotions, brand selection, merchandizing and volume for beer result in a total discount representing [ . . . ] (33) of the list prices. These discounts have been introduced in 1994. As a comparison, discounts offered to retailers for these activities in the CSD sector represent around [ . . . ] (34) of the list prices, and have been increasing significantly in the last five years. This reflects the difference in strategic importance for retailers between beer and colas. In particular, colas are an important parameter in competition among retailers, since they attract customers to the stores (so-called traffic builders in Norway). This does not happen to that extent with respect to beers, where in any case, retailers have a lesser margin of manoeuvre because of the legislation regarding alcohol, in particular the prohibition to offer discounts to their clients.
(75) In general, private labels have been comparatively slow in their introduction in Norway. According to a report prepared by NERA for the parties, private label penetration in Norway represents 5 % of sales, to be compared with a European average of 12 %, and rates as high as 47 % in Switzerland, 37 % in the United Kingdom and 16 % in France. In addition, the estimated discount of private labels in Norway relative to proprietary brands is among the lowest in Europe, at an estimated 9 %, to be compared with discounts as high as 36 % in Switzerland, 30 % in Germany, 22 % in France and 17 % in the United Kingdom. With respect to beers, there are no private labels at present in Norway, and the prospects for their introduction are affected by the general policy in Norway to restrict alcohol sales. In other non-alcoholic beverage markets private labels have started to appear very recently. The main private label is a cola introduced by the Hakon-Gruppen in February 1995. There is an example also for a bottled water introduced in the same month by Coop.
Conclusion
(76) In spite of the apparent high concentration of the retail chains, the structure of food retailing seems to present important differences in Norway when compared to other European countries. Beer plays a relatively smaller role in the competition among retailers. Even if retailers have a strong bargaining position and they would try to obtain better terms and discounts than their competitors, it is less clear that they would have an interest in preventing general price increases through list prices. The low level of discounts in beer, the reduced scope for promotions of beer at selling points, the absence of listing fees, and the absence of private labels indicate that the countervailing power of retailers is not playing a significant role in this market. Moreover, food retailers could exert countervailing power if they would have at least an alternative supplier to which they could switch their orders. Food retailers contacted by the Commission have indicated that imports are not a practical alternative as long as the environment tax is in force in Norway. It also has to be noted that the merged entity will be the only nation-wide supplier of beer. The more retailers integrate their purchasing and marketing functions, the more they will depend on a brewery with nationwide distribution networks and brands. It has to be noted in this respect that the disappearance of Hansa as a competitor of Ringnes removes the main brewery with a potential to become a national player in Norway, either through cooperation or through merger with smaller breweries located in complementary regions.
(77) It is concluded that there are no sufficiently clear indications that the strong position of the merged entity in the Norwegian beer market is likely to be constrained by the food retailers.
(iii) Potential competition and entry
(78) The parties have identified in their notification a number of ways in which entry could take place into the Norwegian beer market. They indicate in their notification first the possibility of acquisition, with the examples of the Swedish brewer Spendrups acquiring CB in 1991 or Pripps acquiring Hansa in the same year. Examples of new entry are provided by Tromi, a CSD producer who entered the beer market in 1993, and currently has a [ . . . ] (35) share in the city of Trondheim, with sales of around [ . . . ] (36) million litres of its own beer and a small amount of sales of Hansa beer. Tromi complemented its CDS business with the distribution of beer from Mack, Hansa and Tou in mid and northern Norway. Tromi entered into production of beer when the distributorships with Mack and Tou were terminated, in order to keep its beer sales. Other examples of entry are provided by micro-breweries, that address a niche market for specialty premium beers. Oslo Bryggerikompani is one such example, with current sales of around 700 000 litres and a market share of 1 to 2 % in Oslo. The strategy and resources of these companies do not allow them to adopt a volume-based policy.
(79) Even if transport costs are significant for bottled beer, distances from certain European countries to Oslo are shorter than distances within Norway. The parties argue that transport costs do not disadvantage imports of beer. However, the difficulties associated with imports of bottled beer into Norway have already been pointed out. In particular it has to be noted that one-way bottles cannot compete on price with the returnable bottles. Differences in abv and brands are additional factors. Even if these factors together would not completely remove the possibility to import bottled beer into Norway, they certainly hinder their competitiveness in the volume-oriented market of Ringnes' and Hansa's best selling products. The environmental tax could be avoided if beer is imported in tanks or barrels and then is bottled in Norway. This is done for instance by Hansa with its alcohol-free beer Clausthaler. Yet, an entrant following this route to compete in the volume pils market would still suffer the cost disadvantage of transporting bulk beer relative to the established breweries in Norway. More importantly, it would still be subject to the barriers indicated above under geographic market definition (alcohol legislation, commercial barriers).
(80) Licensing of foreign brands to Norwegian suppliers is another way of entering the market. This has been already done by companies such as Carlsberg (Carlsberg and Tuborg brands), Heineken and Guinness. All these brands have been licensed either to Ringnes or Hansa, which offer the largest potential market to a foreign supplier. Moreover, these brands enjoy collectively a very small share (around 5 %) of the Norwegian market. Usually, foreign brands, even when they have an abv below 4,75 % sell at a premium over the domestic pils beers.
(81) The parties have pointed out that the Norwegian beer market will grow in the next two to three years at higher rates when compared with other European countries; also consumption per capita is relatively lower in Norway. However, the relatively small size of the Norwegian market, its heavy regulation and the high level of taxes make it in principle unattractive as a market for entry. Furthermore, the restrictions on advertising and discounts of prices to consumers remove the effect of consolidating established positions, and hinder the development of a new entrant. Most large breweries outside Norway contacted by the Commission indicated that they do not currently have specific plans to enter the Norwegian market above existing levels.
Conclusion
(82) Although it is not possible to exclude completely entry in a market with absolute certainty, in particular when there are large export-orientated companies outside the relevant geographic market, the market structure described so far and the evidence available to the Commission indicate that entry at a competitive level is not likely to erode the parties' position in the foreseeable future. Furthermore, the Commission has not found any concrete indications of plans to enter this market. Therefore, and more importantly, the mere threat of entry does not seem to be credible enough so as to conclude to the contestability of the Norwegian beer market.
(iv) Overall assessment
(83) For the reasons outlined above, it appears that the notified transaction further increases the concentration of supply in an already concentrated market. There are several indications that it will lead to a situation where the merged entity could act in the retailing beer market independently of the competitive constraints prevailing in less concentrated markets. By the proposed transaction, Ringnes reinforces its strong position on the Norwegian beer market, and practically removes the possibility that another national supplier develops in it.
(84) The proposed concentration therefore creates a dominant position as a result of which effective competition would be significantly impeded in the Norwegian market for sales of beer through food retailers.
(c) Beer sold to the hotel and catering industry
(i) Structure of the industry
(85) The Norwegian hotel and catering industry is largely fragmented with, at the end of 1993, 4 793 (source: Statistisk Sentralbyrå) separate sales outlets, licensed for the serving of beers, in the form of hotels, restaurants, bars, etc. These outlets are granted licences based on Chapter 4 of the Alcohol Act 1989. Accordingly about 56 % of the establishments are licensed to sell a full range of beers including those between 4,75 % abv and 7 % abv being the upper legal limit on sales of either domestic or imported beers in Norway.
(86) There are a few exceptions to this general fragmentation in that a number of either national or regional hotel chains have been established; however it should be noted that the combined beer sales of, for example, SAS International Hotels A/S and Rica Hotell-og Restaurantkjede AS accounted for only some [ . . . ] (37) of the total beer sales by the hotel and catering industry in 1994. A further example is that of McDonald's Norge A/S, which only sells Class A (alcohol free) beer. The total sales of this beer amounted to some 8,4 million litres in total in 1994. On the assumption that the ratio of retail/hotel and catering industry sales applies equally to such beers an estimated total of 2,1 million litres were sold in total by the whole hotel and catering industry in 1994 being some 3 % of total sales.
(87) The hotel chains noted above have stated that currently there are only three breweries in Norway which are capable of meeting their requirements of national coverage, these being Ringnes, Hansa and Mack. However Mack is handicapped by the fact that it is located in the far north of Norway, in Tromso, meaning that national distribution is difficult given the logistics of transporting beverages over long distances. The fact that 11 % of the Norwegian population lives in Oslo, and 31 % in the Oslo fjord area, should also be noted in this respect. Furthermore this area accounts for some 4 % of the total area of Norway.
(88) Consequently the hotel chains are concerned that should Ringnes and Hansa be combined in BCP-JV their choice of supplier would be limited to either that of BCP-JV or Mack. Given the hotels' reluctance to carry high stock levels, their preference for frequent deliveries (two or three times a week) and their wish for a wide and timely geographic coverage for their deliveries means that it is unlikely that Mack alone (as Mack is currently cooperating with Hansa to supply Rica Hotels, an agreement that will lapse should Hansa enter BCP-JV) could, at least in the short term, fulfil these requirements completely. Therefore the establishment of BCP-JV would limit the choice of the hotel industry to one supplier only.
(89) The position of Ringnes and Hansa as major suppliers to the hotel and catering industry must also be noted. Based on consumption figures for beer calculated by the Canadean Report and to sales data submitted by the parties and competitors it is clear that Ringnes was the major supplier to the industry in 1994 with some [ . . . ] (38) of the market. By adding Hansa's sales to those of Ringnes the combined market share of these two companies increases to [ . . . ] (39) in respect of 1994. It is believed that the companies' market shares were of a similar magnitude in 1993.
(90) Therefore it appears that Ringnes held a major part of the market before the proposed establishment of the joint venture; its establishment would serve to strengthen the market position of the parties.
Competitors
(91) There are a number of smaller competitors, to the parties, who supply beer to the hotel and catering industry. In addition to Mack noted above the more important of these are Aass, Borg and CB. These companies have indicated that they each supply an estimated one to six million litres of beer to the industry per annum.
(92) Each of these breweries makes sales in the greater Oslo area and CB and Mack are also present in more than 50 % of the Norwegian counties. By way of comparison both Ringnes and Hansa operate in Oslo and Ringnes is present in all but one of the counties and Hansa in 67 % thereof.
(93) Consequently it would appear that competitors to Ringnes and Hansa are not in a position to be able to compete given their smaller volume of sales and more limited geographic coverage.
Tie-in of existing customers
(94) The parties have submitted that their distribution agreements with the hotel and catering industry, in respect of Ringnes last [ . . . ] (40). For Hansa agreements last, in general, [ . . . ] (41).
(95) The Commission has been supplied with a copy of a 'standard` Ringnes supply agreement which indicates that [ . . . ] (42). The 'standard` agreement lasts for [ . . . ] (43) years. This [ . . . ] (44) has been confirmed by a customer, based in Oslo, who attempted to introduce keg beer from a small, local brewery.
(96) Ringnes does have a very strong position as regards beer supplies in the Oslo area because it is the sole permitted supplier of some CSDs (such as Coca-Cola) in the region. This would indicate that bars or restaurants that wish to be supplied with Coca-Cola should also take Ringnes beer.
(97) Furthermore, since the ending, in 1987, of the regional division of sales and distribution among the various breweries, they have provided finance, either in the form of loans or bank guarantees, for the establishment and modernization of premises. In addition equipment in the form of refrigerators, furniture, etc. is also provided.
(98) The provision of finance ensures the loyalty of an outlet to one brewery; the provision of refrigerators would appear to be limiting the possibility of second suppliers to source bars with bottled beers. The Commission has been informed, by beverage importers, that Ringnes has tried and succeeded in refusing access to its refrigerators, for their imported beers, effectively excluding them from certain outlets.
(99) As noted above Ringnes already controls a major part of the sales to the hotel and catering industry: by the introduction of long-term, exclusive draught beer agreements and by the attempted limiting of sales of bottled beer in the hotel and catering industry it can effectively limit potential new entrants to the industry.
Prices
(100) The Commission has undertaken an analysis of recent price movements in respect of the sales prices of the best selling draught beers (in terms of volume) to the hotel and catering industry. This analysis indicates that there is negligible competition between the breweries in terms of list prices for their best selling brands of draught beer to the hotel and catering industry. In addition it has been stated by several smaller breweries that they follow increases in the list prices set by the market leader Ringnes.
(101) Accordingly, based on this analysis it would appear that Ringnes has a sufficient market presence to influence the prices of its smaller competitors, a situation that is likely to be exacerbated should it be combined with Hansa.
Countervailing market power
(102) As stated above there are few extensive hotel or catering chains in Norway that would be able to limit the market power of the BCP-JV. Consequently it is not considered that there would be any countervailing market power by the hotel and catering industry to be able to offset the effect of the establishment of BCP-JV.
(ii) Potential competition
(103) The parties have argued that a new supplier, for the hotel and catering industry, could enter the market thereby limiting the effects of BCP-JV's market presence. Such supplies could either be in the form of bottled or draught beers and the latter could be made available either in kegs or in tanks for re-bottling in Norway.
(104) Imports of beer into Norway amounted to 6,4 million litres in 1994 an increase of 52 % on the previous year and of 33 % in comparison to 1992. It should be noted that these percentage increases are exaggerated due to the low volumes of imports. It is probable that, given the premium nature of such beers, a greater proportion than the national average of 25 % of such beers are consumed by the hotel and catering industry. However, on the assumption that 50 % of imported beers are consumed by the hotel and catering industry, (the West European average for total consumption for 1994 being 48,7 % according to the Canadean Report) this volume amounts to some 5 % of total consumption by the hotel and catering industry.
(105) It is admitted that the volume of imports is likely to grow: the Canadean Report foresees growth of 6,8 % between 1994 and 1995 and of 64 % between 1995 and 1997. However it should also be noted that there is a discrepancy between the import figure of 6,4 million litres provided by the Association of Norwegian Soft-Drink Producers and Brewers and the 3,7 million litres of imports noted by the Canadean Report for 1994. Consequently these growth rates should be treated with caution.
(106) However the problems, identified below, facing existing and potential importers cannot be underestimated.
- recycling: in order to benefit from a reduction in the environment tax, from Nkr 3,0 and the basic tax of Nkr 0,7 to a lower level, an importer would have to establish a recycling system for bottles. At present two systems operate: one concerning refillable, returnable bottles, which is used by the domestic brewers, which ensures that the whole of the environment tax is recovered by the ultimate consumer. Another system concerns non-refillable, returnable bottles, being principally those which are imported, allows a reduction of 65 % in the environment tax. Consequently imported bottled beers automatically suffer a Nkr 1,83 tax difference being the basic tax of Nkr 0,70, environment tax of Nkr 1,05 and a recycling payment of Nkr 0,08 which is not paid by domestic brewers.
Importers could avoid this tax by bottling the beer, imported by way of tank, in 'standard` Norwegian bottles (which is in fact completed by Hansa for Clausthaler). However this would mean either building a new bottling plant or leasing existing spare capacity and having access to the domestic brewers' return system. Alternatively beer could be imported by way of keg but again the importer would have to establish a method for the distribution and the return of the keg from the bar or restaurant to its country of origin. Contact with the catering industry has indicated that such a proposal would be improbable,
- fiscal differences: historically beer of between 2,5 % abv and 4,75 % abv has accounted for the major part of Norwegian consumption (an estimated 90 % in 1994). With effect from 1 January 1995 beer stronger than 4,75 % abv and less than 5,75 % abv bears excise duty at Nkr 18,16 per litre being a rate 42 % higher than beer of 4,75 % abv. As most international beers imported into Norway have an alcohol content in excess of 4,75 % abv (e.g. bottled Guinness with 5 % abv; Hoegaarden 4,9 % abv) it is apparent that they suffer a significant duty disadvantage in comparison to domestic brands,
- outlet licensing: in order to be able to sell beer greater than 4,75 % abv (being largely imported beers) bars etc. are required to hold an additional licence. Only some 56 % of all bars hold such licences thereby excluding a number of outlets from purchasing, for supply, stronger beers. The possible market for importers is accordingly reduced,
- tie-in of existing customers: as noted above there would appear to be a considerable barrier to the introduction of both draught and bottled beer in bars already supplied by Ringnes. Therefore it is unlikely that either forms of imported beer could be easily introduced in the future.
(107) For the above reasons, it is unlikely that a significant growth in the level of imports will be achieved.
(108) The parties have also indicated other possible means by which potential competitors could enter the Norwegian market:
- brewing under licence: it should be noted that Ringnes and Hansa already hold licences for brewing Tuborg, Carlsberg and Heineken and for the distribution of Guinness. Therefore the only other international European brands that could wish to enter the market are considered to be either Interbrew SA or Brasseries Kronenbourg; in addition there are also Australian or American companies that may wish to enter the market. However the size of the market needs to be considered. Total sales of the above licensed brands amounted to some 10 million litres in 1994 some 4 % of the total beer market. Therefore there would appear to be little commercial incentive for the licensing of new beer products,
- establishment of a new brewery: the Commission is aware of two such examples which together produce less than two million litres (less than 1 % of the total market for beer). Consequently whilst there will always be a niche role for such operators it is improbable that they would present a serious threat to BCP-JV's position.
(iii) Overall assessment
(109) On the basis of the above factors it is apparent that Ringnes already holds a significant share of the hotel and catering industry beer market. Given the fact that existing customers can be tied-in to Ringnes's supplies, to the detriment of other suppliers; that there would seem to be negligible countervailing market pressure and that there is little chance for market entry either by way of import or the establishment of a new business, the addition of Hansa to Ringnes would serve to consolidate this market presence.
(110) As has been noted by several customers the only current national alternative to Ringnes is Hansa; the establishment of BCP-JV would eliminate this choice.
(111) The proposed concentration therefore creates a dominant position as a result of which effective competition would be significantly impeded in the Norwegian market for sales of beer through the hotel and catering industry.
Sweden
(112) The Commission has considered the market position of Pripps in Sweden as regards beer: the market shares are set out in the following table, the sources for which were the Canadean Report (all volumes are in millions of litres):
TABLE
(113) The market share of Falcon ( [ . . . ] (45) in 1994) has not been taken into account in the above table. This is because Volvo, on the basis of an undertaking given to the Stockholm District Court in October 1994, is to refrain from pursuing the integration of Pripps and Falcon. Moreover, it is indicated in Volvo's strategic plan that Falcon will be sold within the next few years as the Volvo Group wishes to return to its core vehicle activities. Finally, it should be noted that the undertaking is backed by a penalty fine of SKr 50 million (ECU 5,5 million) should the undertaking be countermanded.
(114) The establishment of BCP-JV does not add to these market shares given the fact that neither Ringnes nor Hansa operate in Sweden. This is further supported by the national nature of the markets and the fact that imports of beer into Sweden from Norway, are negligible. Such imports amounted to 0,76 million litres of beer in 1994, a negligible amount in comparison to total consumption.
(115) It has to be recalled that there are presently three major operators in the Swedish market being Pripps [ . . . ] (46), Falcon [ . . . ] (47) and Spendrups Bryggeri AB [ . . . ] (48). In view of the high concentration of beer supply in Sweden, the Commission has examined whether the notified transaction might have the result of removing a potential competitor.
(116) Ringnes's largest brewery is located in Oslo which is the brewery located closest to the more highly populated areas of Sweden. This brewery is currently running at [ . . . ] (49) brew capacity and [ . . . ] (50) bottling capacity. [ . . . ] (51).
(117) Furthermore, there is a large number of international large brewers who would be in the same, if not better position than Ringnes to enter the Swedish market.
(118) The Commission has therefore concluded that the creation of BCP-JV does not raise any problems of competition in respect of the merger regulation in Sweden.
VIII. CONCLUSION
(119) For the reasons outlined above, it appears that the notified transaction further increases the concentration of supply in an already concentrated market and that this will lead to a situation where the merged entity could act in the Norwegian beer markets independently of competitive constraints.
(120) The proposed concentration therefore creates a dominant position as a result of which effective competition would be significantly impeded in the Norwegian market for sales of beer through the retail industry and the hotel and catering industry.
(121) Consequently, the proposed concentration would lead to the creation or strengthening of a dominant position through which effective competition in a substantial part of the territory covered by the EEA Agreement would be significantly impeded.
(122) As to the effects of the concentration in Sweden, the Commission has not identified any creation or reinforcement of a dominant position.
IX. COMMITMENTS PROPOSED BY THE PARTIES
(123) The parties have offered to modify the original concentration plan as notified by entering into the following commitments:
'Orkla AS and AB Fortos (hereinafter referred to as the "Parties") hereby give the following undertaking (hereinafter referred to as the "Undertaking"), on their own behalf and on behalf of their respective group of companies, to the Commission with respect to the beer business of Hansa Bryggeri A/S (hereinafter referred to as "Hansa") comprising [ . . . ] (4) (hereinafter referred to as the "Business"). The Business shall be sold as an ongoing concern.
1. The Parties shall within [ . . . ] (4) from the date of the Commission's decision clearing the concentration subject to the fulfilment of this Undertaking have found a purchaser for the Business, it being understood that such purchaser shall be a viable existing or potential competitor or financial or industrial company or institution independent of the Parties or BCP-JV and with the financial capacity to continue the Business.
The Parties shall be deemed to have complied with this undertaking if BCP-JV has within this period entered into a binding letter of intent for the sale of the Business subject to due diligence and other conditions [ . . . ] (4) beyond the Parties' control, provided that a final agreement for such sale has been concluded within [ . . . ] (4) from the date of the letter of intent.
2. If the Parties are not able to fulfil their undertaking to divest by the end of the period set out in 1 above, the time limit shall be extended by a period of [ . . . ] (1) upon request by the Parties accompanied by a written motivation for such extension showing best efforts to fulfil their Undertaking and on condition that the Parties shall prior to such extension appoint an independent firm of accountants, law firm or investment bank or similar consultancy firm (hereinafter referred to as the "Trustee"), to be approved by the Commission, to act on the Commission's behalf in overseeing the ongoing independent and separate management of the Business and the continued efforts by the Parties to divest.
The Trustee shall be remunerated by the Parties.
Should divestiture according to 1 above not have been accomplished by the end of the extension period, the parties shall give the Trustee an irrevocable mandate to find a purchaser for the Business and to sell the Business, on best possible terms and conditions within an additional extension period of [ . . . ] (1). The Parties shall provide the Trustee with all assistance and information necessary for the execution of such sale and for the obtaining of the best possible conditions subject to the Parties' reasonable secrecy interests.
3. Prior to the sale of the Business to a third party, the Parties shall hold separate the Business from the businesses of BCP-JV and the Parties. Structural changes of the Business until such date shall not be undertaken by the Parties until two weeks after the Parties have informed the Commission and the Commission has not explicitly opposed such change.
The Parties shall further ensure that the Business is managed separately from BCP-JV and the Parties with its own management. The Parties shall replace those members of the board of directors of Hansa who belong to the board of directors or the management of BCP-JV. The Parties shall not appoint or second employees from the Parties or BCP-JV as management of Hansa until the Business has been divested. The board of directors and the management of Hansa shall make best efforts to keep the value of the Business until its divestiture.
The Parties shall finally see to it that BCP-JV does not obtain any business secrets relating to the Business.
4. The Parties or the Trustee, as the case may be, shall report to the Commission in writing before a letter of intent is to be signed and in any event every four months on relevant developments in their negotiations with third parties.
If, within [ . . . ] (1) from the receipt of a report indicating a purchaser with whom the Parties or the Trustee propose to sign a letter of intent, the Commission does not formally indicate its disagreement with the choice of purchaser with due regard to the qualifications set out in 1 above, the sale to such purchaser shall be free to proceed.
The Commission shall be given, for the purpose of information only, copies of prospectuses or similar written documentation provided by the Parties to relevant purchasers of the Business.
(4) Deleted; business secret.
(1) Deleted; business secret.`(124) The Commission is satisfied that the parties' undertaking to divest the beer business of Hansa in its entirety addresses the competition concerns outlined above. The divestiture of the beer business of Hansa effectively implies that there will be no further concentration of the supply in the relevant markets arising from the notified operation, and no addition of sales and market shares to the pre-concentration position of Ringnes in Norway,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
The concentration notified by AB Fortos and Orkla AS on 18 April 1995, relating to the creation of BCP-JV, is declared compatible with the common market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement subject to the condition of full compliance with the commitments made by the parties, in their undertaking to the Commission in respect of the Hansa beer business, as set out in recital 123 of this Decision.
Article 2
This Decision is addressed to:
Orkla AS
PO Box 308
N-1324 Lysaker
and
AB Fortos
Norra Bankogränd 2
Box 2278
S-103 17 Stockholm.
Done at Brussels, 20 September 1995. | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 3588/92 of 11 December 1992 amending Regulation (EEC) No 223/90 as regards the rate of Community part-financing applicable to Portugal for the measures referred to in Council Regulation (EEC) No 2328/91
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2328/91 of 15 July 1991 on improving the efficiency of agricultural structures (1), and in particular Article 31 (2) thereof,
Whereas the budget funds allocated to the measures referred to in Regulation (EEC) No 2328/91 for 1992 and 1993 under the Community support framework for Portugal as regards assistance from the various structural Funds enable the rate of Community part-financing fixed by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 223/90 (2), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3126/91 (3), to be raised to 75 % for the Member State in question for 1992 and 1993;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on Agricultural Structures and Rural Development,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Annex I to Regulation (EEC) No 223/90 is hereby amended as follows:
1. In the first indent 'Portugal' is deleted.
2. Before the first indent, the following indent is added:
'- Portugal 75 %'.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
Article 1
shall apply to expenditure incurred by Portugal in 1992 and 1993. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 11 December 1992. | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION
of 27 April 2007
on the clearance of the accounts of the paying agencies of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia concerning expenditure in the field of rural development measures financed by the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), Guarantee Section, for the 2006 financial year
(notified under document number C(2007) 1893)
(Only the Czech, English, Estonian, Greek, Hungarian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Polish, Slovak and Slovenian texts are authentic)
(2007/325/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(3) thereof,
After consulting the Fund Committee,
Whereas:
(1)
On the basis of the annual accounts submitted by the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia concerning expenditure in the field of rural development measures, accompanied by the information required, the accounts of the paying agencies referred to in Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 are to be cleared. The clearance covers the integrality, accuracy and veracity of the accounts transmitted in the light of the reports established by the certification bodies.
(2)
The time limits granted to the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia for the submission to the Commission of the documents referred to in Article 6(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) 1258/1999 and in Article 4(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1663/95 of 7 July 1995 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 regarding the procedure for the clearance of accounts of the EAGGF Guarantee Section (2), have expired.
(3)
The Commission has checked the information submitted and communicated to the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia before 31 March 2007 the results of its verifications, along with the necessary amendments.
(4)
For the rural development expenditure covered by Article 7(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 27/2004 of 5 January 2004 laying down transitional detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 as regards the financing by the EAGGF Guarantee Section of rural development measures in the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia (3) the outcome of the clearance decision is to be deducted from or added to subsequent payments made by the Commission.
(5)
In the light of the verifications made, the annual accounts and the accompanying documents permit the Commission to take, for certain paying agencies, a decision on the integrality, accuracy and veracity of the accounts submitted. The details of these amounts were described in the Summary Report that was presented to the Fund Committee at the same time as this Decision.
(6)
In the light of the verifications made, the information submitted by certain paying agencies requires additional inquiries and their accounts cannot be therefore cleared in this Decision.
(7)
For the rural development expenditure covered by Regulation (EC) No 27/2004, the amounts recoverable or payable under the clearance of accounts decision are to be deducted from or added to subsequent payments.
(8)
In accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 and Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1663/95, 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
Without prejudice to Article 2, the amounts which are recoverable from, or payable to, each Member State pursuant to this Decision in the field of rural development measures applicable in the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia are set out in Annex I and Annex II.
Article 2
For the 2006 financial year, the accounts of the Member States’ paying agencies in the field of rural development measures applicable in the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia, set out in Annex III, are disjoined from this Decision and shall be the subject of a future clearance Decision.
Article 3
This Decision is addressed to the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic.
Done at Brussels, 27 April 2007. | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
*****
COMMISSION DECISION
of 7 October 1988
approving the plan for the eradication of classical swine fever presented by the Kingdom of Belgium
(Only the French and Dutch texts are authentic)
(88/529/EEC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Directive 80/1095/EEC (1), of 11 November 1980 laying down conditions designed to render and keep the territory of the Community free from classical swine fever, as last amended by Directive 87/487/EEC (2), and in particular Article 3a thereof,
Having regard to Council Decision 80/1096/EEC (3) of 11 November 1980, introducing Community financial measures for the eradication of classical swine fever, as last amended by Decision 87/488/EEC (4), and in particular Article 5 thereof,
Whereas, by letter dated 28 December 1987, the Kingdom of Belgium has communicated to the Commission a new plan for completing the eradication of classical swine fever;
Whereas, the plan has been examined and found to comply with Council Directive 80/217/EEC (5) of 22 January 1980, introducing Community measures for the control of classical swine fever as last amended by Directive 87/486/EEC (6), and with Directive 80/1095/EEC and whereas the conditions for financial participation by the Community are therefore met;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee; whereas the Fund Committee has been consulted,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
The plan for completing the eradication of classical swine fever presented by Belgium is hereby approved.
Article 2
Belgium shall bring into force by 1 January 1988 the laws, regulations and administrative provisions for implementing the plan referred to in Article 1.
Article 3
This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Belgium.
Done at Brussels, 7 October 1988. | [
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 280/2005
of 18 February 2005
fixing the rates of the refunds applicable to eggs and egg yolks exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2771/75 of 29 October 1975 on the common organisation of the market in eggs (1), and in particular Article 8(3) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
Article 8(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2771/75 provides that the difference between prices in international trade for the products listed in Article 1(1) of that Regulation and prices within the Community may be covered by an export refund where these goods are exported in the form of goods listed in the Annex to that Regulation. Commission Regulation (EC) No 1520/2000 of 13 July 2000 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of granting export refunds on certain agricultural products exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty, and the criteria for fixing the amount of such refunds (2), specifies the products for which a rate of refund should be fixed, to be applied where these products are exported in the form of goods listed in Annex I to Regulation (EEC) No 2771/75.
(2)
In accordance with Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1520/2000, the rate of the refund per 100 kilograms for each of the basic products in question must be fixed for a period of the same duration as that for which refunds are fixed for the same products exported unprocessed.
(3)
Article 11 of the Agreement on Agriculture concluded under the Uruguay Round lays down that the export refund for a product contained in goods may not exceed the refund applicable to that product when exported without further processing.
(4)
The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Poultrymeat and Eggs,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The rates of the refunds applicable to the basic products listed in Annex A to Regulation (EC) No 1520/2000 and in Article 1(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2771/75, exported in the form of goods listed in Annex I to Regulation (EEC) No 2771/75, are fixed as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 21 February 2005.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 18 February 2005. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 741/2000
of 7 April 2000
derogating temporarily from Regulation (EC) No 1370/95 laying down detailed rules for implementing the system of export licences in the pigmeat sector
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2759/75 of 29 October 1975 on the common organisation of the market in pigmeat(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 3290/94(2), and in particular Articles 8(2), 13(12) and 22 thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Article 3(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1370/95(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2399/1999(4), provides that export licences are to be issued on the Wednesday following the week in which licence applications are lodged, provided that no special measures are taken by the Commission in the meanwhile.
(2) Given the dates of public holidays in 2000 and the consequent irregular publication of the Official Journal of the European Communities, the period for consideration is too short to ensure effective market management and it should therefore be extended temporarily.
(3) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Pigmeat,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Notwithstanding Article 3(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/95, licences for which applications are lodged during the following periods shall be issued on the dates indicated, provided that none of the special measures referred to in paragraph 4 of that Article are taken before the dates concerned:
- from 17 to 21 April 2000, to be issued on 27 April 2000,
- from 24 to 28 April 2000, to be issued on 4 May 2000,
- from 1 to 5 May 2000, to be issued on 12 May 2000,
- from 5 to 9 June 2000, to be issued on 15 June 2000,
- from 7 to 11 August 2000, to be issued on 18 August 2000,
- from 18 to 22 December 2000, to be issued on 29 December 2000,
- from 25 to 29 December 2000, to be issued on 5 January 2001.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 7 April 2000. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Decision
of 9 July 2001
concerning the non-inclusion of parathion in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing this active substance
(notified under document number C(2001) 1772)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2001/520/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market(1), as last amended by Commission Directive 2001/36/EC(2), and in particular the fourth subparagraph of Article 8(2) thereof,
Having regard to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 of 11 December 1992 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the first stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1972/1999(4), and in particular Article 7(3A)(b) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC provided for the Commission to carry out a programme of work for the examination of the active substances used in plant protection products which were already on the market on 15 July 1993. Detailed rules for the carrying out of this programme were established in Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92.
(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 933/94(5), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2230/95(6), has designated the active substances which should be assessed in the framework of Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92, designated a Member State to act as rapporteur in respect of the assessment of each substance and identified the producers of each active substance who submitted a notification in due time in accordance with Article 4(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92.
(3) Parathion is one of the 90 active substances designated in Regulation (EC) No 933/94.
(4) In accordance with Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92, Italy, being the designated rapporteur Member State, submitted on 30 November 1998 to the Commission the report of its assessment of the information submitted by the notifiers in accordance with the provisions of Article 6(1) of this Regulation.
(5) On receipt of the report of the rapporteur Member State, the Commission undertook consultations with experts of the Member States as well as with the main notifier (Cheminova) as provided for in Article 7(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92.
(6) The assessment report prepared by Italy has been reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on Plant Health. This review was finalised on 12 December 2000 in the format of the Commission review report for parathion, in accordance with Article 7(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92.
(7) Assessments made on the basis of the information submitted have not demonstrated that it may be expected that, under the proposed conditions of use, plant protection products containing parathion satisfy in general the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular with regard to the safety of operators potentially exposed to parathion and with regard to the fate and behaviour of the substance in the environment and its possible impact on non-target organisms.
(8) The main notifier informed the Commission and the rapporteur Member State that it no longer wished to participate in the programme of work for this active substance, and therefore further information will not be submitted.
(9) Therefore it is not possible to include this active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC.
(10) Any period of grace for disposal, storage, placing on the market and use of existing stocks of plant protection products containing parathion allowed by Member States, in accordance with the provisions of Article 4(6) of Directive 91/414/EEC should be limited to a period no longer than 12 months to allow existing stocks to be used in no more than one further growing season.
(11) This Decision does not prejudice any action the Commission may undertake at a later stage for this active substance within the framework of Council Directive 79/117/EEC(7).
(12) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plant Health,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
Parathion is not included as active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC.
Article 2
Member States shall ensure that:
1. authorisations for plant protection products containing parathion are withdrawn within a period of six months from the date of adoption of the present Decision;
2. from the date of adoption of the present Decision no authorisations for plant protection products containing parathion will be granted or renewed under the derogation provided for in Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC.
Article 3
Any period of grace granted by Member States in accordance with the provisions of Article 4(6) of Directive 91/414/EEC, shall be as short as possible and not longer than 18 months from the date of adoption of this Decision.
Article 4
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 9 July 2001. | [
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2230/97 of 7 November 1997 concerning the stopping of fishing for plaice by vessels flying the flag of Belgium
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 686/97 (2), and in particular Article 21 (3) thereof,
Whereas Council Regulation (EC) No 390/97 of 20 December 1996 fixing, for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, the total allowable catches for 1997 and certain conditions under which they may be fished (3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1974/97 (4), provides for plaice quotas for 1997;
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 plaice in the waters of ICES division VII f and g by vessels flying the flag of Belgium or registered in Belgium have reached the quota allocated for 1997; whereas Belgium has prohibited fishing for this stock as from 19 October 1997; whereas it is therefore necessary to abide by that date,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Catches of plaice in the waters of ICES division VII f and g by vessels flying the flag of Belgium or registered in Belgium are deemed to have exhausted the quota allocated to Belgium for 1997.
Fishing for plaice in the waters of ICES division VII f and g by vessels flying the flag of Belgium or registered in Belgium is prohibited, as well as the retention on board, the transhipment and the landing of such captured by the abovementioned vessels after the date of application of this Regulation.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
It shall apply with effect from 19 October 1997.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 7 November 1997. | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0
] |
Commission Decision
of 6 June 2003
amending Decision 96/603/EC establishing the list of products belonging to Classes A "No contribution to fire" provided for in Decision 94/611/EC implementing Article 20 of Council Directive 89/106/EEC on construction products
(notified under document number C(2003) 1673)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2003/424/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Directive 89/106/EEC of 21 December 1988 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to construction products(1), as amended by Directive 93/68/EEC(2),
Having regard to Commission Decision 2000/147/EC of 8 February 2000 implementing Council Directive 89/106/EEC as regards the classification of the reaction to fire performance of construction products(3), and in particular Article 1(1) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Commission Decision 96/603/EC(4), as amended by Decision 2000/605/EC(5), established a list of products belonging to Classes A "No contribution to fire" provided for in Tables 1 and 2 of the Annex to Commission Decision 94/611/EC(6), which described the European classification system for expressing the reaction to fire performance of construction products.
(2) Decision 94/611/EC has been replaced by Decision 2000/147/EC.
(3) The notes for "Mortar with inorganic binding agents" in the table set out in the Annex to Decision 96/603/EC should be adapted to technical progress.
(4) Decision 96/603/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.
(5) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Construction,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
In the table set out in the Annex to Decision 96/603/EC, for "Mortar with inorganic binding agents" the notes "Rendering/plastering mortars and mortars for floor screeds based on one or more inorganic binding agent(s), e.g. cement, lime, masonry cement and gypsum" are replaced by "Rendering/plastering mortars, mortars for floor screeds and masonry mortars based on one or more inorganic binding agent(s), e.g. cement, lime, masonry cement and gypsum".
Article 2
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 6 June 2003. | [
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
*****
COMMISSION DECISION
of 5 February 1982
establishing that the apparatus described as 'Tracor digital signal analyzer, model TN-1500-8, with accessories' may not be imported free of Common Customs Tariff duties
(82/141/EEC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN
COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1798/75 of 10 July 1975 on the importation free of Common Customs Tariff duties of educational, scientific and cultural materials (1), as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1027/79 (2),
Having regard to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2784/79 of 12 December 1979 laying down provisions for the implementation of Regulation (EEC) No 1798/75 (3), and in particular Article 7 thereof,
Whereas, by letter dated 20 July 1981, the Federal Republic of Germany has requested the Commission to invoke the procedure provided for in Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 2784/79 in order to determine whether or not the apparatus described as 'Tracor digital signal analyzer, model TN-1500-8, with accessories', to be used for mass-spectrometric quantification of total-hydrolyzates of biological systems and isotope analysis of natural materials in the trace range and also for mass-fragmentography of content materials, occuring in traces, of biological systems, should be considered as a scientific apparatus and, where the reply is in the affirmative, whether apparatus of equivalent scientific value is currently being manufactured in the Community;
Whereas, in accordance with the provisions of Article 7 (5) of Regulation (EEC) No 2784/79, a group of experts composed of representatives of all the Member States met on 15 December 1981 within the framework of the Committee on Duty-Free Arrangements to examine the matter;
Whereas this examination showed that the apparatus in question is an analyzer;
Whereas it does not have the requisite objective characteristics making it specifically suited to scientific research; whereas, moreover, apparatus of the same kind are principally used for non-scientific activities; whereas its use in the case in question could not alone confer upon it the character of a scientific apparatus; whereas it therefore cannot be regarded as a scientific apparatus; whereas the duty-free admission of the apparatus in question is therefore not justified,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
The apparatus described as 'Tracor digital signal analyzer, model TN-1500-8, with accessories', which is the subject of an application by the Federal Republic of Germany, of 20 July 1981, may not be imported free of Common Customs Tariff duties.
Article 2
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 5 February 1982. | [
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1124/2007
of 28 September 2007
amending Regulation (EC) No 367/2006 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film originating in India
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2026/97 of 6 October 1997 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (basic Regulation) and in particular Article 19 thereof,
Having regard to the proposal submitted by the Commission after consulting the Advisory Committee,
Whereas:
A. PROCEDURE
I. Previous investigation and existing measures
(1)
The Council, by Regulation (EC) No 2597/1999 (2), imposed a definitive countervailing duty on imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film falling within CN codes ex 3920 62 19 and ex 3920 62 90, originating in India (the product concerned). The investigation which led to the adoption of that Regulation is hereinafter referred to as the ‘original investigation’. The measures took the form of an ad valorem duty, ranging between 3,8 % and 19,1 % imposed on imports from individually named exporters, with a residual duty rate of 19,1 % imposed on imports of the product concerned from all other companies. The countervailing duty imposed on imports of PET film manufactured and exported by Jindal Poly Films Limited, formerly known as Jindal Polyester Ltd (3), (Jindal or the company) was 7 %. The original investigation period was 1 October 1997 to 30 September 1998.
(2)
The Council, by Regulation (EC) No 367/2006 (4), following an expiry review pursuant to Article 18 of the basic Regulation, maintained the definitive countervailing duty imposed by Regulation (EC) No 2597/1999 on imports of PET film originating in India. The review investigation period was 1 October 2003 to 30 September 2004.
(3)
The Council, by Regulation (EC) No 1288/2006, following an interim review concerning the subsidisation of another Indian PET film producer, Garware Polyester Limited (Garware), amended the definitive countervailing duty imposed on Garware by Regulation (EC) No 367/2006.
II. Ex officio initiation of a partial interim review
(4)
Prima facie evidence was available to the Commission indicating that Jindal benefited from increased levels of subsidisation, compared to the original investigation, and that the changes to such levels were of a lasting nature.
III. Investigation
(5)
As a result, the Commission decided, after consulting the Advisory Committee, to initiate ex officio a partial interim review in accordance with Article 19 of the basic Regulation, limited to the level of subsidisation to Jindal, in order to assess the need for the continuation, removal or amendment of the existing countervailing measures. On 2 August 2006 the Commission announced, by a notice of initiation published in the Official Journal of the European Union (5), the initiation of this review.
(6)
The review investigation period (review IP) ran from 1 April 2005 to 31 March 2006.
(7)
The Commission officially advised Jindal, the Government of India (GOI) and Du Pont Tejin Films, Luxembourg, Mitsubishi Polyester Film, Germany, Toray Plastics Europe, France and Nuroll, Italy, which represent the overwhelming majority of Community PET film production (hereinafter the Community industry), of the initiation of the partial interim review. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set in the notice of initiation.
(8)
In order to obtain the information necessary for its investigation, the Commission sent a questionnaire to Jindal, which cooperated by replying to the questionnaire. A verification visit was carried out at Jindal’s premises in India.
(9)
Jindal, the GOI and the Community industry were informed of the essential results of the investigation and had the opportunity to comment. Comments were received by Jindal and are discussed below. The GOI did not submit any comments.
B. PRODUCT CONCERNED
(10)
The product concerned is polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film, originating in India, normally declared under CN codes ex 3920 62 19 and ex 3920 62 90, as defined in the original investigation.
C. SUBSIDIES
I. Introduction
(11)
On the basis of the information available and the reply to the Commission’s questionnaire, the following schemes, allegedly involving the granting of subsidies, were investigated:
(a) Nationwide schemes
(i)
Advance Licence Scheme;
(ii)
Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme;
(iii)
Export Oriented Units Scheme/Special Economic Zones Scheme;
(iv)
Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme;
(v)
Export Income Tax Exemption Scheme;
(vi)
Export Credit Scheme;
(vii)
Duty-Free Replenishment Certificate.
(12)
The schemes (i) to (iv) and (vii) above are based on the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act 1992 (No 22 of 1992) which entered into force on 7 August 1992 (the Foreign Trade Act). The Foreign Trade Act authorises the GOI to issue notifications regarding export and import policy. A multi-annual plan relating to the Indian foreign trade policy for the period 1 September 2004 to 31 March 2009, which succeeded the former export and import (EXIM) policy, was published by the GOI (FTP 2004 to 2009). In addition, a handbook of procedures governing the FTP 2004 to 2009 (HOP I 2004 to 2009) was published by the GOI and is updated on a regular basis (6).
(13)
The Export Income Tax Exemption Scheme specified in (v) above is based on the Income Tax Act 1961, which is amended annually by the Finance Act.
(14)
The Export Credit Scheme specified in (vi) above is based on Sections 21 and 35A of the Banking Regulation Act 1949, which allows the Reserve Bank of India to instruct commercial banks regarding export credits.
(b) Regional Schemes
(15)
On the basis of the information available and the reply to the Commission’s questionnaire, the Commission also investigated the Package Scheme of Incentives (hereinafter, the ‘PSI’) of the Government of Maharashtra (the GOM) 1993. This scheme is based on resolutions of the GOM Industries, Energy and Labour Department.
II. Nationwide Schemes
1. Advance Licence Scheme (ALS)
(a) Legal basis
(16)
The detailed description of the scheme is contained in paragraphs 4.1.3 to 4.1.14 of the FTP 2004 to 2009 and Chapters 4.1 to 4.30 of the HOP I 2004 to 2009. The scheme was replaced in April 2006, i.e. after the end of the review IP, by the ‘Advance Authorisation Scheme’. However, this appears to be essentially a name change. The following analysis focuses on the ALS in place during the review IP.
(b) Eligibility
(17)
The ALS consists of six sub-schemes. Those sub-schemes differ, inter alia, in the criteria for eligibility. Manufacturer-exporters and merchant-exporters ‘tied to’ supporting manufacturers are eligible for the ALS for physical exports and for the ALS for annual requirement. Main contractors which supply to the ‘deemed export’ categories mentioned in paragraph 8.2 of the FTP 2004 to 2009, such as suppliers of an export oriented unit (EOU), are eligible for ALS deemed export. Manufacturer-exporters supplying the ultimate exporter are eligible for ALS for intermediate supplies. Finally, intermediate suppliers to manufacturer-exporters are eligible for ‘deemed export’ benefits under the sub-schemes Advance Release Order (ARO) and back-to-back inland letter of credit. Since only the first four of the six sub-schemes were used by Jindal during the review IP, only those will be described in more detail below.
(c) Practical implementation
(18)
An Advance Licence can be issued for:
(i)
Physical exports: This is the main sub-scheme. It allows the duty-free import of input materials for the production of a specific resultant export product. ‘Physical’ in this context means that the export product has to leave Indian territory. An import allowance and an export obligation, including the type of export product, are specified in the licence.
(ii)
Annual requirement: Such a licence is not linked to a specific export product, but to a wider product group (e.g. chemical and related products). The licence holder can - up to a certain value threshold set by its past export performance - import duty free any input to be used in manufacturing any of the items falling under such a product group. It can choose to export any resultant product falling under the product group using such duty-exempt material.
(iii)
Deemed exports: This sub-scheme allows a main contractor the duty-free import of inputs required in manufacturing goods to be sold as ‘deemed exports’ to the categories of customers mentioned in paragraph 8.2(b) to (f), (g), (i) and (j) of the FTP 2004 to 2009. According to the GOI, deemed exports refer to those transactions in which the goods supplied do not leave the country. A number of categories of supply are regarded as deemed exports provided the goods are manufactured in India, e.g. supply of goods to an EOU or to a company situated in a special economic zone (SEZ).
(iv)
Intermediate supplies: This sub-scheme covers cases where two manufacturers intend to produce a single export product and divide the production process. The manufacturer-exporter produces the intermediate product. It can import duty free input materials and can obtain for this purpose an ALS for intermediate supplies. The ultimate exporter finalizes the production and is obliged to export the finished product.
(19)
As stated above, Jindal used the ALS during the review IP. More precisely, it made use of the four sub-schemes indicated under (i) to (iv) above.
(20)
For verification purposes by the Indian authorities, a licence holder is legally obliged to maintain ‘a true and proper account of licence-wise consumption and utilisation of imported goods’ in a specified format (Chapter 4.30 HOP I 2004 to 2009) (hereinafter the consumption register). The verification showed that the company did not properly maintain its consumption register, i.e. that it did not record the link between input material and the final destination of the resultant product, as required by the format required by the GOI, despite the fact that it not only exports the resultant product but sells it on the domestic market as well.
(21)
With regard to sub-schemes (i) and (iii) above, both the import allowance and the export obligation (including deemed export) are fixed in volume and value by the GOI and are documented on the licence. In addition, at the time of import and of export, the corresponding transactions are to be documented by Government officials on the licence. The volume of imports allowed under this scheme is determined by the GOI on the basis of standard input-output norms (SIONs). SIONs exist for most products including the product concerned and are published in Volume II of the HOP I 2004 to 2009. The SIONs for PET film and PET chips, an intermediate product, were revised downwards in October 2005.
(22)
With regard to sub-scheme (iii) it was noted that the deemed exports fulfilling the respective obligation under the ALS were essentially intra-company sales, i.e. a PET chip manufacturing unit of Jindal (which is not a separate legal entity) sold the PET chips for further downstream production of PET film to Jindal’s EOU. The import of raw materials took place in the context of the manufacture of the intermediate product (PET chips). In other words, under sub-scheme (iii) domestic sales are considered to be exports.
(23)
With regard to sub-scheme (iv) input materials domestically procured by Jindal are written off from Jindal’s Advance Licence and an intermediate Advance Licence is issued to the domestic supplier. The holder of such intermediate Advance Licence can import, duty-free, the goods needed to produce the product that will subsequently be supplied to Jindal as raw material for the production of the product concerned.
(24)
In the case of sub-scheme (ii) listed above (Advance Licence for annual requirement), only the import allowance in value is documented on the licence. The licence holder is obliged to ‘maintain the nexus between imported inputs and the resultant product’ (paragraph 4.24A(c) HOP I 2004 to 2009).
(25)
Imported input materials are not transferable and have to be used to produce the resultant export product. The export obligation must be fulfilled within a prescribed time frame after issuance of the licence (18 months with two possible extensions of six months each, i.e. a total of 30 months).
(26)
The verification showed that the company’s specific consumption rate of key raw materials needed to produce one kilogram of PET film, in various degrees depending on the quality of the PET film and as reported in the consumption register, was lower than the corresponding SION. This was clearly the case with regard to the old SION for PET film and PET chips, and, to a lesser extent, to the revised SION which came into force in September 2005, i.e. during the review IP. In other words, Jindal was allowed to import duty-free, as per the SION, more raw materials than actually needed for its manufacturing process. This made the consumption register, in line with the FTP 2004 to 2009, the crucial verification element. However, this register was neither properly kept nor ever inspected by the GOI. The company claimed that the GOI would adjust the excess benefit when the licences expired, i.e. 30 months from the issuance of a licence, as the common practice is to make use of the two possible extensions of six months each. However, this claim could not be verified as no licence used by Jindal had yet been redeemed.
(27)
Changes in the administration of the FTP 2004 to 2009, which became effective in autumn of 2005 (mandatory sending of the consumption register to the Indian authorities in the context of the redemption procedure) had not yet been applied in the case of Jindal. Thus, the de facto implementation of this provision could not be verified at this stage.
(d) Conclusion
(28)
The exemption from import duties is a subsidy within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a)(ii) and Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation, in that the non-collection of import duties otherwise due is a financial contribution of the GOI, which conferred a benefit upon Jindal by improving its liquidity.
(29)
In addition, the four sub-schemes used by Jindal (i.e. the ones listed above under (i) to (iv)) are contingent in law upon export performance, and therefore deemed to be specific and countervailable under Article 3(4)(a) of the basic Regulation. Without an export commitment a company cannot obtain benefits under these schemes. Obviously, this is the case with regard to schemes (i), (ii) and (iv), but even the ALS deemed exports fulfils this criterion in the present case because the supply to an EOU ultimately aims at real exports.
(30)
The sub-schemes used in the present case cannot be considered as permissible duty drawback systems or substitution drawback systems within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a)(ii) of the basic Regulation. They do not conform to the strict rules laid down in Annex I point (i), Annex II (definition and rules for drawback) and Annex III (definition and rules for substitution drawback) of the basic Regulation. The GOI did not effectively apply its verification system or procedure to confirm whether and in what amounts inputs were consumed in the production of the exported product (Annex II(II)(4) of the basic Regulation and, in the case of substitution drawback schemes, Annex III(II)(2) of the basic Regulation). The SIONs for the product concerned were not sufficiently precise. The SIONs themselves cannot be considered a verification system of actual consumption because the design of those overly generous standard norms does not enable the GOI to verify with sufficient precision what amount of inputs were consumed in the export production. Furthermore, no effective control by the GOI based on the consumption register took place.
(31)
The company, in its post-disclosure comments, maintained that it keeps a proper consumption register and, as such, that a proper verification system is in place in accordance with Annex II to the basic Regulation. It further claimed that the ALS works as a substitution scheme, so that duty-free inputs may be used to produce products sold domestically, as long as the duty-free inputs are, either directly or through substitution, consumed in the production of goods subsequently exported within a reasonable period of time. However, even though the company might keep a register of the consumption of raw material to produce a quantity of the product concerned, it failed to maintain a system whereby it could be verified which inputs were consumed in the production of the exported product and in what amounts, as stipulated by the FTP 2004 to 2009 (Appendix 23) and in accordance with Annex II(II)(4) to the basic Regulation. Further, it does not maintain a system whereby it can be verified that the quantity of the input for which drawback is claimed does not exceed the quantity of similar product exported, in accordance with Annex III(II)(2). In the present case, it is, after careful consideration, maintained that there is no link between the duty-free input consumed and the exported product, and that there is therefore no proper verification system in place.
(32)
The sub-schemes are therefore countervailable.
(e) Calculation of the subsidy amount
(33)
The subsidy amount was calculated as follows. The numerator is the sum of the import duties foregone (basic customs duty and special additional customs duty) on the material imported under sub-schemes (i) to (iii) respectively applicable to imports via the intermediate manufacturer; in the case of sub-scheme (iv), the numerator is the sum of the import duties foregone on inputs used in producing the product concerned during the review IP.
(34)
The company claimed, in its post-disclosure comments, that the customs duties for the raw materials needed for the production of PET film decreased from 15 % to 7,5 % from March 2006, i.e. after the end of the IP, and requested that the Commission take this change into account in the calculation of the subsidy rate for ALS. However, although there have been instances where events occurring after the IP have been taken into account, this is restricted to extraordinary circumstances which do not appear to apply in this case. Therefore, in accordance with Articles 5 and 11(1) of the basic Regulation, this request has to be rejected.
(35)
The company further claimed, in its post-disclosure comments, that the benefit under sub-scheme (iv) was, in fact, the price difference between regular domestic purchases of inputs and purchases of inputs against invalidation of ALS and produced some calculations to that effect without supporting evidence. However, the benefit is calculated on the basis of the duty foregone in the licence, since the sale/purchase price of the material is a purely commercial decision and does not alter the amount of duty unpaid. In any event, this claim was made post-disclosure for the first time and, as there was no opportunity for the Commission to verify it, it was rejected.
(36)
In accordance with Article 7(1)(a) of the basic Regulation, fees necessarily incurred to obtain the subsidy were deducted from the subsidy amounts where justified claims were made. The entire amount of import duties foregone is taken as the numerator and not the excess remission/exemption, as the company requested, because the ALS does not fulfil the conditions laid down in Annex II to the basic Regulation. In accordance with Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation, the denominator is the export turnover during the review IP. The company claimed that deemed exports should be included in the total export turnover of the company during the review IP. However, as these transactions are not, in fact, exports but rather sales to the domestic market, they cannot be properly classified as exports and were thus not included in the total export turnover amount.
(37)
The subsidy rate established for the ALS amounts to 14,68 %.
2. Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme (DEPBS)
(a) Legal Basis
(38)
A description of the DEPBS is contained in paragraph 4.3 of the FTP 2004 to 2009.
(b) Eligibility
(39)
Jindal was not found to be using the DEPBS during the review IP, therefore no further analysis of the countervailability of this scheme is necessary.
3. Export Oriented Units Scheme (EOUS)/Special Economic Zones Scheme (SEZS)
(a) Legal basis
(40)
The details of these schemes are contained in Chapter 6 of the FTP 2004 to 2009, the HOP I 2004 to 2009 (EOUS), the SEZ Act 2005 and the rules framed thereunder (SEZS).
(b) Eligibility
(41)
With the exception of pure trading companies, all enterprises which undertake to export a certain amount of their production of goods or services may be set up under the EOUS or SEZS. Jindal was found to benefit from the EOUS but not the SEZS during the review IP. Consequently, the analysis focuses on the EOUS only.
(c) Practical implementation
(42)
An EOU can be established anywhere in India. This scheme is complementary to the SEZS.
(43)
An application for EOU status must include details of, inter alia, planned production quantities, projected value of exports, import requirements and indigenous requirements for a period of five years. If the authorities accept the company’s application, the terms and conditions attached to the acceptance will be communicated to the company. The agreement to be recognised as a company under the EOUS is valid for a five-year period and can be renewed further.
(44)
A crucial obligation of an EOU, as set out in the FTP 2004 to 2009, is to achieve net foreign exchange (NFE) earnings, i.e. in a reference period (five years), the total value of exports has to be higher than the total value of imported goods.
(45)
An EOU is entitled to the following concessions:
(i)
exemption from import duties on all types of goods (including capital goods, raw materials and consumables) required for the manufacture, production or processing or in connection therewith;
(ii)
exemption from excise duty on goods procured from indigenous sources;
(iii)
reimbursement of central sales tax paid on goods procured locally;
(iv)
facility to sell up to 50 % of the fob value of exports on the domestic market’s so called domestic tariff area (DTA) on payment of concessional duties;
(v)
exemption from income tax normally due on profits realised on export sales in accordance with Section 10B of the Income Tax Act, for a period of 10 years after the beginning of its operations, but only up to 2010;
(vi)
possibility of 100 % foreign equity ownership.
(46)
Units operating under these schemes are bonded under the surveillance of customs officials in accordance with Section 65 of the Customs Act. EOUs are legally obliged to maintain, in a specified format, a proper account of all imports, of the consumption and utilisation of all imported materials and of the exports made. These documents are required to be submitted periodically to the competent authorities (quarterly and annual progress reports). However, ‘at no point in time shall [an EOU] be required to correlate every import consignment with its exports, transfers to other units, sales in the DTA and balance in stock’, as per paragraph 6.11.2 of the FTP 2004 to 2009.
(47)
Domestic sales are dispatched and recorded on a self-certification basis. The dispatch process of export consignments of an EOU is supervised by a customs/excise official, who is permanently posted in the EOU.
(48)
Jindal utilised the EOU to import capital goods free of import duties and to obtain a reimbursement of the central sales tax paid on goods procured locally. It did not make use of the exemption from import duties on raw materials, since the EOU facility, in order to produce PET film, uses PET chips as raw materials. These PET chips are produced in another unit of the company from raw materials purchased under the ALS.
(d) Conclusions on the EOU
(49)
The exemption of an EOU from two types of import duties (basic customs duty and special additional customs duty) and the reimbursement of the central sales tax are financial contributions by the GOI within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a)(ii) of the basic Regulation. Government revenue which would be due in the absence of this scheme is foregone, thus conferring a benefit upon the EOU within the meaning of Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation by improving its liquidity.
(50)
Thus, the exemption from basic customs duty and special additional customs duty and the sales tax reimbursement constitute subsidies within the meaning of Article 2 of the basic Regulation. They are contingent in law upon export performance and, therefore, deemed to be specific and countervailable under Article 3(4)(a) of the basic Regulation. The export objective of an EOU as set out in paragraph 6.1 of the FTP 2004 to 2009 is a necessary condition to obtain the incentives.
(51)
In addition, it was confirmed that the GOI has no effective verification system or procedure in place to confirm whether and in what amounts duty and/or sales-tax-free procured inputs were consumed in the production of the exported product (Annex II(II)(4) to the basic Regulation and, in the case of substitution drawback schemes, Annex III(II)(2) of the basic Regulation). In any event, the exemption from duties on capital goods is not a permissible duty drawback scheme because capital goods are not consumed in the production process.
(52)
The GOI did not carry out a further examination based on actual inputs involved, although this would normally need to be done in the absence of an effective verification system (Annex II(II)(5) and Annex III(II)(3) of the basic Regulation), nor did it prove that no excess remission had taken place.
(e) Calculation of the subsidy amount
(53)
Accordingly, the countervailable benefit is the exemption from total duties (basic customs duty and special additional customs duty) normally due upon importation, as well as the sales tax reimbursement, both during the review IP.
(i) Reimbursement of central sales tax on domestically procured goods
(54)
The numerator was established as follows: the subsidy amount was calculated on the basis of the sales tax reimbursable on the purchases made for the production sector, e.g. parts and packing materials, during the review IP. Fees necessarily incurred to obtain the subsidy were deducted in accordance with Article 7(1)(a) of the basic Regulation.
(55)
In accordance with Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation, this subsidy amount was allocated over the export turnover generated by all export sales of the product concerned during the review IP (the denominator), because the subsidy is contingent upon export performance and it was not granted by reference to the quantities manufactured, produced, exported or transported. The subsidy margin thus obtained was 0,04 %.
(ii) Exemption from import duties (basic customs duty and special additional customs duty) and reimbursement of central sales tax on capital goods
(56)
In accordance with Article 7(3) of the basic Regulation, the benefit was calculated on the basis of the amount of unpaid customs duty on imported capital goods and of the amount of sales tax reimbursed on purchases of capital goods, both spread across a period which reflected the normal depreciation period of such capital goods in the industry of the product concerned. The company claimed that this should have been the depreciation rate actually used by the company in its financial statements; however, the requirement in Article 7(3) is interpreted to refer to the depreciation rate specified in the legislation applicable to the company, in this case the rate specified in the Companies Act 1956. The amount so calculated which is then attributable to the review IP was adjusted by adding interest during this period in order to reflect the value of the benefit over time and thereby establishing the full benefit of this scheme to the recipient. Fees necessarily incurred to obtain the subsidy were deducted in accordance with Article 7(1)(a) of the basic Regulation from this sum to arrive at the subsidy amount as the numerator. In accordance with Article 7(2) and 7(3) of the basic Regulation this subsidy amount was allocated over the export turnover of sales of the product concerned during the review IP as the appropriate denominator, because the subsidy is contingent upon export performance and was not granted by reference to the quantities manufactured, produced, exported or transported. The company claimed that deemed exports should be included in the total export turnover, but this claim was rejected for the reasons set out in recital 36 above. The subsidy margin thus obtained was 1,26 %.
(57)
Thus, the total subsidy margin under the EOU scheme for Jindal amounts to 1,3 %.
4. Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme (EPCGS)
(a) Legal Basis
(58)
A detailed description of the EPCGS can be found in Chapter 5 of the FTP 2004 to 2009 and in Chapter 5 of the HOP I 2004 to 2009.
(b) Eligibility
(59)
Any manufacturer-exporter and merchant-exporter ‘tied to’ a supporting manufacturer or service provider is eligible for this scheme. Jindal was found to benefit from this scheme during the review IP.
(c) Practical Implementation
(60)
Under the condition of an export obligation, a company is allowed to import capital goods (new and - since April 2003 - second-hand capital goods up to 10 years old) at a reduced rate of duty. To this end, the GOI issues, upon application and the payment of a fee, an EPCG licence. Since April 2000, the scheme provides for a reduced import duty rate of 5 %, applicable to all capital goods imported under the scheme. In order to meet the export obligation, the imported capital goods must be used to produce a certain amount of export goods during a certain period.
(d) Conclusion on the EPCGS
(61)
The EPCGS provides subsidies within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a)(ii) and Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation, as the GOI foregoes revenue otherwise due. In addition, the duty reduction confers a benefit upon the exporter because the non-payment of duties saved upon importation improves its liquidity.
(62)
Further, the EPCGS is contingent in law upon export performance, since such licences cannot be obtained without a commitment to export. Therefore, it is deemed to be specific and countervailable under Article 3(4)(a) of the basic Regulation.
(63)
The scheme cannot be considered a permissible duty drawback system or substitution drawback system within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a)(ii) to the basic Regulation. Capital goods are not covered by the scope of such permissible systems, as set out in Annex I, item (i) to the basic Regulation, because they are not consumed in the production of the exported products.
(e) Calculation of the subsidy amount
(64)
The numerator was established as follows: the subsidy amount was calculated, in accordance with Article 7(3) of the basic Regulation, on the basis of unpaid customs duty on imported capital goods spread over a period which reflects the normal depreciation period of such capital goods in the PET film industry, which, for the reasons set out in recital 56 above, was deemed to be the rate specified in the Companies Act 1956 and not the one actually used by the company. Interest was added to this amount in order to reflect the full value of the benefit over time. Fees necessarily incurred to obtain the subsidy were deducted, in accordance with Article 7(1)(a) of the basic Regulation.
(65)
The company claimed that capital goods imported duty-free under the ECPG scheme for use in the Khanvel unit were no longer in use and that the benefit relating to such goods should not be included in the numerator. However, as there is no evidence that the company no longer possesses such goods or that it will not use them again, the Commission must reject this claim.
(66)
In accordance with Article 7(2) and 7(3) of the basic Regulation, this subsidy amount was allocated over the export turnover of the product concerned generated during the review IP (the denominator), as the subsidy is contingent upon export performance. The company claimed that deemed exports should be included in the total export turnover, but this claim was rejected for the reasons set out in recital 36 above. The subsidy obtained by Jindal is 1,11 %.
5. Export Income Tax Exemption Scheme (EITES)
(a) Legal basis
(67)
The legal basis for this scheme is contained in the Income Tax Act 1961, amended yearly by the Finance Act. The latter sets out, every year, the basis for the collection of taxes, as well as various exemptions and deductions which can be claimed. Export Oriented Units e.g. may claim income tax exemptions under section 10B of the Income Tax Act 1961.
(b) Practical implementation
(68)
As Jindal was not found to have availed itself of any benefits under the EITES no further analysis of the countervailability of this scheme is necessary.
6. Export Credit Scheme (ECS)
(a) Legal basis
(69)
The details of the scheme are set out in Master Circular IECD No 5/04.02.01/2002-03 (Export Credit in Foreign Currency) and Master Circular IECD No 10/04.02.01/2003-04 (Rupee Export Credit) of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), which is addressed to all commercial banks in India.
(b) Eligibility
(70)
Manufacturing exporters and merchant exporters are eligible for this scheme. Jindal was found to benefit from this scheme during the review IP.
(c) Practical implementation
(71)
Under this scheme, the RBI sets mandatory ceilings on interest rates applicable to export credits, both in Indian rupees and in foreign exchange, which commercial banks can charge an exporter ‘with a view to making credit available to exporters at internationally competitive rates’. The ECS consists of two sub-schemes, the Pre-Shipment Export Credit Scheme (packing credit), which covers credits provided to an exporter for financing the purchase, processing, manufacturing, packing and/or shipping of goods prior to export, and the Post-Shipment Export Credit Scheme, which provides for working capital loans for financing export receivables. The RBI also directs the banks to provide a certain amount of their net bank credit towards export finance.
(72)
As a result of these RBI Master Circulars, exporters can obtain export credit at preferential interest rates compared to the interest rates on ordinary commercial credit (cash credits), which are set under market conditions.
(d) Conclusion on the ECS
(73)
Firstly, by lowering financing costs as compared with market interest rates, the above preferential interest rates confer a benefit within the meaning of Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation on such exporters. Despite the fact that the preferential credits under the ECS are granted by commercial banks, this benefit is a financial contribution by a government within the meaning of Article 2(1)(iv) of the basic Regulation. The RBI is a public body, falling, therefore, within the definition of a ‘government’ set out in Article 1(3) of the basic Regulation and it instructs commercial banks to grant preferential financing to exporting companies. This preferential financing amounts to a subsidy, which is deemed to be specific and countervailable, since the preferential interest rates are contingent upon export performance pursuant to Article 3(4)(a) of the basic Regulation.
(e) Calculation of the subsidy amount
(74)
The subsidy amount was calculated on the basis of the difference between the interest paid for export credits used during the review IP and the amount that would have been payable if market interest rates had been charged, as for ordinary commercial loans made by the company. The subsidy amount (numerator) was allocated over the total export turnover during the review investigation period (denominator) in accordance with Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation, as the subsidy is contingent upon export performance and is not granted by reference to quantities manufactured, produced, exported or transported. Jindal availed itself of benefits under the ECS and obtained a subsidy of 0,1 %.
7. Duty-Free Replenishment Certificate (DFRC)
(a) Legal basis
(75)
The legal basis for this scheme is contained in paragraph 4.2 of the FTP 2004 to 2009.
(b) Practical Implementation
(76)
As Jindal was not found to have availed itself of any benefits under the DFRC during the review IP, no further analysis of the countervailability of this scheme is necessary.
III. Regional Scheme
(a) Legal basis
(77)
In order to encourage the establishment of industries in less developed areas of the State, the GOM has been granting incentives to new expansion units set up in developing regions of the State, since 1964, under a scheme commonly known as the ‘Package Scheme of Incentives’. The scheme has been amended several times since its introduction and the ‘1993 scheme’ was eligible for application from 1 October 1993 to 31 March 2001, whereas the latest amendment, the PSI 2006, was introduced in the margins of the ‘Industrial, Investment & Infrastructure Policy of Maharashtra 2006’ in spring 2006 and is foreseen to be eligible for application up to 31 March 2011. The PSI of the GOM is composed of several sub-schemes, the main one being direct grants via a so-called industrial promotion subsidy, the exemption from local sales tax and electricity duty and the refund of octroi tax.
(78)
Jindal continues to avail itself of incentives under the PSI 1993 until May 2011 and not under successor schemes. Consequently, only the PSI 1993 was assessed in the context of the case at hand.
(b) Eligibility
(79)
In order to be eligible, companies must invest in less developed areas, either by setting up a new industrial establishment or by making a large-scale capital investment in expansion or diversification of an existing industrial establishment. These areas are classified, according to their economic development, into different categories (e.g. less developed area, lesser developed area and least developed area). The main criterion to establish the amount of incentives is the area in which the enterprise is or will be located and the size of the investment.
(c) Practical implementation
(80)
Remission of local sales tax on sales of finished goods: goods are normally subject to central sales tax (for inter-State sales) or, in the past, State sales tax (for intra-State sales) at varying levels, depending upon the State(s) in which transactions are made. In April 2005 the sales tax legislation for intra-State sales in Maharashtra was replaced by a value added tax (VAT) system. Under the exemption scheme, designated units are not required to collect any sales tax on their sales transactions. Similarly, designated units are exempted from payment of the local sales tax on their purchases of goods from a supplier itself eligible for the scheme. Jindal was found to have benefited from this exemption in relation to sales transactions during the review IP.
(81)
Reimbursement of electricity duty: eligible units are eligible for refund of electricity duty on the electricity consumed for production purposes for a period of seven years from the date of commercial production. In the case of Jindal this seven-year period lapsed on 31 March 2003. Consequently, Jindal was no longer eligible for the reimbursement of electricity duty.
(82)
Refund of the octroi tax: octroi is a tax levied by local Governments in India, including the GOM, on goods that enter the territorial limits of a town. Industrial enterprises are entitled to a refund of the octroi tax from the GOM if their facility is located in certain specified towns within the territory of the State. The total amount that may be refunded is restricted to 100 % of the fixed capital investment. Jindal’s plant is located outside city limits and is therefore per se exempt from octroi tax, with the result that this sub-scheme is not applicable in the present case.
(d) Conclusion on the PSI 1993 of the GOM
(83)
Jindal only accrued remission rights of sales tax on sales of finished goods during the review IP, which in the past has been found not to confer a benefit on the recipient (recital 114 of Regulation (EC) No 367/2006). Consequently, the PSI is not countervailable in the present case.
IV. Amount of countervailable subsidies
(84)
The amount of countervailable subsidies determined in accordance with the basic Regulation, expressed ad valorem, for the investigated exporting producer is 17,1 %. This amount of subsidisation exceeds the de minimis threshold mentioned under Article 14(5) of the basic Regulation.
SCHEME
ALS
EOUS
EPCGS
ECS
Total
%
%
%
%
%
Jindal
14,68
1,30
1,11
0,1
17,1
V. Lasting nature of changed circumstances with regard to subsidisation
(85)
In accordance with Article 19(2) of the basic Regulation, it was examined whether the continuation of the existing measure was insufficient to counteract the countervailable subsidy which is causing injury.
(86)
It was established that, during the review IP, Jindal continued to benefit from countervailable subsidisation by the Indian authorities. Further, the subsidy rate found during this review is considerably higher than that established during the original investigation. No evidence is available that the schemes will be discontinued or phased out in the near future.
(87)
Since it has been demonstrated that the company is in receipt of much higher subsidisation than before and that it is likely to continue to receive subsidies of an amount higher than determined in the original investigation, it is concluded that the continuation of the existing measure is not sufficient to counteract the countervailable subsidy causing injury and that the level of the measure should therefore be amended to reflect the new findings.
VI. Conclusion
(88)
In view of the conclusions reached with regard to the level of subsidisation of Jindal and the insufficiency of the existing measure to counteract the countervailable subsidies found, the countervailing duty with regard to Jindal should be amended in order to reflect the new subsidisation levels found.
(89)
The amended countervailing duty should be established at the new rate of subsidisation found during the present review, as the injury margin calculated in the original investigation remains higher.
(90)
Pursuant to Article 24(1) of the basic Regulation and Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96, no product shall be subject to both anti-dumping and countervailing duties for the purpose of dealing with one and the same situation arising from dumping or from export subsidisation. However, since Jindal is subject to an anti-dumping duty of 0 % with regard to the product concerned, these provisions do not apply in the present case.
(91)
Jindal, the GOI and the Community industry were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend the amendment of the measures in force and had the opportunity to comment. The GOI did not submit any comments, and Jindal’s comments have been discussed in the recitals relevant to each specific comment above.
(92)
The company, in its post-disclosure comments, requested the Commission to accept a price undertaking in order to offset the countervailable subsidies found herein. The Commission has examined the company’s proposal and considers that a price undertaking cannot be accepted. Price undertakings based on groups of products, as suggested by the company, permit a large degree of flexibility to change the technical characteristics of the products within the group. PET film comprises numerous and evolving differentiating features, which largely determine sales price. Consequently, changes in those features have a significant impact on prices. An attempt to subdivide the groupings to make them more homogeneous in terms of physical characteristics would lead to a multiplication of groupings which would render monitoring unworkable, in particular, by making it difficult for customs authorities to discern the difference between product types and the classification of products by grouping upon importation. For these reasons, the acceptance of the undertaking is considered impractical within the meaning of Article 13(3) of the basic Regulation. Jindal was informed and given the opportunity to comment. However, its comments have not altered the above conclusion.
(93)
As India Polyfilms Limited, a company previously related to Jindal, merged with Jindal on 1 April 1999 and no longer forms a separate entity, it was removed from the list set out in Article 1(2),
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Article 1(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 367/2006 shall be replaced by the following:
‘2. The rate of duty applicable to the net free-at-Community-frontier price, before duty for imports produced in India by the companies listed below, shall be as follows:
Company
Definitive duty (%)
TARIC Additional Code
Ester Industries Limited, 75-76, Amrit Nagar, Behind South Extension Part-1,
New Delhi 110 003, India
12,0
A026
Flex Industries Limited, A-1, Sector 60, Noida 201 301 (U.P.), India
12,5
A027
Garware Polyester Limited, Garware House, 50-A, Swami Nityanand Marg, Vile Parle (East),
Mumbai 400 057, India
14,9
A028
Jindal Poly Films Limited, 56 Hanuman Road, New Delhi 110 001, India
17,1
A030
MTZ Polyfilms Limited, New India Centre, 5th Floor, 17 Co-operage Road,
Mumbai 400 039, India
8,7
A031
Polyplex Corporation Limited, B-37, Sector-1, Noida 201 301, Dist. Gautam Budh Nagar,
Uttar Pradesh, India
19,1
A032
All other companies
19,1
A999’
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, 28 September 2007. | [
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1281/2000
of 19 June 2000
definitively fixing the aid for unginned cotton from 1 September 1999 to 31 March 2000 for the 1999/2000 marketing year
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to the Act of Accession of Greece, and in particular paragraph 10 of Protocol 4 on cotton, as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1553/95(1),
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1554/95 of 29 June 1995 laying down the general rules for the system of aid for cotton and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 2169/81(2), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1419/98(3), and in particular Article 5(1) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Under Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1554/95, the world market price for unginned cotton is fixed periodically during the marketing year.
(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1287/2000(4) fixes actual production of unginned cotton and the amount by which the guide price is to be reduced in each Member State for the 1999/2000 marketing year.
(3) Article 5(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1201/89 of 3 May 1989 laying down rules implementing the system of aid for cotton(5), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1624/1999(6), provides for the aid on unginned cotton applicable to each period for which a world market price has been determined to be fixed before 15 July.
(4) The aid for the 1999/2000 marketing year should accordingly be fixed definitively at the levels indicated below,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The aid on unginned cotton corresponding to the world prices fixed in Commission Regulations (EC) No 1876/1999(7), (EC) No 1947/1999(8), (EC) No 2013/1999(9), (EC) No 2077/1999(10), (EC) No 2150/1999(11), (EC) No 2231/1999(12), (EC) No 2296/1999(13), (EC) No 2388/1999(14), (EC) No 2462/1999(15), (EC) No 2526/1999(16), (EC) No 2615/1999(17), (EC) No 2721/1999(18), (EC) No 2752/1999(19), (EC) No 54/2000(20), (EC) No 119/2000(21), (EC) No 125/2000(22), (EC) No 172/2000(23), (EC) No 246/2000(24), (EC) No 315/2000(25), (EC) No 387/2000(26), (EC) No 460/2000(27), (EC) No 512/2000(28), (EC) No 533/2000(29) and (EC) No 602/2000(30), shall be as set out in the Annex hereto, which amount shall be fixed definitively from the entry into force of each of the Regulations concerned.
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, 19 June 2000. | [
0,
0,
1,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1820/2001
of 14 September 2001
on import licences in respect of beef and veal products originating in Botswana, Kenya, Madagascar, Swaziland, Zimbabwe and Namibia
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1706/98 of 20 July 1998 on the arrangements applicable to agricultural products and goods resulting from the processing of agricultural products originating in the African, Caribbean and Pacific States (ACP States) and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 715/90(1), and in particular Article 30 thereof,
Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1918/98 of 9 September 1998 laying down detailed rules for the application in the beef and veal sector of Council Regulation (EC) No 1706/98 on the arrangements applicable to agricultural products and certain goods resulting from the processing of agricultural products originating in the African, Caribbean and Pacific States and repealing Regulation (EC) No 589/96(2), and in particular Article 4 thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1918/98 provides for the possibility of issuing import licences for beef and veal products. However, imports must take place within the limits of the quantities specified for each of these exporting non-member countries.
(2) The applications for import licences submitted between 1 and 10 September 2001, expressed in terms of boned meat, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1918/98, do not exceed, in respect of products originating from Botswana, Kenya, Madagascar, Swaziland, Zimbabwe and Namibia, the quantities available from those States. It is therefore possible to issue import licences in respect of the quantities applied for.
(3) The quantities in respect of which licences may be applied for from 1 October 2001 should be fixed within the scope of the total quantity of 52100 tonnes.
(4) This Regulation is without prejudice to Council Directive 72/462/EEC of 12 December 1972 on health and veterinary inspection problems upon importation of bovine, ovine and caprine animals and swine, fresh meat or meat products from third countries(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1452/2001(4),
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The following Member States shall issue on 21 September 2001 import licences for beef and veal products, expressed as boned meat, originating in certain African, Caribbean and Pacific States, in respect of the following quantities and countries of origin:
United Kingdom:
- 900 tonnes originating in Botswana,
- 950 tonnes originating in Namibia;
Germany:
- 350 tonnes originating in Botswana,
- 487 tonnes originating in Namibia.
Article 2
Licence applications may be submitted, pursuant to Article 3(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1918/98, during the first 10 days of October 2001 for the following quantities of boned beef and veal:
TABLE
Article 3
This Regulation shall enter into force on 21 September 2001.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 14 September 2001. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 611/2004
of 31 March 2004
fixing 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),
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 (EEC) No 1766/92 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 (EEC) No 1766/92, 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 Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 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 (EEC) No 1766/92 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 April 2004.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 31 March 2004. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COUNCIL REGULATION (EC, EURATOM) No 1323/2008
of 18 December 2008
adjusting with effect from 1 July 2008 the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Communities and the correction coefficients applied thereto
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to the Protocol on the Privileges 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), and in particular Articles 63, 64, 65 and 82 of the Staff Regulations and Annexes VII, XI and XIII thereto, and the first paragraph of Article 20, and Articles 64 and 92 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,
Whereas:
In order to guarantee that the purchasing power of Community officials and other servants develops in parallel with that of national civil servants in the Member States, the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Communities should be adjusted under the 2008 annual review,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
With effect from 1 July 2008, the date ‘1 July 2007’ in the second paragraph of Article 63 of the Staff Regulations shall be replaced by ‘1 July 2008’.
Article 2
With effect from 1 July 2008, the table of basic monthly salaries in Article 66 of the Staff Regulations applicable for the purposes of calculating remuneration and pensions shall be replaced by the following:
1.7.2008
STEP
GRADE
1
2
3
4
5
16
16 299,08
16 983,99
17 697,68
15
14 405,66
15 011,01
15 641,79
16 076,97
16 299,08
14
12 732,20
13 267,22
13 824,73
14 209,36
14 405,66
13
11 253,14
11 726,01
12 218,75
12 558,70
12 732,20
12
9 945,89
10 363,83
10 799,33
11 099,79
11 253,14
11
8 790,51
9 159,90
9 544,81
9 810,36
9 945,89
10
7 769,34
8 095,82
8 436,01
8 670,72
8 790,51
9
6 866,80
7 155,35
7 456,03
7 663,46
7 769,34
8
6 069,10
6 324,13
6 589,88
6 773,22
6 866,80
7
5 364,07
5 589,48
5 824,35
5 986,40
6 069,10
6
4 740,94
4 940,16
5 147,76
5 290,97
5 364,07
5
4 190,20
4 366,28
4 549,76
4 676,34
4 740,94
4
3 703,44
3 859,06
4 021,22
4 133,10
4 190,20
3
3 273,22
3 410,76
3 554,09
3 652,97
3 703,44
2
2 892,98
3 014,55
3 141,22
3 228,61
3 273,22
1
2 556,91
2 664,35
2 776,31
2 853,56
2 892,98
Article 3
With effect from 1 July 2008, the correction coefficients applicable under Article 64 of the Staff Regulations to the remuneration of officials and other servants shall be as indicated in column 2 of the following table.
With effect from 1 January 2009, the correction coefficients applicable under Article 17(3) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations to transfers by officials and other servants shall be as indicated in column 3 of the following table.
With effect from 1 July 2008, the correction coefficients applicable to pensions under Article 20(1) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations shall be as indicated in column 4 of the following table.
With effect from 16 May 2008, the correction coefficients applicable to the remuneration of officials and other servants under Article 64 of the Staff Regulations shall be as indicated in column 5 of the following table.
With effect from 1 May 2008, the correction coefficients applicable to the remuneration of officials and other servants under Article 64 of the Staff Regulations shall be as indicated in column 6 of the following table.
With effect from 16 May 2008, the correction coefficients applicable to pensions under Article 20(1) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations shall be as indicated in column 7 of the following table.
Country/Place
Remuneration
1.7.2008
Transfer
1.1.2009
Pension
1.7.2008
Remuneration
16.5.2008
Remuneration
1.5.2008
Pension
16.5.2008
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Bulgaria
62,5
100,0
70,5
Czech Rep.
98,1
91,1
100,0
Denmark
139,4
136,4
136,4
Germany
98,9
99,4
100,0
Bonn
98,0
Karlsruhe
96,4
Münich
105,3
Estonia
81,9
100,0
85,0
Greece
95,0
94,9
100,0
Spain
101,6
96,0
100,0
France
115,5
106,3
106,3
Ireland
121,9
118,5
118,5
Italy
111,5
107,6
107,6
Varese
98,6
Cyprus
89,2
91,9
100,0
Latvia
79,8
100,0
85,1
Lithuania
71,9
100,0
76,3
Hungary
94,0
81,6
100,0
Malta
85,0
86,7
100,0
Netherlands
109,1
101,5
101,5
Austria
107,8
106,9
106,9
Poland
84,6
100,0
93,8
Portugal
91,7
91,0
100,0
Romania
66,9
100,0
75,2
Slovenia
86,0
100,0
90,2
Slovakia
87,3
81,9
100,0
Finland
119,8
116,2
116,2
Sweden
115,3
111,5
111,5
United Kingdom
105,4
125,6
105,4
Culham
100,9
Article 4
With effect from 1 July 2008, the amount of the parental leave allowance referred to in the second and third subparagraphs of Article 42a of the Staff Regulations shall be EUR 878,32 and EUR 1 171,09 respectively for single parents.
Article 5
With effect from 1 July 2008, the basic amount of the household allowance referred to in Article 1(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations shall be EUR 164,27.
With effect from 1 July 2008, the amount of the dependent child allowance referred to in Article 2(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations shall be EUR 358,96.
With effect from 1 July 2008, the amount of the education allowance referred to in Article 3(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations shall be EUR 243,55.
With effect from 1 July 2008, the amount of the education allowance referred to in Article 3(2) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations shall be EUR 87,69.
With effect from 1 July 2008, the minimum amount of the expatriation allowance referred to in Article 69 of the Staff Regulations and in the second subparagraph of Article 4(1) of Annex VII thereto shall be EUR 486,88.
Article 6
With effect from 1 January 2009, the kilometric allowance referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 8(2) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations shall be adjusted as follows:
EUR 0 for every km from 0 to 200 km
EUR 0,3651 for every km from 201 to 1 000 km
EUR 0,6085 for every km from 1 001 to 2 000 km
EUR 0,3651 for every km from 2 001 to 3 000 km
EUR 0,1216 for every km from 3 001 to 4 000 km
EUR 0,0586 for every km from 4 001 to 10 000 km
EUR 0 for every km over 10 000 km.
To the above kilometric allowance a flat-rate supplement shall be added, amounting to:
-
EUR 182,54 if the distance by train between the place of employment and the place of origin is between 725 km and 1 450 km,
-
EUR 365,04 if the distance by train between the place of employment and the place of origin is greater than 1 450 km.
Article 7
With effect from 1 July 2008, the daily subsistence allowance referred to in Article 10(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations shall be:
-
EUR 37,73 for an official who is entitled to the household allowance,
-
EUR 30,42 for an official who is not entitled to the household allowance.
Article 8
With effect from 1 July 2008, the lower limit for the installation allowance referred to in Article 24(3) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants shall be:
-
EUR 1 074,14 for a servant who is entitled to the household allowance,
-
EUR 638,68 for a servant who is not entitled to the household allowance.
Article 9
With effect from 1 July 2008, for the unemployment allowance referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 28a(3) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, the lower limit shall be EUR 1 288,19, the upper limit shall be EUR 2 576,39 and the standard allowance shall be EUR 1 171,09.
Article 10
With effect from 1 July 2008, the table of basic monthly salaries in Article 63 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants shall be replaced by the following:
1.7.2008
STEP
CATEGORY
GROUP
1
2
3
4
A
I
6 565,32
7 378,56
8 191,80
9 005,04
II
4 765,00
5 229,31
5 693,62
6 157,93
III
4 004,25
4 182,62
4 360,99
4 539,36
B
IV
3 846,60
4 223,18
4 599,76
4 976,34
V
3 021,43
3 220,60
3 419,77
3 618,94
C
VI
2 873,61
3 042,79
3 211,97
3 381,15
VII
2 571,98
2 659,49
2 747,00
2 834,51
D
VIII
2 324,67
2 461,59
2 598,51
2 735,43
IX
2 238,75
2 269,94
2 301,13
2 332,32
Article 11
With effect from 1 July 2008, the table of basic monthly salaries in Article 93 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants shall be replaced by the following:
FUNCTION GROUP
1.7.2008
STEP
GRADE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IV
18
5 618,70
5 735,55
5 854,82
5 976,58
6 100,87
6 227,74
6 357,25
17
4 965,96
5 069,23
5 174,64
5 282,26
5 392,10
5 504,24
5 618,70
16
4 389,04
4 480,31
4 573,49
4 668,59
4 765,68
4 864,79
4 965,96
15
3 879,15
3 959,82
4 042,17
4 126,23
4 212,03
4 299,63
4 389,04
14
3 428,49
3 499,79
3 572,57
3 646,87
3 722,70
3 800,12
3 879,15
13
3 030,19
3 093,21
3 157,53
3 223,19
3 290,22
3 358,65
3 428,49
III
12
3 879,08
3 959,75
4 042,09
4 126,14
4 211,95
4 299,53
4 388,94
11
3 428,46
3 499,75
3 572,53
3 646,82
3 722,65
3 800,06
3 879,08
10
3 030,18
3 093,19
3 157,51
3 223,17
3 290,20
3 358,62
3 428,46
9
2 678,17
2 733,86
2 790,71
2 848,74
2 907,98
2 968,45
3 030,18
8
2 367,05
2 416,27
2 466,52
2 517,81
2 570,17
2 623,61
2 678,17
II
7
2 678,11
2 733,81
2 790,67
2 848,71
2 907,97
2 968,45
3 030,19
6
2 366,93
2 416,16
2 466,42
2 517,72
2 570,08
2 623,54
2 678,11
5
2 091,91
2 135,42
2 179,84
2 225,18
2 271,46
2 318,70
2 366,93
4
1 848,85
1 887,30
1 926,56
1 966,63
2 007,53
2 049,29
2 091,91
I
3
2 277,64
2 324,91
2 373,16
2 422,41
2 472,69
2 524,01
2 576,39
2
2 013,53
2 055,32
2 097,98
2 141,52
2 185,96
2 231,33
2 277,64
1
1 780,05
1 816,99
1 854,70
1 893,20
1 932,49
1 972,59
2 013,53
Article 12
With effect from 1 July 2008, the lower limit for the installation allowance referred to in Article 94 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants shall be:
-
EUR 807,93 for a servant who is entitled to the household allowance,
-
EUR 479,00 for a servant who is not entitled to the household allowance.
Article 13
With effect from 1 July 2008, for the unemployment allowance referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 96(3) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, the lower limit shall be EUR 966,15, the upper limit shall be EUR 1 932,29 and the standard allowance shall be EUR 878,32.
Article 14
With effect from 1 July 2008, the allowances for shiftwork laid down in the first subparagraph of Article 1(1) of Regulation (ECSC, EEC, Euratom) No 300/76 (2) shall be EUR 368,17, EUR 555,70, EUR 607,58 and EUR 828,33.
Article 15
With effect from 1 July 2008, the amounts referred to in Article 4 of Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 260/68 (3) shall be subject to a coefficient of 5,314614.
Article 16
With effect from 1 July 2008, the table in Article 8(2) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations shall be replaced by the following:
1.7.2008
STEP
GRADE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
16
16 299,08
16 983,99
17 697,68
17 697,68
17 697,68
17 697,68
15
14 405,66
15 011,01
15 641,79
16 076,97
16 299,08
16 983,99
14
12 732,20
13 267,22
13 824,73
14 209,36
14 405,66
15 011,01
15 641,79
16 299,08
13
11 253,14
11 726,01
12 218,75
12 558,70
12 732,20
12
9 945,89
10 363,83
10 799,33
11 099,79
11 253,14
11 726,01
12 218,75
12 732,20
11
8 790,51
9 159,90
9 544,81
9 810,36
9 945,89
10 363,83
10 799,33
11 253,14
10
7 769,34
8 095,82
8 436,01
8 670,72
8 790,51
9 159,90
9 544,81
9 945,89
9
6 866,80
7 155,35
7 456,03
7 663,46
7 769,34
8
6 069,10
6 324,13
6 589,88
6 773,22
6 866,80
7 155,35
7 456,03
7 769,34
7
5 364,07
5 589,48
5 824,35
5 986,40
6 069,10
6 324,13
6 589,88
6 866,80
6
4 740,94
4 940,16
5 147,76
5 290,97
5 364,07
5 589,48
5 824,35
6 069,10
5
4 190,20
4 366,28
4 549,76
4 676,34
4 740,94
4 940,16
5 147,76
5 364,07
4
3 703,44
3 859,06
4 021,22
4 133,10
4 190,20
4 366,28
4 549,76
4 740,94
3
3 273,22
3 410,76
3 554,09
3 652,97
3 703,44
3 859,06
4 021,22
4 190,20
2
2 892,98
3 014,55
3 141,22
3 228,61
3 273,22
3 410,76
3 554,09
3 703,44
1
2 556,91
2 664,35
2 776,31
2 853,56
2 892,98
Article 17
With effect from 1 July 2008, the amount of the dependent child allowance referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 14 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations shall be as follows:
1.7.2008-31.12.2008
344,55
Article 18
With effect from 1 July 2008, the amount of the education allowance referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 15 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations shall be as follows:
1.7.2008-31.8.2008
70,14
Article 19
With effect from 1 July 2008, for the purposes of application of Article 18(1) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations, the amount of the fixed allowance mentioned in the former Article 4a of Annex VII thereto in force before 1 May 2004 shall be:
-
EUR 127,01 per month for officials in Grade C4 or C5,
-
EUR 194,73 per month for officials in Grade C1, C2 or C3.
Article 20
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 18 December 2008. | [
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 961/2004
of 12 May 2004
on granting of import licences for cane sugar for the purposes of certain tariff quotas and preferential agreements
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (1),
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1095/96 of 18 June 1996 on the implementation of the concessions set out in Schedule CXL drawn up in the wake of the conclusion of the GATT XXIV.6 negotiations (2),
Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1159/2003 of 30 June 2003 laying down detailed rules of application for the 2003/04, 2004/05 and 2005/06 marketing years for the import of cane sugar under certain tariff quotas and preferential agreements and amending Regulations (EC) No 1464/95 and (EC) No 779/96 (3), and in particular Article 5(3) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1159/2003 stipulates how the delivery obligations at zero duty of products of CN code 1701, expressed in white sugar equivalent, are to be determined for imports originating in signatory countries to the ACP Protocol and the Agreement with India.
(2)
Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 1159/2003 stipulates how the zero duty tariff quotas for products of CN code 1701 11 10, expressed in white sugar equivalent, are to be determined for imports originating in signatory countries to the ACP Protocol and the Agreement with India.
(3)
Article 22 of Regulation (EC) No 1159/2003 opens tariff quotas at a duty of EUR 98 per tonne for products of CN code 1701 11 10 for imports originating in Brazil, Cuba and other third countries.
(4)
In the week of 3 to 7 May 2004 applications were presented to the competent authorities in line with Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1159/2003 for import licences for a total quantity exceeding a country's delivery obligation quantity of ACP-India preferential sugar determined pursuant to Article 9 of that Regulation.
(5)
In these circumstances the Commission must set reduction coefficients to be used so that licences are issued for quantities scaled down in proportion to the total available and must indicate that the limit in question has been reached,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
In the case of import licence applications presented from 3 to 7 May 2004 in line with Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1159/2003 licences shall be issued for the quantities indicated in the Annex to this Regulation.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 13 May 2004.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 12 May 2004. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Decision
of 23 October 2001
amending Decision 93/197/EEC with regard to importation of equidae from Saint Pierre and Miquelon
(notified under document number C(2001) 3166)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2001/754/EC)
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 imports from third countries of equidae(1), as last amended by Commission Decision 2001/298/EC(2), and in particular Article 13(2), Article 15, Article 16, Article 19(i) and (ii) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Council Decision 79/542/EEC(3), as last amended by Commission Decision 2001/731/EC(4), draws up a list of third countries from which the Member States authorise imports of bovine animals, swine, equidae, sheep and goats, fresh meat and meat products.
(2) Saint Pierre and Miquelon is included in Part 1 of Decision 79/542/EEC, thereby imports into Member States of equidae are authorised in principle.
(3) Commission Decision 93/197/EEC(5), as last amended by Decision 2001/619/EC(6), laid down the animal health conditions and veterinary certification for imports of registered equidae and equidae for breeding and production.
(4) Following a Commission veterinary inspection mission to Saint Pierre and Miquelon the equine health situation appears to be under the satisfactory control of the veterinary services and in particular the availability of a quarantine station allows the safe imports into Saint Pierre and Miquelon of equidae from third countries.
(5) Therefore it appears appropriate to lay down the animal health conditions and veterinary certification for imports into the Member States of equidae in accordance with the animal health situation of the third country concerned and to amend Decision 93/197/EEC accordingly.
(6) For clarity the ISO country code should be used for amendments of lists of third countries.
(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
Member States shall authorise the imports of registered equidae and equidae for breeding and production from Saint Pierre and Miquelon conforming to the requirements in the animal health certificate set out in Annex II (G) of Decision 93/197/EEC.
Article 2
Decision 93/197/EEC is amended as follows:
1. The following words are added to Annex I: "Group G
Saint Pierre and Miquelon (PM)"
2. The following is added to Annex II:
(a)
"G Health certificate for imports of registered equidae and equidae for breeding and production from third countries assigned to Group G.";
(b) the Annex to this Decision.
Article 3
This Decision is addressed to all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 23 October 2001. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
*****
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 3741/87
of 14 December 1987
amending Regulation (EEC) No 3540/85 laying down detailed rules for the application of the special measures for peas, field beans and sweet lupins
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1431/82 of 18 May 1982 laying down special measures for peas, field beans and sweet lupins (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3127/86 (2), and in particular Article 3 (7) thereof,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2036/82 of 19 July 1982 adopting general rules concerning special measures for peas, field beans and sweet lupins (3), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1958/87 (4), and in particular Article 12a (4) thereof,
Whereas Article 31a of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3540/85 (5), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 2889/87 (6), provides for a system of control for peas, field beans and sweet lupins which are the subject of trade between Member States; whereas, in order to avoid ambiguity, the endorsement referred to in paragraph 2 thereof should be entered in section 104 of the control copy;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Dried Fodder,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Article 31a (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 3540/85 is hereby amended as follows:
1. Point (b) is replaced by the following:
'(b) section 104 by deleting those entries which are not applicable and by inserting one of the following:
- Destinado a ser objeto de una declaración de recepción para ser utilizado con arreglo al apartado 3 del artículo 16 del Reglamento (CEE) no 3540/85 o a ser exportado hacia terceros países
- Bestemt til at blive omfattet af en erklaering om ankomst som omhandlet i artikel 16, stk. 3, i forordning (EOEF) nr. 3540/85 eller til udfoersel til tredjelande
- Zur Verwendung gemaess Artikel 16 Absatz 3 der Verordnung (EWG) Nr. 3540/85 oder zur Ausfuhr nach Drittlaendern in eine Eingangserklaerung einzutragen
- Proorizómeno na apotelései antikeímeno dilóseos apodochís gia na chrisimopoiitheí katá tin énnoia toy árthroy 16 parágrafos 3 toy kanonismoý (EOK) arith. 3540/85 í na exachtheí pros trítes chóres
- To be the subject of a declaration of products received to be used as defined in Article 16 (3) of Regulation (EEC) No 3540/85 or to be exported to third countries
- Destiné à faire l'objet d'une déclaration de réception pour être utilisé au sens de l'article 16 paragraphe 3 du règlement (CEE) no 3540/85 ou à être exporté vers les pays tiers
- Destinato ad essere oggetto di una dichiarazione di ricevimento per essere utilizzato a norma dell'articolo 16, paragrafo 3 del regolamento (CEE) n. 3540/85 o ad essere esportato verso i paesi terzi
- Bestemd om, met het oog op het gebruik ervan, te worden vermeld in een opgave van de binnengekomen hoeveelheden in de zin van artikel 16, lid 3, van Verordening (EEG) nr. 3540/85 of voor uitvoer naar derde landen
- Destinado a ser objecto de uma declaração de recepção para ser utilizado na acepção do nº 3 do artigo 16º do Regulamento (CEE) nº 3540/85 ou a ser exportado para países terceiros.'
2. The last subparagraph is replaced by the following:
'The "Control of use and/or destination" section on the back of the copy under "Remarks" must mention the recorded net weight of the checked product and details of the declaration of products received referred to in Article 16 (3) relating to the product.'
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, 14 December 1987. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1
] |
ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ON SOCIAL SECURITY FOR MIGRANT WORKERS DECISION No 156 of 7 April 1995 concerning the rules of priority with regard to sickness and maternity insurance (95/419/EC)
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ON SOCIAL SECURITY FOR MIGRANT WORKERS,
Having regard to Article 81 (a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed person and to members of their families moving within the Community, under which it is made responsible for dealing with all administrative questions arising from the provisions of that Regulation,
Having regard to Article 34 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 under which the provisions of the said Regulation concerning the grant of sickness and maternity insurance benefits in kind to pensioners and to members of their families (Articles 27 to 33) 'shall not apply to a pensioner or to members of his family who are entitled to benefits under the legislation of a Member State as a result of pursuing a professional or trade activity. In such a case, the person concerned shall, for the purposes of the implementation of this chapter, be considered as an employed or self-employed person or as a member of an employed or self-employed person's family`;
Whereas it is necessary to delimit accurately the scope of this Article and to extend its field of application so as to avert divergencies of interpretation between the social security institutions of the Member States;
Whereas rules of priority should be laid down for the application of the chapter on sickness and maternity of the Regulation where an unemployed person resumes a part-time professional or trade activity in the territory of a Member State other than that under whose legislation he continues to receive unemployment benefits;
Whereas it is necessary to lay down rules of priority for the application of the chapter on sickness and maternity where a pensioner who pursues a professional or trade activity in another Member State becomes unemployed;
Whereas, however, these rules of priority must not affect the precedence of the rule of pirority of personal rights over derived rights,
HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
1. Article 25 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 shall not be applicable to a wholly unemployed person who resumes a part-time professional or trade activity or to members of his family who are entitled to benefits under the legislation of a Member State because of the pursuit of such professional or trade activity. In this case the person concerned shall, for the purposes of the chapter on sickness and maternity of the said Regulation, be considered an employed or self-employed person and the members of his family as members of an employed or self-employed person's family.
2. Articles 27 to 33 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 shall not be applicable to pensioners or members of their families who are entitled to benefits under the legislation of a Member State by vitue of the receipt of unemployment benefit. In this case, the person concerned shall, for the purposes of the chapter on sickness and maternity of the said Regulation, be considered an employed or self-employed person who has become unemployed and the members of his family as members of the family of an employed or self-employed person who has become unemployed.
3. The application of Article 34 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 and of the abovementioned provisions cannot reverse, for the person concerned, the order of priority of rights personally he has acquired by pursuing a professional or trade activity, by being wholly unemployed or by receiving a pension over derived rights he has acquired through another person of whom he is a member of the family or a survivor.
4. This Decision shall be applicable from the first day of the month following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
The Chairman of the Administrative Commission Monique MOUSSEAU | [
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0
] |
COUNCIL DECISION
of 7 March 1985
accepting, on behalf of the Community, three Annexes to the international convention on the simplification and harmonization of customs procedures
(85/204/EEC)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to the recommendation from the Commission,
Whereas, under Decision 75/199/EEC (1), the Community is a party to the international convention on the simplification and harmonization of customs procedures;
Whereas the Annexes to the said convention concerning entry for home use, outright exportation and repayment of import duties and taxes can be accepted by the Community;
Whereas it is appropriate, however, to accompany this acceptance with certain reservations in order to take account of the special requirements of the Customs Union and of the present state of harmonization in the area of customs legislation,
HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Article 1
The following Annexes to the international convention on the simplification and harmonization of customs procedures are hereby accepted on behalf of the Community, subject to the reservations indicated:
-
Annex B.1 concerning clearance for home use (Annex I to this Decision), with a general reservation and reservations with regard to Standard 28 and Recommended Practices 19 and 52,
-
Annex C.1 concerning outright exportation (Annex II to this Decision), with a general reservation and reservations with regard to Standard 21 and to Recommended Practice 10,
-
Annex F.6 concerning the repayment of import duties and taxes (Annex III to this Decision), with a general reservation and a reservation with regard to Standard 7.
Article 2
The President of the Council shall designate the person entitled to notify the Secretary-General of the Customs Cooperation Council of the acceptance, on behalf of the Community, of the Annexes referred to in Article 1, together with the reservations indicated in that Article.
Done at Brussels, 7 March 1985. | [
0,
0,
1,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 323/2008
of 8 April 2008
concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
In order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.
(2)
Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific Community provisions, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.
(3)
Pursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column 1 of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN codes indicated in column 2, by virtue of the reasons set out in column 3 of that table.
(4)
It is appropriate to provide that binding tariff information which has been issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature but which is not in accordance with this Regulation can, for a period of three months, continue to be invoked by the holder, under Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).
(5)
The Customs Code Committee has not issued an opinion within the time limit set by its Chairman,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The goods described in column 1 of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN codes indicated in column 2 of that table.
Article 2
Binding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States, which is not in accordance with this Regulation, can continue to be invoked for a period of three months under Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.
Article 3
This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following 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, 8 April 2008. | [
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1834/1999
of 24 August 1999
prohibiting fishing for whiting by vessels flying the flag of Sweden
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2846/98(2), and in particular Article 21(3) thereof,
(1) Whereas Council Regulation (EC) No 48/1999 of 18 December 1998 fixing, for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, the total allowable catches for 1999 and certain conditions under which they may be fished(3), as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1619/1999(4), lays down quotas for whiting for 1999;
(2) Whereas, in order to ensure compliance with the provisions relating to the quantity limits on catches of stocks subject to quotas, the Commission must fix the date by which catches made by vessels flying the flag of a Member State are deemed to have exhausted the quota allocated;
(3) Whereas, according to the information received by the Commission, catches of whiting in the waters of ICES divisions IIa (EC zone) and IV by vessels flying the flag of Sweden or registered in Sweden have exhausted the quota allocated for 1999; whereas Sweden prohibited fishing for this stock from 26 July 1999; whereas this date should be adopted in this Regulation also,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Catches of whiting in the waters of ICES divisions IIa (EC zone) and IV by vessels flying the flag of Sweden or registered in Sweden are hereby deemed to have exhausted the quota allocated to Sweden for 1999.
Fishing for whiting in the waters of ICES divisions IIa (EC zone) and IV by vessels flying the flag of Sweden or registered in Sweden is hereby prohibited, as are the retention on board, transhipment and landing of this stock caught by the above vessels after the date of application of this Regulation.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
It shall apply from 26 July 1999.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 24 August 1999. | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 516/2002
of 21 March 2002
fixing the maximum export refund on common wheat in connection with the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 943/2001
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 602/2001(4), and in particular Article 4 thereof,
Whereas:
(1) An invitation to tender for the refund on exportation of common wheat to all third countries with the exclusion of Poland was opened pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 943/2001(5).
(2) Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 provides that the Commission may, on the basis of the tenders notified, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 23 of Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92, decide to fix a maximum export refund taking account of the criteria referred to in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95. In that case a contract is awarded to any tenderer whose bid is equal to or lower than the maximum refund.
(3) The application of the abovementioned criteria to the current market situation for the cereal in question results in the maximum export refund being fixed 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
For tenders notified from 15 to 21 March 2002, pursuant to the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 943/2001, the maximum refund on exportation of common wheat shall be EUR 0,00/t.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 22 March 2002.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 21 March 2002. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2180/2005
of 23 December 2005
fixing the amount of private storage aid for certain fishery products in the 2006 fishing year
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 of 17 December 1999 on the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products (1),
Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2813/2000 of 21 December 2000 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 as regards the grant of private storage aid for certain fishery products (2), and in particular Article 1 thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
The aid should not exceed the sum of technical and financial costs recorded in the Community during the fishing year proceeding the year in question.
(2)
To discourage long-term storage, to shorten payment times and to reduce the burden of controls, private storage aid should be paid in one single instalment.
(3)
The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the Management Committee for Fishery Products,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
For the 2006 fishing year the amount of private storage aid, referred to in Article 25 of Regulation (EC) No 104/2000, for the products listed in Annex II to that Regulation shall be as follows:
-
:
first month
:
EUR 200 per tonne,
-
:
second month
:
EUR 0 per tonne.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
It shall apply from 1 January 2006.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 23 December 2005. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 3145/92 of 29 October 1992 re-establishing the levying of customs duties on products of category 18, 58 and 59 (order No 40.0180, 40.0580 and 40.0590), originating in India, to which the preferential tariff arrangements set out in Council Regulation (EEC) No 3832/90 apply
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3832/90 of 20 December 1990 applying generalized tariff preferences for 1991 in respect of textile products originating in developing countries (1), extended for 1992 by Regulation (EEC) No 3587/91 (2), and in particular Article 12 thereof,
Whereas Article 10 of Regulation (EEC) No 3832/90 provides that preferential tariff treatment shall be accorded for 1992 for each category of products subjected in Annexes I and II thereto to individual ceilings, within the limits of the quantities specified in column 8 of Annex I and column 7 of Annex II, in respect of certain or each of the countries or territories of origin referred to in column 5 of the same Annexes;
Whereas Article 11 of the abovementioned Regulation provides that the levying of customs duties may be re-established at any time in respect of imports of the products in question once the relevant individual ceilings have been reached at Community level;
Whereas, in respect of products of category No 18, 58 and 59 (order No 40.0180, 40.0580 and 40.0590), originating in India, the relevant ceiling amounts to 112, 3 675 and 310 tonnes;
Whereas on 30 April 1992 imports of the products in question into the Community, originating in India, 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 India,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
As from 2 November 1992 the levying of customs duties, suspended pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 3832/90, shall be re-established in respect of the following products, imported into the Community and originating in India:
Order No Category (unit) CN code Description 40.0180 18
(tonnes) 6207 11 00
6207 19 00
6207 21 00
6207 22 00
6207 29 00
6207 91 00
6207 92 00
6207 99 00 Men's and boys' singlets and other vests, underpants, briefs, nightshirts, pyjamas, bathrobes, dressing gowns and similar articles, other than knitted or crocheted 6208 11 00
6208 19 10
6208 19 90
6208 21 00
6208 22 00
6208 29 00
6208 91 10
6208 91 90
6208 92 10
6208 92 90
6208 99 00 Women's and girls' singlets and other vests, slips, petticoats, briefs, panties, nightdresses, pyjamas, négligés, bathrobes, dressing gowns and similar articles, other than knitted or crocheted 40.0580 58
(tonnes) 5701 10 10
5701 10 91
5701 10 93
5701 10 99
5701 90 10
5701 90 90 Carpets, carpeting and rugs, knotted (made up or not) 40.0590 59
(tonnes) 5702 10 00
5702 31 10
5702 31 30
5702 31 90
5702 32 10
5702 32 90
5702 39 10
5702 41 10
5702 41 90
5702 42 10
5702 42 90
5702 49 10
5702 51 00
5702 52 00
ex 5702 59 00
5702 91 00
5702 92 00
ex 5702 99 00
5703 10 10
5703 10 90
5703 20 11
5703 20 19
5703 20 91
5703 20 99
5703 30 11
5703 30 19
5703 30 51
5703 30 59
5703 30 91
5703 30 99
5703 90 10
ex 5703 90 90
5704 10 00
5704 90 00
5705 00 10
5705 00 31
5705 00 39
ex 5705 00 90 Carpets and other textile floor coverings other than the carpets of category 58
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, 29 October 1992. | [
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 2053/88 of 24 June 1988 on financial assistance for Portugal for a specific industrial development programme (PEDIP)
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 the European Parliament unanimously approved in December 1987 an integrated development programme for Portugal which states that the Community should take steps to support the Portuguese Government's plans for economic development, inter alia, in industrial areas, particularly small and medium-sized undertakings (SMUs), with a view to increasing productivity, securing jobs and promoting vocational training;
Whereas a programme to modernize industry in Portugal (hereinafter referred to as ´PEDIP') has been prepared, in close collaboration between Portugal and the Commission, which contains a set of measures, including vocational training measures, designed to promote industrial development in Portugal;
Whereas the PEDIP should help to achieve the Community's objectives in the field of economic and social cohesion, by identifying four priority areas for the development of Portuguese industry;
Whereas the European Council meeting in Brussels on 11 and 12 February 1988 endorsed the principle of Community assistance for the PEDIP, and whereas the European Council agreed on the principle of allocating to the PEDIP, over and above support from the Structural Funds and Community loans, additional budgetary resources amounting to 500 million ECU for the period from 1988 to 1992;
Whereas provisions should be laid down for the use of those additional resources;
Whereas, in order to simplify management of these resources, which should be made the responsibility of the Commission, the Commission will apply the appropriate measures in respect of the rates of Community assistance, the procedures for the commitment, payment, and recovery of Community assistance, and the monitoring of the measures for which assistance has been allocated;
Whereas, in respect of the measures included in the PEDIP, the Treaty has not provided the necessary powers, other than those of Article 235,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1 1. A five-year programme to modernize industry in Portugal (hereinafter referred to as ´PEDIP') containing a set of measures, including vocational training measures, designed to promote industrial development in Portugal is hereby introduced.
2. Financial assistance from the Community budget for implementation of the PEDIP shall be provided, over and above support from the Structural Funds, by means of additional resources amounting to an average of 100 million ECU per year (1988 prices) for the financial years 1988 to 1992.
These additional resources shall be used in accordance with this Regulation.
Article 2 The additional resources referred to in Article 1 shall be used to implement the PEDIP by contributing to:
- faster improvement of basic industrial infrastructure (priority area number 1),
- stronger foundations for basic and further vocational training facilities for careers in industry (priority area number 2),
- the financing of productive investment (priority area number 3),
- productivity drives (priority area number 4),
either separately, or to supplement contributions by one or more of the Structural Funds, in order to support measures falling within at least one of these priority development areas.
When allocating resources, priority shall be given to measures falling within areas 3 or 4.
Article 3 On the basis of consultation between the Portuguese Republic and the Commission:
1. the Portuguese Republic shall sumit to the Commission applications for financial support from the Community for the measures referred to in Article 2. These applications shall be accompanied by all the information needed to check that the measures are in conformity with this Regulation, with the objectives of the PEDIP and with Community policies, and by the financial estimates and indicative timetables for carrying out the work and effecting the corresponding payments;
2. the Commission shall examine the applications in order to check that they are in conformity with this Regulation and fit into the general framework of structural measures adopted for the benefit of Portugal, and shall decide on the grant of the additional resources referred to in Article 1; it shall notify these decisions to the Committee provided for in Article 8.
Article 4 For the management of the additional resources referred to in Article 1 and depending on the nature of the measure, the Commission shall apply the appropriate provisions concerning the rate of Community assistance, the procedures for the commitment, payment and recovery of Community assistance and the auditing of the measures receiving this assistance.
The rate of Community financing, from budgetary resources, of the selected measures under the PEDIP must not exceed 75 % of the total cost of the measure, whatever the form of the financial assistance.
The Community may cover 100 % of the total cost of the preparatory studies, pilot measures and technical assistance measures carried out upon the Commission's initiative.
Article 5 Measures funded under this Regulation shall comply with the Treaties and with the acts adopted pursuant thereto and with Community policies, including those concerning competition rules, the award of public contracts and the protection of the environment.
Article 6 The Commission shall be kept regularly informed of the implementation of the measures receiving Community assistance under the PEDIP.
The Portuguese Republic shall take all measures necessary to facilitate monitoring by the Commission of PEDIP operations, without prejudice to the monitoring organized by the Portuguese Republic itself or that organized on the basis of Articles 206a and 209 of the Treaty.
Monitoring may take the form of on-site inspections or verifications.
Article 7 Every year during the period referred to in Article 1 the Commission shall draw up, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 8 (2), general guidelines for the implementation of the measures falling within the development areas referred to in Article 2.
These guidelines shall be published for information in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
Article 8 1. The Commission shall be assisted by a committee of an advisory nature hereinafter referred to as ´the Committee', composed of the representatives of the Member States and chaired by the representative of the Commission.
2. Should reference be made to the procedure laid down in this Article, the following provisions shall apply:
The representative of the Commission shall submit to the Committee a draft of the measures to be taken. The Committee shall deliver its opinion on the draft, within a time limit which the chairman may lay down according to the urgency of the matter, if necessary by taking a vote.
The opinion shall be recorded in the minutes; in addition, each Member State shall have the right to ask to have its position recorded in the minutes.
The Commission shall take the utmost account of the opinion delivered by the Committee. It shall inform the Committee of the manner in which its opinion has been taken into account.
Article 9 The Commission shall send the European Parliament and the Council a report on the implementation of this Regulation before 1 June 1990 for the preceding period and a final report on the PEDIP by the end of 1993 at the latest. These reports shall include an account of all the development measures implemented, detail the expenditure incurred and assess their effects.
Article 10 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 Luxembourg, 24 June 1988. | [
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0
] |
Commission Decision
of 27 December 2001
on standard contractual clauses for the transfer of personal data to processors established in third countries, under Directive 95/46/EC
(notified under document number C(2001) 4540)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2002/16/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data(1), and in particular Article 26(4) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Pursuant to Directive 95/46/EC Member States are required to provide that a transfer of personal data to a third country may only take place if the third country in question ensures an adequate level of data protection and the Member States' laws, which comply with the other provisions of the Directive, are respected prior to the transfer.
(2) However, Article 26(2) of Directive 95/46/EC provides that Member States may authorise, subject to certain safeguards, a transfer or a set of transfers of personal data to third countries which do not ensure an adequate level of protection. Such safeguards may in particular result from appropriate contractual clauses.
(3) Pursuant to Directive 95/46/EC the level of data protection should be assessed in the light of all the circumstances surrounding the data transfer operation or set of data transfer operations. The Working Party on the Protection of Individuals with regard to the Processing of Personal Data established under that Directive(2) has issued guidelines to aid with the assessment(3).
(4) The standard contractual clauses relate only to data protection. The data exporter and the data importer are free to include any other clauses on business related issues which they consider as being pertinent for the contract as long as they do not contradict the standard contractual clauses.
(5) This Decision should be without prejudice to national authorisations Member States may grant in accordance with national provisions implementing Article 26(2) of Directive 95/46/EC. This Decision only has the effect of requiring the Member States not to refuse to recognise as providing adequate safeguards the contractual clauses set out in it and does not therefore have any effect on other contractual clauses.
(6) The scope of this Decision is limited to establishing that the clauses which it sets out may be used by a data controller established in the Community in order to adduce adequate safeguards within the meaning of Article 26(2) of Directive 95/46/EC for the transfer of personal data to a processor established in a third country.
(7) This Decision should implement the obligation provided for in Article 17(3) of Directive 95/46/EC and does not prejudice the content of the contracts or legal acts established pursuant to that provision. However, some of the standard contractual clauses, in particular as regards the data exporter's obligations, should be included in order to increase clarity as to the provisions which may be contained in a contract between a controller and a processor.
(8) Supervisory authorities of the Member States play a key role in this contractual mechanism in ensuring that personal data are adequately protected after the transfer. In exceptional cases where data exporters refuse or are unable to instruct the data importer properly, with an imminent risk of grave harm to the data subjects, the standard contractual clauses should allow the supervisory authorities to audit data importers and, where appropriate, take decisions which are binding on data importers. The supervisory authorities should have the power to prohibit or suspend a data transfer or a set of transfers based on the standard contractual clauses in those exceptional cases where it is established that a transfer on contractual basis is likely to have a substantial adverse effect on the warranties and obligations providing adequate protection for the data subject.
(9) The Commission may also consider in the future whether standard contractual clauses for the transfer of personal data to data processors established in third countries not offering an adequate level of data protection, submitted by business organisations or other interested parties, offer adequate safeguards in accordance with Article 26(2) of Directive 95/46/EC.
(10) A disclosure of personal data to a data processor established outside the Community is an international transfer protected under Chapter IV of Directive 95/46/EC. Consequently, this Decision does not cover the transfer of personal data by controllers established in the Community to controllers established outside the Community who fall within the scope of Commission Decision 2001/497/EC of 15 June 2001 on standard contractual clauses for the transfer of personal data to third countries, under Directive 95/46/EC(4).
(11) The standard contractual clauses should provide for the technical and organisational security measures ensuring a level of security appropriate to the risks represented by the processing and the nature of the data to be protected that a data processor established in a third country not providing adequate protection must apply. Parties should make provision in the contract for those technical and organisational measures which, having regard to applicable data protection law, the state of the art and the cost of their implementation, are necessary in order to protect personal data against accidental or unlawful destruction or accidental loss, alteration, unauthorised disclosure or access or any other unlawful forms of processing.
(12) In order to facilitate data flows from the Community, it is desirable that processors providing data processing services to several data controllers in the Community be allowed to apply the same technical and organisational security measures irrespective of the Member State from which the data transfer originates, in particular in those cases where the data importer receives data for further processing from different establishments of the data exporter in the Community, in which case the law of the designated Member State of establishment should apply.
(13) It is appropriate to lay down the minimum information that the parties must specify in the contract dealing with the transfer. Member States should retain the power to particularise the information the parties are required to provide. The operation of this Decision should be reviewed in the light of experience.
(14) The data importer should process the transferred personal data only on behalf of the data exporter and in accordance with his instructions and the obligations contained in the clauses. In particular the data importer should not disclose the personal data to a third party unless in accordance with certain conditions. The data exporter should instruct the data importer throughout the duration of the data processing Services to process the data in accordance with his instructions, the applicable data protection laws and the obligations contained in the clauses. The transfer of personal data to processors established outside the Community does not prejudice the fact that the processing activities should be governed in any case by the applicable data protection law.
(15) The standard contractual clauses should be enforceable not only by the organisations which are parties to the contract, but also by the data subjects, in particular where the data subjects suffer damage as a consequence of a breach of the contract.
(16) The data subject should be entitled to take action and, where appropriate, receive compensation from the data exporter who is the data controller of the personal data transferred. Exceptionally, the data subject should also be entitled to take action, and, where appropriate, receive compensation from the data importer in those cases, arising out of a breach by the data importer of any of his obligations referred to in the second paragraph of clause 3, where the data exporter has factually disappeared or has ceased to exist in law or has become insolvent.
(17) In the event of a dispute between a data subject, who invokes the third-party beneficiary clause and the data importer, which is not amicably resolved, the data importer should agree to provide the data subject with the choice between mediation, arbitration or litigation. The extent to which the data subject will have an effective choice should depend on the availability of reliable and recognised systems of mediation and arbitration. Mediation by the data protection supervisory authorities of the Member State in which the data exporter is established should be an option where they provide such a service.
(18) The contract should be governed by the law of the Member State in which the data exporter is established enabling a third-party beneficiary to enforce a contract. Data subjects should be allowed to be represented by associations or other bodies if they so wish and if authorised by national law.
(19) The Working Party on the Protection of Individuals with regard to the processing of Personal Data established under Article 29 of Directive 95/46/EC has delivered an opinion on the level of protection provided under the standard contractual clauses annexed to this Decision, which has been taken into account in the preparation of this Decision(5).
(20) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established under Article 31 of Directive 95/46/EC,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
The standard contractual clauses set out in the Annex are considered as offering adequate safeguards with respect to the protection of the privacy and fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals and as regards the exercise of the corresponding rights as required by Article 26(2) of Directive 95/46/EC.
Article 2
This Decision concerns only the adequacy of protection provided by the standard contractual clauses set out in the Annex for the transfer of personal data to processors. It does not affect the application of other national provisions implementing Directive 95/46/EC that pertain to the processing of personal data within the Member States.
This Decision shall apply to the transfer of personal data by controllers established in the Community to recipients established outside the territory of the Community who act only as processors.
Article 3
For the purposes of this Decision:
(a) the definitions in Directive 95/46/EC shall apply;
(b) "special categories of data" means the data referred to in Article 8 of that Directive;
(c) "supervisory authority" means the authority referred to in Article 28 of that Directive;
(d) "data exporter" means the controller who transfers the personal data;
(e) "data importer" means the processor established in a third country who agrees to receive from the data exporter personal data intended for processing on the data exporter's behalf after the transfer in accordance with his instructions and the terms of this Decision and who is not subject to a third country's system ensuring adequate protection;
(f) "applicable data protection law" means the legislation protecting the fundamental rights and freedoms of natural persons and, in particular, their right to privacy with respect to the processing of personal data applicable to a data controller in the Member State in which the data exporter is established;
(g) "technical and organisational security measures" means those measures aimed at protecting personal data against accidental or unlawful destruction or accidental loss, alteration, unauthorised disclosure or access, in particular where the processing involves the transmission of data over a network, and against all other unlawful forms of processing.
Article 4
1. Without prejudice to their powers to take action to ensure compliance with national provisions adopted pursuant to Chapters II, III, V and VI of Directive 95/46/EC, the competent authorities in the Member States may exercise their existing powers to prohibit or suspend data flows to third countries in order to protect individuals with regard to the processing of their personal data in cases where:
(a) it is established that the law to which the data importer is subject imposes upon him requirements to derogate from the applicable data protection law which go beyond the restrictions necessary in a democratic society as provided for in Article 13 of Directive 95/46/EC where those requirements are likely to have a substantial adverse effect on the guarantees provided by the applicable data protection law and the standard contractual clauses; or
(b) a competent authority has established that the data importer has not respected the contractual clauses in the Annex; or
(c) there is a substantial likelihood that the standard contractual clauses in the Annex are not being or will not be complied with and the continuing transfer would create an imminent risk of grave harm to the data subjects.
2. The prohibition or suspension pursuant to paragraph 1 shall be lifted as soon as the reasons for the suspension or prohibition no longer exist.
3. When Member States adopt measures pursuant to paragraphs 1 and 2, they shall, without delay, inform the Commission which will forward the information to the other Member States.
Article 5
The Commission shall evaluate the operation of this Decision on the basis of available information three years after its notification to the Member States. It shall submit a report on the findings to the Committee established under Article 31 of Directive 95/46/EC. It shall include any evidence that could affect the evaluation concerning the adequacy of the standard contractual clauses in the Annex and any evidence that this Decision is being applied in a discriminatory way.
Article 6
This Decision shall apply from 3 April 2002.
Article 7
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 27 December 2001. | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 1871/80 of 15 July 1980 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1418/76 on the common organization of the market in rice
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Article 43 thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,
Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (1),
Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee (2),
Whereas the trend of production and prices for rice in the Community and also the implementation of agreements resulting from multilateral trade negotiations are leading to an alignment of prices for round grain rice and long grain rice ; whereas, under such a single system of prices, certain provisions of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1418/76 of 21 June 1976 on the common organization of the market in rice (3), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 113/80 (4), should be adapted;
Whereas Article 9 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1418/76 specified that, for certain uses, the production refund would be granted for the 1979/80 marketing year only ; whereas this provision should be adapted to take into account the continuation of the production refund,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Regulation (EEC) No 1418/76 is hereby amended as follows: 1. Article 3 (2) is replaced by the following:
"2. Each of these prices shall be fixed for a standard quality."
2. Article 5 (2) is replaced by the following:
"2. The intervention agencies shall buy in at the intervention price prevailing for the intervention centre at which the paddy rice is offered, under the conditions laid down pursuant to paragraphs 4 and 5.
If the quality of the paddy rice offered differs from the standard quality for which the intervention price has been fixed, the intervention price shall be adjusted by applying price increases or reductions representing the differences in quality not attributable to the variety classification of the product."
3. The second indent of Article 5 (5) is deleted.
4. Article 9 (1) is replaced by the following:
"1. A production refund may be granted for broken rice used in the Community: (a) in the manufacture of starch;
(b) by the brewing industry in the production of beer."
5. Article 14 is replaced by the following:
"Article 14
1. There shall be fixed for the Community each year before 1 May for the following marketing year: - a threshold price for husked rice,
- a threshold price for round-grain wholly milled rice,
- a threshold price for long-grain wholly milled rice.
2. The threshold price for husked rice shall be fixed in such a way that, on the Duisburg market, the selling price of the imported product stands, after allowance for differences in quality, at the level of the target price. This threshold price shall be subject to monthly increases fixed for the target price in accordance with Article 7.
It shall be calculated for Rotterdam for the same standard quality as is the target price, with the target price being reduced: - by an element representing the cost of transport between Rotterdam and Duisburg, arrived at in accordance with the criteria laid down in the third and fourth subparagraphs of Article 4 (3), and
- by an element representing the trading margin and the transhipment costs at Rotterdam.
3. The threshold prices for wholly milled rice shall be calculated by adjusting the threshold price for husked rice according to the conversion rates, manufacturing costs and the value of by-products (1)OJ No C 97, 21.4.1980, p. 33. (2)OJ No C 182, 21.7.1980, p. 34. (3)OJ No L 166, 25.6.1976, p. 1. (4)OJ No L 16, 22.1.1980, p. 1. and by increasing the amounts thus obtained by an amount for the protection of the industry.
They shall be calculated for Rotterdam for the same quality as is the threshold price for husked rice.
4. The Council, acting by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission, shall fix the amount for protection referred to in paragraph 3.
5. The threshold price for husked rice and the threshold prices for long-grain and round-grain wholly milled rice shall be fixed in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 27."
6. Article 16 (2) is replaced by the following text:
"2. The cif prices shall be calculated for goods in bulk, on the basis of the most favourable purchasing opportunities on the world market arrived at, in respect of each of the types of rice referred to in paragraph 1, on the basis of the quotations or prices on that market, adjusted according to any differences in quality as compared with the standard quality and, where appropriate, according to the conversion rate, manufacturing costs and the value of by-products."
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
It shall apply from 1 September 1980.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 15 July 1980. | [
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1296/2001
of 28 June 2001
fixing the export refunds on cereals and on wheat or rye flour, groats and meal
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 of 30 June 1992 on the common organisation of the market in cereals(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1666/2000(2), and in particular Article 13(2) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Article 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 provides that the difference between quotations or prices on the world market for the products listed in Article 1 of that Regulation and prices for those products in the Community may be covered by an export refund.
(2) The refunds must be fixed taking into account the factors referred to in Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 of 29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules under Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 on the granting of export refunds on cereals and the measures to be taken in the event of disturbance on the market for cereals(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 602/2001(4).
(3) As far as wheat and rye flour, groats and meal are concerned, when the refund on these products is being calculated, account must be taken of the quantities of cereals required for their manufacture. These quantities were fixed in Regulation (EC) No 1501/95.
(4) The world market situation or the specific requirements of certain markets may make it necessary to vary the refund for certain products according to destination.
(5) The refund must be fixed once a month. It may be altered in the intervening period.
(6) It follows from applying the detailed rules set out above to the present situation on the market in cereals, and in particular to quotations or prices for these products within the Community and on the world market, that the refunds should be as set out in the Annex hereto.
(7) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The export refunds on the products listed in Article 1(a), (b) and (c) of Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92, excluding malt, exported in the natural state, shall be as set out in the Annex hereto.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 July 2001.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 28 June 2001. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 126/2003
of 23 January 2003
fixing the maximum reduction in the duty on maize imported in connection with the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 60/2003
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 of 30 June 1992 on the common organisation of the market in cereals(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1666/2000(2), and in particular Article 12(1) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) An invitation to tender for the maximum reduction in the duty on maize imported into Portugal from third countries was opened pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 60/2003(3).
(2) Pursuant to Article 5 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1839/95(4), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2235/2000(5), the Commission, acting under the procedure laid down in Article 23 of Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92, may decide to fix maximum reduction in the import duty. In fixing this maximum the criteria provided for in Articles 6 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1839/95 must be taken into account. A contract is awarded to any tenderer whose tender is equal to or less than the maximum reduction in the duty.
(3) The application of the abovementioned criteria to the current market situation for the cereal in question results in the maximum reduction in the import duty 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
For tenders notified from 17 to 23 January 2003, pursuant to the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 60/2003, the maximum reduction in the duty on maize imported shall be 33,90 EUR/t and be valid for a total maximum quantity of 42000 t.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 24 January 2003.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 23 January 2003. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1645/98 of 27 July 1998 increasing the volume of the tariff quota for imports of bananas provided for in Article 18 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 for 1998 (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 organisation of the market in bananas (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 3290/94 (2), and in particular Articles 18(1) and 30 thereof,
Whereas Article 18(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 provides that, where Community demand is determined on the basis of the supply balance referred to in Article 16 increases, the volume of the quota is to be increased in consequence;
Whereas, by Regulation (EC) No 1502/98 (3), the Commission established the forecast balance for production and consumption in the Community and for imports and exports; whereas that balance indicates an increase in Community demand in particular as a result of the accession to the Community of Austria, Finland and Sweden;
Whereas, in order to meet the demand on the Community market, the tariff quota for 1998 should be increased on the basis of the forecast balance;
Whereas the Court of Justice, in its ruling dated 26 November 1996 in case C 68/95, rightly stated that 'Article 30 of Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 authorizes and, depending on the circumstances, requires the Commission to lay down rules catering for cases of hardship arising from the fact that importers of third-country bananas or non-traditional ACP bananas meet difficulties threatening their existence when an exceptionally low quota has been allocated to them on the basis of the reference years to be taken into consideration under Article 19(2) of that Regulation, where those difficulties are inherent in the transition from the national arrangements existing before the entry into force of the Regulation to the common organisation of the market and are not caused by a lack of care on the part of the traders concerned`;
Whereas, as a result of that ruling, a number of traders submitted to the Commission applications for additional allocations claiming cases of hardship; whereas, in order to accede during 1998 to applications which appear justified in the light of the principles handed down by the Court of Justice, a special reserve should be created within the tariff quota;
Whereas the Management Committee for Bananas has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its chairman,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The tariff quota for imports of third-country and non-traditional ACP bananas provided for in Articles 18 and 19 of Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 shall be 2 553 000 tonnes for 1998.
Within that tariff quota, a maximum quantity of 16 500 tonnes shall be reserved to allow the adoption of special measures pursuant to Article 30 of that Regulation with a view to settling cases of hardship encountered by certain traders, following the entry into force of the common organisation of the market in bananas. That quantity shall not be taken into account for the allocation of import licences to operators in categories A, B and C pursuant to Article 19(1) and (2) of that Regulation.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 27 July 1998. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
*****
COMMISSION DECISION
of 13 February 1985
authorizing the United Kingdom to apply intra-Community surveillance to imports of tableware and other articles of a kind commonly used for domestic or toilet purposes, of porcelain or china, of stoneware, of earthenware or fine pottery originating in the People's Republic of China, which have been put into free circulation in the Community
(Only the English text is authentic)
(85/168/EEC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN
COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular the first paragraph of Article 115 thereof,
Having regard to Commission Decision 80/47/EEC of 20 December 1979 on surveillance and protective measures which Member States may be authorized to take in respect of imports of certain products originating in third countries and put into free circulation in another Member State (1), and in particular Articles 1 and 2 thereof,
Whereas Decision 80/47/EEC requires Member States to have prior authorization from the Commission before introducing intra-Community surveillance of the imports of certain products originating in third countries and put into free circulation in another Member State;
Whereas by Decision 83/326/EEC (2) and other relevant Decisions the Commission authorized certain Member States to introduce intra-Community surveillance of certain imports until 30 June 1985;
Whereas a further request was made under Article 2 of Decision 80/47/EEC by the United Kingdom Governments to the Commission of the European Communities for authorization to apply intra-Community surveillance to imports of tableware and other articles of a kind commonly used for domestic or toilet purposes, of porcelain or china, of stoneware, of earthenware or fine pottery and of other kinds of pottery, falling within heading Nos 69.11 and ex 69.12 of the Common Customs Tariff, originating in the People's Republic of China and in free circulation in the other Member States;
Whereas the information given by the British authorities in support of this application has been subjected to close examination by the Commission, in accordance with the criteria laid down by Decisions 80/47/EEC and 83/326/EEC;
Whereas the Commission examined in particular whether the imports could be made subject to intra-Community surveillance measures under Article 2 of Decision 80/47/EEC, whether information was given as regards the economic difficulties alleged, whether during the reference years set out in Decision 80/47/EEC there had been deflection of trade and whether intra-Community licence applications had been submitted;
Whereas this examination has shown that there is a risk that the imports set out in the Annex hereto are worsening or prolonging the existing economic difficulties; whereas, therefore, the United Kingdom Government should be authorized to make these imports to intra-Community surveillance until 30 June 1985,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
The United Kingdom is authorized to introduce, until 30 June 1985 and in accordance with Decision 80/47/EEC, intra-Community surveillance of the products set out in the Annex hereto.
Article 2
This Decision is addressed to the United Kingdom.
Done at Brussels, 13 February 1985. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COUNCIL DECISION of 16 November 1992 extending the status of Kernkraftwerk Lingen GmbH as a joint undertaking (92/547/Euratom)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 49 thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,
Whereas the Council, by Decision 64/64/Euratom(1) , established Kernkraftwerk Lingen GmbH as a joint undertaking within the meaning of the Treaty for a period of 25 years;
Whereas Decision 64/64/Euratom expired on 20 November 1989;
Whereas the objects of Kernkraftwerk Lingen GmbH, as established by the said Decision, were to construct, equip and operate a nuclear power station with a capacity of the order of 250 MWe at Darme, Kreis Lingen, Land Lower Saxony, Germany;
Whereas, on 24 August 1981, Kernfraftwerk Lingen GmbH decided on technical and economic grounds to decommission the nuclear power station which has been shut down since Januar 1977;
Whereas Kernkraftwerk Lingen Gmbh, having put into effect a decommissioning procedure up to the safe-enclosure stage, is proposing to implement a monitoring and study programme concerning the behaviour of decommissioned installations over the period for which nuclear installations have to be kept within a safe enclosure;
Whereas, in order to put this programme in hand, Kernkraftwerk Lingen GmbH requested on 4 July 1989 that its status as a joint undertaking be extended for a period of 10 years;
Whereas the experience acquired under the programme of Kernraftwerk Lingen GmbH will be of great use to nuclear power-station operators and will assume special importance in the development of an optimum strategy for the decommissioning of nuclear power stations and hence in the development of nuclear energy in general;
Whereas maintaining its status as a joint undertaking will enable Kernkraftwerk Lingen GmbH to implement the proposed programme, in particular by lightening its financial burden;
Whereas the request for an extension should be granted,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
The status of Kernkraftwerk Lingen GmbH as a joint undertaking within the meaning of the Treaty is hereby extended for a period of ten years from 20 November 1989.
The object of Kernkraftwerk Lingen GmbH, its status as a joint undertaking having been extended by this Decision, shall be to implement a monitoring and study programme concerning the behaviour of the decommissioned nuclear power station at Lingen, Land Lower Saxony, Germany over the period for which nuclear installations have to be kept within a safe enclosure.
Artikel 2 The statutes of Kernkraftwerk Lingen GmbH appended to this Decision are hereby approved.
Article 3
If the advantages conferred on Kernkraftwerk Lingen GmbH by a special Council Decision pursuant to Annex III to the Treaty are completely withdrawn before the expiry of the period referred to in Article 1, the Council shall at the same time withdraw the status of Joint Undertaking from Kernkraftwerk Lingen GmbH.
Article 4
This Decision is addressed to the Member States and to Kernkraftwerk Lingen GmbH.
Done at Brussels, 16 November 1992. | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2009/10/EC
of 13 February 2009
amending Directive 2008/84/EC laying down specific purity criteria on food additives other than colours and sweeteners
(Text with EEA relevance)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Directive 89/107/EEC of 21 December 1988 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States concerning food additives authorised for use in foodstuffs intended for human consumption (1), and in particular Article 3(3)(a) thereof,
After consulting the Scientific Committee on Food (SCF) and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA),
Whereas:
(1)
Commission Directive 2008/84/EC of 27 August 2008 laying down specific purity criteria on food additives other than colours and sweeteners (2) sets out the purity criteria for the additives mentioned in European Parliament and Council Directive 95/2/EC of 20 February 1995 on food additives other than colours and sweeteners (3).
(2)
The European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter EFSA) concluded in its opinion of 20 October 2006 (4) that nisin produced through a modified production process using a sugar-based medium is equivalent with respect to health protection to the one produced by the original milk-based medium process. On the basis of that opinion, the existing specifications for E234 nisin should be amended in order to adapt the definition and the purity criteria set out for that additive.
(3)
Formaldehyde is used as a preservative during the manufacture of alginic acid, alginate salts and esters of alginic acid. It has been reported that residual formaldehyde, up to 50 mg/kg, may be present in the final gelling additives. At the request of the Commission, EFSA assessed the safety in use of formaldehyde as a preservative during the manufacture and preparation of food additives (5). EFSA in its opinion of 30 November 2006 concluded that the estimated exposure to gelling additives containing residual formaldehyde at the level of 50 mg/kg of additive would be of no safety concern. Therefore the existing purity criteria for E400 alginic acid, E401 sodium alginate, E402 potassium alginate, E403 ammonium alginate, E404 calcium alginate, and E405 propane-1,2-diol alginate should be amended in such a way that the maximum level of formaldehyde is set at 50 mg/kg.
(4)
Formaldehyde is not currently used in the processing of seaweeds for the production of E407 carrageenan and E407a processed eucheuma seaweed. However, it may be naturally occurring in marine algae and be consequently present as an impurity in the finished product. It is therefore appropriate to fix a maximum level of adventitious presence of the above substance in those food additives.
(5)
Guar gum is authorised as a food additive for use in foodstuffs by Directive 95/2/EC. In particular, it is used as thickener, emulsifier, and stabiliser. A request to use a partially depolymerised guar gum as a food additive, produced from native guar gum by one of the three manufacturing processes consisting of heat treatment, acid hydrolysis or alkaline oxidation, was submitted to the Commission. EFSA assessed the safety in use of that additive and, in its opinion of 4 July 2007 (6), estimated that partially depolymerised guar gum has been shown to be very similar to native guar gum with respect to the composition of the final product. It also concluded that partially depolymerised guar gum is of no safety concern for its use as thickener, emulsifier or stabiliser. However, in the same opinion, EFSA recommended that the specifications for E412 guar gum should be adjusted to take into account the increased level of salts and the possible presence of undesirable by-products that may result from the manufacturing process. On the basis of the recommendations issued by EFSA, the specifications of guar gum should be amended.
(6)
It is necessary to adopt specifications for E504(i) magnesium carbonate authorised as a food additive for use in foodstuffs through Directive 95/2/EC.
(7)
On the basis of data provided by the European Lime Association, it appears that the manufacturing of lime products from available raw materials does not permit them to comply with the existing purity criteria set for E526 calcium hydroxide and E529 calcium oxide, as regards the level of magnesium and alkali salts. Taking into account that magnesium salts are of no safety concern and the specifications as set out in the Codex Alimentarius as drafted by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (hereafter JECFA), it is appropriate to adjust the levels of magnesium and alkali salts for E526 calcium hydroxide and E529 calcium oxide to the lowest achievable values, which remain lower or equal to the levels set by JECFA.
(8)
In addition, it is necessary to take into account the specifications as set out in the Codex Alimentarius drafted by JECFA with regard to the level of lead for E526 calcium hydroxide and E529 calcium oxide. However, due to the natural high background of lead contained in the raw material (calcium carbonate) extracted in some Member States, and from which those additives are derived, it appears difficult to align the level of lead contained in those food additives with the upper limit of lead set by JECFA. Therefore the current level of lead should be reduced to the lowest achievable threshold.
(9)
E 901 beeswax is authorised as a food additive in Directive 95/2/EC. EFSA in its opinion of 27 November 2007 (7) confirmed the safety in use of this food additive. However, it also indicated that the presence of lead should be restricted to the lowest possible level. Taking into account the revised specifications for beeswax as set out in the Codex Alimentarius as drafted by JECFA, it is appropriate to amend the existing purity criteria for E901 beeswax in order to lower the maximum permitted level of lead.
(10)
Highly refined waxes deriving from synthetic hydrocarbon feedstock (synthetic waxes) and from petroleum based feedstock were jointly evaluated by the Scientific Committee on Food (hereinafter SCF) (8) and an opinion on mineral and synthetic hydrocarbons was issued on 22 September 1995. The SCF considered that sufficient data had been provided to allocate a full group ADI (acceptable daily intake), covering both types of waxes, i.e. waxes deriving from petroleum based or synthetic hydrocarbon feed stocks. When purity criteria for E905 microcrystalline wax were established, the synthetic hydrocarbon waxes were omitted and not included in the specifications. The Commission considers it therefore necessary to amend the purity criteria for E905 microcrystalline wax in order to also cover waxes derived from synthetic hydrocarbon feedstocks.
(11)
E230 (biphenyl) and E233 (thiabendazole) are no longer permitted as food additives in the EU legislation. These substances have been removed respectively by Directive 2003/114/EC and Directive 98/72/EC. Consequently, the Annex I to Directive 2008/84/EC should be updated accordingly and the specifications to E230 and E233 should be withdrawn.
(12)
It is necessary to take into account the specifications and analytical techniques for additives as set out in the Codex Alimentarius drafted by the JECFA. In particular where appropriate, the specific purity criteria need to be adapted to reflect the limits for individual heavy metals of interest.
(13)
Directive 2008/84/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.
(14)
The measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:
Article 1
The Annex I to Directive 2008/84/EC is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Directive.
Article 2
1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 13 February 2010 at the latest. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions.
When Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.
2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.
Article 3
This Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Article 4
This Directive is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 13 February 2009. | [
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION
of 7 September 2007
amending Decision 2001/618/EC to include Slovakia in the list of regions free of Aujeszky’s disease and regions of Spain in the list of regions where approved Aujeszky's disease control programmes are in place
(notified under document number C(2007) 4108)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2007/603/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Directive 64/432/EEC of 26 June 1964 on animal health problems affecting intra-Community trade in bovine animals and swine (1), and in particular Articles 9(2) and 10(2) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
Directive 64/432/EEC lays down rules applicable to intra-Community trade in certain animals. Article 9 of that Directive provides for compulsory national programmes for certain contagious disease, including Aujeszky's disease, to be submitted to the Commission for approval. In addition, Article 10 of Directive 64/432/EC provides for Member States to submit documentation to the Commission concerning the status of those diseases in their territory.
(2)
Commission Decision 2001/618/EC of 23 July 2001 on additional guarantees in intra-Community trade of pigs relating to Aujeszky’s disease, criteria to provide information on this disease and repealing Decisions 93/24/EEC and 93/244/EEC (2) contains a list of Member States or regions thereof free of Aujeszky's disease and where vaccination is prohibited in Annex I thereto. Annex II to Decision 2001/618/EC contains a list of Member States or regions thereof where disease control programme for that disease are in place.
(3)
A programme for the eradication of Aujeszky’s disease has been implemented in Slovakia for several years.
(4)
Slovakia has submitted supporting documentation to the Commission as regards the Aujeszky's disease-free status of the territory of Slovakia demonstrating that the disease has been eradicated from that Member State.
(5)
The Commission has examined the documentation submitted by Slovakia and found it to comply with Article 10(1) of Directive 64/432/EEC. Accordingly, that Member State should be included in the list in Annex I to Decision 2001/618/EC.
(6)
A programme for the eradication of Aujeszky's disease has been implemented in Spain for several years.
(7)
Spain has now submitted supporting documentation to the Commission as regards the programme in place in the Autonomous Communities of Galicia, País Vasco, Asturias, Cantabria, Navarra, La Rioja, and the provinces of León, Zamora, Palencia, Burgos, Valladolid and Ávila in the Autonomous Community of Castilla y León and the province of Las Palmas in the Canary Islands and requested the approval of this programme.
(8)
The Commission has examined the submitted documentation by Spain and found it to comply with the criteria laid down in Article 9(1) of Directive 64/432/EEC.
(9)
Accordingly, the list in Annex II to Decision 2001/618/EC should be amended to include those regions of Spain.
(10)
Decision 2001/618/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.
(11)
The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
Annexes I and II to Decision 2001/618/EC are replaced by the text in the Annex to this Decision.
Article 2
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 7 September 2007. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 817/2005
of 27 May 2005
fixing the minimum selling price for skimmed-milk powder for the 19th individual invitation to tender issued under the standing invitation to tender referred to in Regulation (EC) No 214/2001
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products (1), and in particular Article 10(c) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
Pursuant to Article 21 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 214/2001 of 12 January 2001 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 as regards intervention on the market in skimmed milk (2), intervention agencies have put up for sale by standing invitation to tender certain quantities of skimmed-milk powder held by them.
(2)
In the light of the tenders received in response to each individual invitation to tender a minimum selling price shall be fixed or a decision shall be taken to make no award, in accordance with Article 24a of Regulation (EC) No 214/2001.
(3)
In the light of the tenders received, a minimum selling price should be fixed.
(4)
The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Milk and Milk Products,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
For the 19th individual invitation to tender pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 214/2001, in respect of which the time limit for the submission of tenders expired on 24 May 2005, the minimum selling price for skimmed milk is fixed at 196,24 EUR/100 kg.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 28 May 2005.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 27 May 2005. | [
0,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 1968/93 of 19 July 1993 opening and providing for the administration of tariff quotas in respect of certain EEC steel products originating in the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic imported into the Community (1 June 1993 to 31 December 1995)
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 Interim Agreement on trade and trade-related matters between the European Economic Community and the European Coal and Steel Community, of the one part, and the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic, of the other part (1) ('the Interim Agreement') was signed in Brussels on 16 December 1991;
Whereas certain steel products covered by the Interim Agreement were the subject of safeguard measures in the Community in 1992, pursuant to Commission Recommendation 92/434/ECSC of 14 August 1992 (2) and Commission Decision 92/433/EEC of 14 August 1992 (3);
Whereas, upon the dissolution of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic on 31 December 1992, the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic submitted declarations informing the Community that both the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic continue to assume all the obligations deriving from the Interim Agreement;
Whereas the situation relating to imports of certain steel products from the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic into the Community has been the subject of thorough examination and whereas, on the basis of relevant information supplied to them, the parties agreed that an acceptable solution which least disturbs the functioning of the Interim Agreement is a tariff quota system for the imports of certain steel products into the Community;
Whereas equal and continuous access to the said quotas should be ensured for all Community importers and the rates laid down for the quotas should be applied consistently to all imports of the products in question into all Member States until the quotas are exhausted;
Whereas the decision for the opening, in the execution of its international obligations, of all tariff quotas should be taken by the Community; whereas, to ensure the efficiency of common administration of these quotas, there is no obstacle to authorizing the Member States to draw from the quota-volumes the necessary quantities corresponding to actual imports; whereas, however, this method of administration requires close cooperation between the Member States and the Commission and the latter must, in particular, be able to monitor the rate at which the quotas are used up and inform the Member States accordingly;
Whereas a tariff quota system along the abovementioned lines was established by Decisions No 1/93 (4) and No 1/93 (5) of the Joint Committee acting in accordance with the Interim Agreement for the period 1 June 1993 to 31 December 1995;
Whereas it is necessary to lay down the arrangements for the implementation of this tariff quota system during the said period;
Whereas such arrangements have been laid down for the ECSC products, the subject of the decisions of the Joint Committee, by Commission Decision No 1970/93/ECSC (6),
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
1. From 1 June 1993 to 31 December 1993, and subject to annual review, until 31 December 1995, imports into the Community of the products set out in the following table originating in the Czech Republic shall be subject to the duties applicable under the Interim Agreement and in particular the tariff quotas and other concessions contained in Article 3 (3) of the Interim Agreement and, in addition, to the further rates of duty, in percentage of their customs value, shown in the table.
The duties applicable to imports of these products which are:
- within the limits of the quotas set out in the table, and
- accompanied by both a movement certificate EUR 1 and a licence delivered by the Czech authorities in the form set out in Annex I bearing the words: 'Goods deducted from the relevant tariff quota to the amount of . . . tonnes';
shall be those of the Interim Agreement without the additional duties set out in the table.
/* Tables: see OJ */
Slovak Federal Republic.
3. Products imported in conformity with Community legislation into the Community after outward processing using the system envisaged by Regulation (EEC) No 2473/86 (7) or for the purposes of inward processing using the suspension system envisaged by Regulation (EEC) No 1999/85 (8) shall be subject to the requirements of those systems and shall not otherwise be subject to the duties set out in paragraph 1.
Article 2
1. From 1 June 1993 to 31 December 1993, and, subject to annual review, until 31 December 1995, imports into the Community of the products set out in the following table originating in Slovak Republic shall be subject to the duties applicable under the Interim Agreement and in particular the tariff quotas and other concessions contained in Article 3 (3) of the Interim Agreement, and in addition, to the further rates of duty, in percentage of their customs value, shown in the table.
The duties applicable to imports of these products which are:
- within the limits of the quotas set out in the table; and
- accompanied by both a movement certificate EUR 1 and a licence delivered by the Slovak authorities in the form set out in Annex II bearing the words: 'Goods deducted from the relevant tariff quota to the amount of . . . tonnes'
shall be those of the Interim Agreement without the additional duties set out in the table.
/* Tables: see OJ */
shall apply to the territory of the Slovak Republic and not, as envisaged by the Protocol, to that of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic.
3. Products imported in conformity with Community legislation into the Community after outward processing using the system envisaged by Regulation (EEC) No 2473/86 or for the purposes of inward processing using the suspension system envisaged by Regulation (EEC) No 1999/85 shall be subject to the requirements of those systems and shall not otherwise be subject to the duties set out in paragraph 1.
Article 3
The tariff quotas referred to in Articles 1 and 2 shall be managed by the Commission which may take all appropriate measures in order to ensure effective administration thereof.
Article 4
If an importer presents in a Member State a declaration of entry into free circulation, including a request for benefit under the system of Article 1 (1) second subparagraph of Article 2 (1) second subparagraph for a product covered by this Regulation and if this declaration is accepted by the Customs authorities, the Member State concerned shall inform the Commission and draw an amount corresponding to its requirements from the quota volume.
The drawing requests, with indication of the date of acceptance of the said declarations, must be transmitted to the Commission without delay.
The drawings shall be granted by the Commission by reference to the date of acceptance of the declarations of entry into free circulation by the customs authorities of the Member State concerned to the extent that the available balance so permits.
If a Member State does not use the quantities drawn, it shall return them as soon as possible to the corresponding quota amount.
Article 5
Each Member State shall ensure importers of the products concerned equal and continuous access to the quotas for such time as the residual balance of quota volumes so permits.
Article 6
The Member States and the Commission shall cooperate closely to ensure that this Regulation is complied with.
Article 7
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
It shall apply with effect from 1 June 1993.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 19 July 1993. | [
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1
] |
COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 3557/90 of 4 December 1990 on financial aid for the countries most directly affected by the Gulf crisis
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 Community and its Member States have decided to combine forces in order to mount an operation to give financial aid to the countries most directly affected by the Gulf crisis and, in particular, by strict implementation of the embargo decided on by the United Nations' Security Council;
Whereas the Community must have the means to undertake the said operation;
Whereas the amount of Community financial resources needed to carry out this operation in 1991 has to be estimated and whereas the definitive amounts are adopted by the budgetary authority in keeping with the financial perspectives covering the period 1988 to 1992 attached to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 29 June 1988 (3);
Whereas the breakdown of funds among the three countries most affected will have to be based on an analysis of the injury suffered and take account of the contributions of all donors;
Whereas the carrying out of this operation is such as to contribute to the achievement of Community objectives;
Whereas the Treaty does not provide, for the adoption of this Regulation, powers other than those of Article 235,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The Community shall provide financial aid for Egypt, Jordan and Turkey.
Article 2
The amount necessary for the implementation of the operation referred to in Article 1 is estimated at ECU 500 million - primarily in the form of non-reimbursable aid, the rest in the form of loans - to be charged in full against the 1991 budget.
However, the financial implementation of this Regulation may take place only when the budget for 1991 and the budget estimates have been suitably amended according to the procedure provided for in respect of each of these cases.
Article 3
The aid shall be earmarked in particular to cover the cost of importing capital goods and spare parts and local budgetary expenditure incurred by the beneficiary countries as a result of the Gulf crisis. It shall be provided in instalments.
The general guidelines governing this aid and its breakdown among the beneficiary countries shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 5.
Article 4
The Commission shall ensure that the funds are used in accordance with the aims of this Regulation by the beneficiary countries, which shall be required to provide a programme specifying the use to be made of the funds, and a report on the actual use made thereof afterwards.
The Commission shall ensure that the financial aid is coordinated with that of international financial institutions and other donor countries.
Article 5
1. The Commission shall be assisted by a Committee composed of representatives of the Member States and chaired by a representative of the Commission.
2. The representative of the Commission shall submit to the Committee a draft of the measures to be taken. The Committee shall deliver its opinion on the draft within a time limit which the Chairman may lay down according to the urgency of the matter. The opinion shall be delivered by the majority laid down in Article 148 (2) of the Treaty in the case of decisions which the Council is required to adopt on a proposal from the Commission. The votes of the representatives of the Member States within the Committee shall be weighted in the manner set out in that Article. The Chairman shall not vote.
3. The Commission shall adopt measures which shall apply immediately. However, if these measures are not in accordance with the opinion of the Committee, they shall be communicated by the Commission to the Council forthwith.
In that event, the Commission shall defer application of the measures which it has decided for a period not exceeding two months from the date of communication.
The Council, acting by a qualified majority, may take a different decision within the time limit referred to in the previous subparagraph.
Article 6
The Commission shall present a report to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation of the aid operations carried out under this Regulation by 28 February 1992.
Article 7
This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 4 December 1990. | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 629/2004
of 2 April 2004
fixing the maximum export refund on wholly milled round grain rice to certain third countries in connection with the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 1875/2003
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 3072/95 of 22 December 1995 on the common organisation of the market in rice(1), 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 1875/2003(2).
(2) Article 5 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 584/75(3) 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 round grain rice to be exported to certain third countries pursuant to the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 1875/2003 is hereby fixed on the basis of the tenders submitted from 29 March to 1 April 2004 at 83,00 EUR/t.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 3 April 2004.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 2 April 2004. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1089/2001
of 1 June 2001
fixing the export refunds on beef and veal
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal(1), and in particular Article 33(12) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Article 33 of Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 provides that the difference between prices on the world market for the products listed in Article 1 of that Regulation and prices for those products within the Community may be covered by an export refund.
(2) Regulation (EEC) No 32/82(2), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 744/2000(3), Regulation (EEC) No 1964/82(4), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2772/2000(5), and Regulation (EEC) No 2388/84(6), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3661/92(7), lay down the conditions for granting special export refunds on certain cuts of beef and veal and certain preserved beef and veal products.
(3) It follows from applying those rules and criteria to the foreseeable situation on the market in beef and veal that the refund should be as set out below.
(4) Given the current market situation in the Community and the possibilities of disposal in certain third countries in particular, export refunds should be granted, on the one hand, on bovine animals intended for slaughter of a live weight greater than 220 kilograms and less than 300 kilograms, and, on the other on adult bovine animals of a live weight of at least 300 kilograms.
(5) Export refunds should be granted for certain destinations on some fresh or chilled meat listed in the Annex under CN code 0201, on some frozen meat listed in the Annex under CN code 0202, on some meat or offal listed in the Annex under CN code 0206 and on some other prepared or preserved meat or offal listed in the Annex under CN code 1602 50 10.
(6) In view of the wide differences in products covered by CN codes 0201 20 90 97/00 and 0202 20 90 91/00 used for refund purposes, refunds should only be granted on cuts in which the weight of bone does not exceed one third.
(7) In the case of meat of bovine animals, boned or boneless, salted and dried, there are traditional trade flows to Switzerland. To allow this trade to continue, the refund should be set to cover the difference between prices on the Swiss market and export prices in the Member States.
(8) In the case of certain other cuts and preserves of meat or offal shown in the Annex under CN codes 1602 50 31 to 1602 50 80, the Community share of international trade may be maintained by granting a refund corresponding to that at present available.
(9) In the case of other beef and veal products, a refund need not be fixed since the Community's share of world trade is not significant.
(10) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3846/87(8), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2849/2000(9), establishes the agricultural product nomenclature for the purposes of export refunds.
(11) In order to simplify customs export formalities for operators, the refunds on all frozen cuts should be brought into line with those on fresh or chilled cuts other than those from adult male bovine animals.
(12) Checks on products covered by CN code 1602 50 should be stepped up by making the granting of refunds on these products conditional on manufacture under the arrangements provided for in Article 4 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 565/80 of 4 March 1980 on the advance payment of export refunds in respect of agricultural products(10), as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 2026/83(11).
(13) Refunds on female animals should vary depending on their age in order to prevent abuses in the export of certain pure-bred breeding animals.
(14) Opportunities exist for the export to certain third countries of heifers other than those intended for slaughter, but to prevent any abuse control criteria should be laid down to ensure that these animals are not more than 36 months old.
(15) Under Article 6(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1964/82, the special refund is to be reduced if the quantity of boned meat to be exported amounts to less than 95 %, but not less than 85 %, of the total weight of cuts produced by boning.
(16) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Beef and Veal,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
1. The list of products on which export refunds as referred to in Article 33 of Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 are granted and the amount thereof and the destinations shall be as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.
2. The products must meet the relevant health marking requirements of:
- Chapter XI of Annex I to Council Directive 64/433/EEC(12),
- Chapter VI of Annex I to Council Directive 94/65/EC(13),
- Chapter VI of Annex B to Council Directive 77/99/EEC(14).
Article 2
The grant of the refund for product code 0102 90 59 90/00 of the nomenclature for export refunds and for exports to the third country 075 listed in the Annex to this Regulation shall be subject to presentation, when the customs formalities for export are completed, of the original and one copy of the veterinary certificate signed by an official veterinarian certifying that these are heifers of an age of not more than 36 months. The original of the certificate shall be returned to the exporter and the copy, certified as being in accordance with the regulations by the customs authorities, shall be attached to the application for payment of the refund.
Article 3
In the case referred to in the third subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1964/82 the rate of the refund on products falling within CN code 0201 30 00 91/00 shall be reduced by EUR 14,00/100 kg.
Article 4
This Regulation shall enter into force on 5 June 2001.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 1 June 2001. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
*****
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 1075/89
of 26 April 1989
amending Regulation (EEC) No 1633/84 laying down detailed rules for applying the variable slaughter premium for sheep
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1837/80 of 27 June 1980 on the common organization of the market in sheepmeat and goatmeat (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1115/88 (2), and in particular Article 9 (4) thereof,
Whereas Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1633/84 of 8 June 1984 laying down detailed rules for applying the variable slaugther premium for sheep (3), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3939/87 (4), establishes the quality standards and weight limits subject to which the premium is payable; whereas, in view of changing production techniques in the United Kingdom, the maximum weight for which the premium may be granted should be reduced from 26,5 to 21 kilograms;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sheep and Goats,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
In Article 1 (1) (b) of Regulation (EEC) No 1633/84, the maximum weight of 26,5 kilograms is replaced by 21 kilograms.
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 the Monday 2 October 1989.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 26 April 1989. | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 709/98 of 30 March 1998 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1686/72 on certain detailed rules for aid for seed as regards checking procedures and laying down rules for application of the stabiliser mechanism for rice seed production
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2358/71 of 26 October 1971 on the common organisation of the market in seeds (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 192/98 (2), and in particular Articles 3(5) and 11 thereof,
Whereas Council Regulation (EEC) No 1674/72 (3), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3795/85 (4), lays down general rules for granting and financing aid for seed;
Whereas Article 3(4a) of Regulation (EEC) No 2358/71 establishes a stabiliser mechanism for rice seed production; whereas this involves setting a maximum quantity on which the Community seed aid may be granted that is consistent with potential seed sales given the existence of the base area set in Article 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 3072/95 of 22 December 1995 on the common organisation of the market in rice (5), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 192/98;
Whereas for determining agronomic yields for rice seed production in the various Member States it is appropriate to use the same period as that considered representative for the purposes of Regulation (EC) No 3072/95; whereas, accordingly, the three-year average that is obtained when for the period 1990/91 to 1994/95 the year with the highest and the year with the lowest yield are eliminated has been used;
Whereas the seed harvested in one marketing year is normally used to sow paddy rice and rice seed production areas in the next marketing year; whereas in the period considered as representative the quantity of seed used in the Community to sow one hectare was 0,2 tonnes, i.e. to sow the base area of 433 123 hectares set in Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 3072/95, 86 624,600 tonnes of seed were needed;
Whereas the maximum quantity on which rice seed aid can be granted in the Community must be split up by producer Member State on the basis of production in the Member States in the same representative period; whereas, in order to allow for annual variation in yield, provision should be made for adjustment of the maximum aidable quantity in individual Member States provided that the overall quantity for the Community is not exceeded;
Whereas operation of the stabiliser mechanism will require that a time limit be set for lodging of aid applications for rice seed and for notification by the Member States to the Commission of the quantities covered by these so that any percentage reduction applicable in the Member State can be calculated;
Whereas payment of the aid for rice seed must be subsequent to determination by the Commission of any percentage reduction applicable;
Whereas compliance with the provisions governing Community aids must be adequately checked; whereas to this end detailed criteria and technical rules covering administrative and on-the-spot checks are required; whereas as regards the latter previous experience indicates that it is desirable, in addition to specifying minimum volumes of checks to be carried out, to require the use of risk analysis and to specify the criteria to be used in it;
Whereas experience also indicates the need to adopt suitably graded provisions, that also allow for cases of force majeure, to prevent and punish irregularity and fraud; whereas graded penalties in line with the gravity of the irregularity should be set that extend to total exclusion from aid for the year in question and the following year;
Whereas arrangements are required to guarantee that only legitimate aid payments are made and to reduce the aid when applications are lodged late; whereas these should be modelled on the integrated administration and control system specified in Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 of 27 November 1992 establishing an integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes (6), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 820/97 (7), and in Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 of 23 December 1992 laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes (8), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2015/95 (9);
Whereas the Management Committee for Seeds has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its chairman,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1686/72 (10) is hereby amended as follows:
1. the following Article 1a is added:
'Article 1a
For the purposes of this Regulation "marketing" shall mean holding available or in stock, displaying for sale, offering for sale, sale or delivery to another person.`;
2. the following Article 2a is added:
'Article 2a
1. Aid shall be granted only on condition that the seed has in fact been marketed by the recipient for sowing by the date the request is submitted. He must prove this to the satisfaction of the Member State.
2. Member States shall make unannounced checks to verify the first destination of seed on which aid has been given and on compliance with the aid conditions and shall notify to the Commission action taken following such checks.`;
3. Article 3 is replaced by the following:
'Article 3
1. Except for rice seed, the aid shall be granted to the seed grower on application to be lodged after the harvest and before a date set by the Member State for each species or variety group.
2. Except for rice seed, the Member State shall pay the aid to the seed grower within two months of lodging of the application and at the latest by 31 July of the year following that of harvest.`;
4. the following Articles 3a, 3b and 3c are added:
'Article 3a
1. For rice seed a maximum quantity of 86 624,600 tonnes per year is set on which aid may be granted in the Community. It is allocated to producer Member States as follows:
TABLE
The quantity per Member State may be adjusted within the maximum quantity set for the Community, on the terms set in paragraph 3.
2. Subject to Article 2a, aid on rice seed shall be granted to producers, within the maximum limit set for the Community, on application to be lodged after the harvest but before 20 June of the following year. By 15 July of the year following the harvest producer Member States shall notify to the Commission the quantities for which aid applications were made.
3. If the sum total of the quantities for which aid is applied for in producer Member States exceeds the maximum quantity set for the Community the aid shall be reduced in each Member State in proportion to the overrun of its national quantity. The Commission shall set the reduction percentages applicable.
4. The Member State shall pay the aid to the producer between 31 July and 30 September of the year following that of harvest.
Article 3b
1. The checks referred to in Article 2a(2) shall comprise:
(a) administrative checks, notably cross-checks to prevent aid being paid twice for the same calendar year. These cross-checks shall cover plots subjected to official examination that have been found to comply with the requirements set by the directives indicated in the first indent of Article 1(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1674/72;
(b) checks on documents to verify at least the first destination of seed on which aid has been granted;
(c) any other checks that the Member State deems necessary in order to guarantee that aid is not paid on uncertified seed or seed from third countries.
Checks shall cover a significant sample of applications and at least 5 % of applications for each species. The applications to be checked shall be determined by the competent authority on the basis of risk analysis plus an element of representativeness of the applications made. Risk analysis shall take account of:
- the aid amount,
- the quantity of certified seed in relation to the area checked,
- change from the previous year,
- other parameters to be defined by the Member State.
2. Where appropriate, Member States shall make checks at the premises of breeders, other seed establishments and end users.
3. The following Articles of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 (*) shall apply:
- Article 6(1) (verification of compliance with terms on which aid is granted),
- Article 11 (additional national penalties; force majeure),
- Article 12 (inspection visit report),
- Article 13 (check on the spot),
- Article 14 (undue payment).
Article 3c
1. Except in cases of force majeure late lodging of an application shall give rise to a 1 % reduction per day of the aid to which the seed producer would otherwise have been entitled. Applications shall be invalid if lodged, in the case of rice seed, after 30th June of the year following that of harvest and, in the case of other species or variety groups, after the 10th day following the time limit set by the Member State.
2. If it is found that seed covered by an application was not in fact marketed by the applicant for sowing, the aid to the producer for the species concerned shall be reduced by 50 % if the quantity not marketed for sowing amounts to more than 2 % but not more than 5 % of the quantity covered by the application. If the quantity not marketed exceeds 5 % no seed production aid shall be granted to the producer for the marketing year in question.
3. If an aid application is made for seed not officially certified or not harvested within the Member State in question during the calendar year in which the marketing year for which the aid has been set begins, no seed production aid shall be granted to the producer for that or the following marketing year.
(*) OJ L 391, 31. 12. 1992, p. 36.`
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
It shall apply from the 1998/99 marketing year.
Requests for aid relating to contracts or seed production declarations registered prior to the 1998/99 campaign are not subject to the checks listed in paragraph 1(a) of Article 3b of Regulation (EEC) No 1686/72.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 30 March 1998. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 3597/93 of 21 December 1993 fixing the amount of the carry-over aid for certain fishery products for the 1994 fishing year
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3901/92 of 23 December 1992 laying down general rules for the granting of a carry-over aid for certain fishery products (1) as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 2134/93 (2), and in particular Article 5 thereof,
Whereas the purpose of the carry-over aid is to give suitable encouragement to producers' organizations to carry over products withdrawn from the market so that their destruction can be avoided;
Whereas the amount of the aid must be such as not to disturb the balance of the market for the products in question;
Whereas, on the basis of the information on technical and financial costs associated with the concerned operations, recorded in the Community, the amount of the aid should, for the 1994 fishing year, be as indicated in the Annex;
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
For the 1994 fishing year, the carry-over aid for the products listed in Annex I A, D and E to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3759/92 (3) shall be as indicated in the Annex.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 January 1994.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 21 December 1993. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
*****
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 3264/90
of 12 November 1990
amending Regulation (EEC) No 3987/89 fixing for the period 1 January to 31 December 1990 the maximum quantity of certain products of the oils and fats sector to be released for consumption and imported into Spain and Portugal
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to the Act of Accession of Spain and Portugal,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 476/86 of 25 February 1986 laying down general rules for the system for controlling the prices and the quantities of certain products in the oils and fats sector released for consumption in Portugal (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1920/87 (2), and in particular Article 16 thereof,
Whereas Article 1 (3) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1184/86 of 21 April 1986 laying down detailed rules for the system for controlling the prices and the quantities of certain products in the oils and fats sector released for consumption in Portugal (3), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1726/87 (4), makes provision for the forecast supply balance to be revised quarterly;
Whereas the Portuguese market's demand in 1990 is greater than expected; whereas Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3987/89 (5), as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1622/90 (6), should therefore be amended;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Oils and Fats,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Regulation (EEC) No 3987/89 is hereby amended as follows:
In Articles 1 (2) (c) and 2 (2) (c), '45 000 tonnes' is replaced by '50 000 tonnes'.
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, 12 November 1990. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
*****
COMMISSION DECISION
of 28 February 1989
on improving the efficiency of agricultural structures in the United Kingdom pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC) No 797/85
(Only the English text is authentic)
(89/182/EEC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 797/85 of 12 March 1985 on improving the efficiency of agricultural structures (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1137/88 (2), and in particular Article 25 (3) thereof,
Having regard to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1272/88 of 29 April 1988 laying down detailed rules for applying the set-aside incentive scheme for arable land (3),
Whereas on 12 October 1988 the United Kingdom Government forwarded the following provisions pursuant to Article 24 (4) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 797/85:
- The Set-Aside Regulations 1988 (Statutory instruments 1988 No 1352)
- The Set-Aside Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1988 (Statutory Rules of Northern Ireland 1988 No 279);
Whereas, under Article 25 (3) of Regulation (EEC) No 797/85, the Commission has to decide whether the conditions for a financial contribution from the Community are satisfied in the light of the compatibility of the abovementioned provisions with the aforementioned Regulation and bearing in mind the objectives of the latter and the need to ensure that the various measures are properly related;
Whereas the list of crops considered for the purposes of the set-aside scheme for arable land set out in Annex 1, A must include all the crops listed under B with the exception of potatoes in order to comply with Article 1b (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 797/85 and Article 2 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1272/88;
Whereas, subject to the amendment of the list of arable crops referred to in Annex 1 of the provisions forwarded, the abovementioned provisions satisfy the conditions and the objectives of Title 01 of Regulation (EEC) No 797/85; whereas they are in accordance with Regulation (EEC) No 1272/88;
Whereas, however, in view of the newness of the scheme for land set-aside, the Commission reserves the right to re-examine the provisions forwarded, particularly as regards the amount of the aid, on the basis of a report on their application to be submitted by the United Kingdom pursuant to Article 29 of Regulation (EEC) No 797/85 and to Article 16 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1272/88;
Whereas the EAGGF Committee has been consulted on the financial aspects;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opnion of the Committee for Agricultural Structures and Rural Development,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
1. The provisions contained in Statutory Instruments 1988 No 1352 and in Statutory Rules of Northern Ireland 1988 No 279, forwarded by the United Kingdom Government pursuant to Article 24 (4) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 797/85 satisfy the conditions for a Community financial contribution to the common measure provided for in Title 01 of the said Regulation subject to the inclusion in the list of crops considered for the purposes of the arable land set-aside scheme set out in Annex 1, A of all the crops listed under B with the exception of potatoes. | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION of 21 June 1991 accepting undertakings given in connection with the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of certain asbestos cement pipes originating in Turkey, and terminating the investigation (91/392/EEC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88 of 11 July 1988 on protection against dumped or subsidized imports from countries not members of the European Economic Community (1), and in particular Article 10 thereof,
Having regard to Article 47 of the Additional Protocol to the EEC-Turkey Association Agreement (2),
After consultations within the Advisory Committee as provided for in the above Regulation,
Whereas:
A. PROCEDURE
(1) In December 1989 the Commission received a complaint lodged by the Association of the Italian asbestos cement pipes producers (Uniontubi) on behalf of the producers representing the whole production in Italy of this product. The complaint contained evidence of dumping of the product concerned originating in Turkey and of injury resulting therefrom, which was considered sufficient to justify the initiation of a proceeding. The Commission accordingly announced, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Communities (3), the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of certain asbestos cement pipes falling within CN code ex 6811 30 00 originating in Turkey and subsequently commenced an investigation.
(2) The Commission officially so advised the exporter and importer known to be concerned, the representatives of the exporting country and the complainant Italian producers and gave the parties concerned the opportunity to answer the questionnaires addressed to them, to make known their views in writing and to request a hearing.
(3) The Italian producers, the exporter and the importer returned the questionnaires to the Commission duly completed. The exporter made its views known in writing. The complainant and the exporter requested and were granted hearings.
(4) The Commission sought and verified all information it deemed necessary for the purpose of establishing the facts and carried out investigations at the premises of the following companies:
Community producers:
- Fibronit SRL - Italy,
- Tecnotubi SPA - Italy,
- Nuova Sacelit SPA - Italy.
Exporter:
- Elyafli cimento sanayi ve ticaret AS - Turkey.
Importer:
- Società del gres ing. sala SPA - Italy.
(5) The investigation of dumping covered the period from 1 March 1989 to 28 February 1990 (investigation period).
B. COMMUNITY INDUSTRY
(6) The Italian producers on behalf of which the complaint was lodged sold almost all of their production of the products in question in Italy. The demand in Italy for these products was not to any substantial degree supplied by producers located elsewhere in the Community. In addition, imports into the Community of the products concerned originating in Turkey allegedly being dumped and causing injury were concentrated on the Italian market.
Given the above exceptional circumstances, pursuant to Article 4 (5) of Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88, the Community is, for the production in question, divided into two different competitive markets which are the domestic Italian market and the extra-Italy Community market. Consequently, the producers within each of these two markets are regarded as a Community industry.
Therefore, the Community industry allegedly being injured refers to that represented by the Italian market which is the only one concerned by this proceeding.
C. PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION
(i) Description of the product
(7) The products which are the subject of the investigation are asbestos cement pipes and were imported under two categories, sewer pipes for sewerage and pressure pipes of a kind used for drinking water and irrigation, with joints and rubber rings. Within each of these two categories, there is a wide range of product types depending on the class and diameter of the pipe. These differences are outweighed by the fact that all pipes have the same basic physical characteristics. All types are manufactured using the same technology and on the same equipment. Raw materials used for all types are identical. Therefore, all pipes can be considered as one single product for the purpose of this proceeding.
(ii) Like product
(8) The Commission verified that the pipes produced in Italy use the same basic technology as those exported from Turkey and are alike in their essential physical and technical characteristics as well as in their uses.
D. DUMPING
(i) Normal Value
(9) In all cases, normal value was determined on a monthly basis to take account of the high inflation rate in Turkey. Of the two categories of pipe imported into Italy, sewer and pressure pipes, only the latter was sold on the domestic market of the exporting country during the investigation period. As a result, normal value was established on a different basis for each of the two categories of the product concerned.
(10) With regard to pressure pipes, normal value was generally established on the basis of the weighted average domestic prices of comparable product types sold in sufficient quantities for each month of the investigation period and in the ordinary course of trade. These domestic prices were net of all discounts and rebates actually granted where were found to be directly linked to the sales under consideration.
(11) For all sewer pipes which, as indicated, were not sold in the Turkish market during the investigation period, as well as for certain types of pressure pipes exported in a particular month but not domestically sold in that month, normal value was established on the basis of the constructed value, i. e. cost of production plus a reasonable profit margin.
Different monthly constructed normal values were determined for each category of pipe. This was done by adding to the cost of production, on the basis of all costs, a reasonable amount for selling, administrative and general expenses and profit calculated by reference to the expenses incurred and the profit realized by the Turkish exporter concerned on sales of pressure pipes on its domestic market.
(ii) Export prices
(12) Export prices were determined on the basis of the prices actually paid or payable for the products sold for export to Italy.
On this basis, export prices were established for representative product types and transactions covering nearly 80 % of total sales made to the independent customer in Italy during the investigation period.
(iii) Comparison
(13) The monthly normal values per product type were compared with export prices for the corresponding type on a transaction-by-transaction basis. All comparisons were made at ex-works level.
For the purpose of a fair comparison between normal values and export prices, account was taken where appropriate of differences affecting price comparability, such as differences in import charges and in selling expenses resulting from sales made under different conditions and terms of sale, where claims of a direct relationship between these differences and the sales under consideration could be satisfactorily demonstrated. Accordingly, adjustments were made for differences in import charges borne by materials physically incorporated in the like product when destined for consumption in Turkey and not collected in respect of the product exported to Italy. Allowance was also made for differences in transport, insurance, handling, loading and ancillary costs, payment terms, warranty expenses and technical assistance expenses.
(iv) Dumping margins
(14) This comparison revealed the existence of dumping in respect of imports into Italy of certain asbestos cement pipes originating in Turkey on the part of the only Turkish exporter concerned, the margin of dumping being equal to the amount by which the normal value as established exceeds the price for export to Italy.
The margins of dumping varied according to the product type, and expressed as a percentage of the free-at-Italian-border export prices, on a weighted average basis during the investigation period amounted to 5,12 %.
E. INJURY
(15) The evidence available to the Commission shows that imports into Italy of certain asbestos cement pipes originating in Turkey, which were not present on the Italian market in 1986 and 1987, increased from 3 300 tonnes in the period from March 1988 to February 1989 to 7 300 tonnes during the investigation period (March 1989 to February 1990). The development of these imports, assessed in the light of that on the Italian consumption over the same periods, led to an 8,1 % share of the Italian market held by imports from Turkey during the investigation period.
(16) Resale prices into Italy of the imported product from Turkey were significantly below the average prices practised by the Italian producers during the investigation period. The Commission established price undercutting by comparing, at the same level of trade (CIF delivered to Italian customer), resale prices into Italy of the importe product with prices charged by Italian producers for similar representative product types. The margins of undercutting found varied, depending on the product type, up to a maximum of 15,3 % and amounted on a weighted average basis to 8,7 %.
(17) The low level of import prices forced the Italian producers to sell the product on the Italian market at prices which either did not allow, in some cases, a reasonable profit to be made, or, in most cases, did not cover the Italian producers' costs of production. The prices of these imports not only denied the Italian producers price increases which normally would have occurred during 1988 and 1989 to keep in line with the evolution of costs of production, but obliged the Italian producers to decrease their prices since the end of 1988 in an attempt to maintain their market shares.
(18) As far as the situation of the Italian industry is concerned, account had to be taken of the following factors:
(a) although production and domestic sales of the product concerned by the Italian producers increased respectively by 21 % and 24,2 % during the investigation period when compared to the previous 12 months, these increases have to be measured against a growth in Italian consumption of 31 % over the same period. As a result, the share of the Italian market held by the Italian producers declined from 81,7 % in the period from March 1988 to February 1989 to 77,6 % during the investigation period;
(b) the presence on the Italian market of the low-priced imports concerned prevented the Italian producers from taking greater advantage of the increase in consumption and, therefore, to improve the rate of capacity utilization which, during the investigation period reached, on average, the very low level of 54 %. The combined by these imports on the Italian industry has been a general decrease in profitability in 1988, a decrease in market share in 1989 and losses suffered by all Italian producers in the same year.
(19) On the basis of the relevant economic factors referred to above, it appears that the situation of the Italian industry has been adversely affected. This is especially demonstrated by a loss of market share and profitability. In these circumstances, it is concluded that the Italian industry has been suffering material injury.
F. CAUSATION OF INJURY
(20) As far as the causal link between the dumped imports and the material injury is concerned, the Commission found that there is a clear parallelism and simultaneity between the increase in the volume of dumped imports from Turkey and the deterioration of the financial situation of the Italian producers. The arrival and rapid penetration of the low-priced Turkish exports to the Italian market also corresponds with the decrease in the market presence of the Italian producers.
(21) The Commission has examined whether the injury suffered by the Italian industry has been caused by factors other than the dumped imports such as imports from other countries or the low capacity utilization prevailing in the Italian market during the last years.
(22) It was found that the market share of imports into Italy from other third countries decreased from 17,3 % in the period from March 1987 to February 1988 to 11,6 % in the following 12 months and to 8,8 % during the investigation period. This substantial decline in market share leads the Commission to consider that imports from other third countries did not have any injurious effect on the Italian industry. Moreover, there has been no indication that these imports have been made at dumped prices.
(23) Imports into Italy originating in other Community countries led to market shares increasing from 1,4 % in the period from March 1987 to February 1988 to 1,9 % in the following 12 months and reached 5,5 % during the investigation period. However, it was found that these imports have been made at prices higher than those charged by the Italian producers and were concentrated in certain segments of the Italian market. Therefore, they are not likely to explain the Italian producers' price erosion and loss of market share and profitability.
(24) The substantial overcapacity shown by most of the Italian producers during the last years existed already before imports from Turkey first entered the Italian market. In that sense the precarious financial situation of the Italian industry may also have been influenced by the low capacity utilization which characterized the Italian industry in that period. However, it clearly appears that the presence of the dumped imports prevented the Italian producers from further increases in production and sales and thus from higher utilization of capacity which would have occurred had greater advantage of the increase in Italian consumption since 1987 been taken.
(25) Consideration was also given to the effect on the Italian industry in recent years of environmental problems posed by products containing asbestos which are being progressively replaced by alternative products. However, the Commission has concluded that this situation mainly represents a threat to the future of the production of asbestos cement pipes insofar as some of their uses are concerned and did not significantly affect the injurious impact of the dumped imports originating in Turkey.
(26) In view of the increase in the Italian market share held by the dumped imports originating in Turkey and their adverse effect on the situation of the Italian producers, the Commission concludes that these imports, taken in isolation, caused material injury to the Italian industry. As already indicated, this conclusion does not imply that all ascertained difficulties of the Italian industry should necessarily be imputed to this cause, rather than to overcapacity of most of the Italian producers or to environmental disadvantages of the product concerned. However, according to Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88, it is possible to attribute to the exporter concerned responsibility for the injury caused by dumping even if this injury is merely aprt of more extensive injury attributable to other factors. Article 4 only required that other possible casual factors of injury should not be ascribed to the dumped imports.
G. COMMUNITY INTEREST
(27) In assessing whether it is in the interest of the Community to take measures against the dumped imports, the Commission has noted that one of the Italian producers ceased to exist at the end of 1989, the financial situation of the remaining producers in Italy is strongly deteriorating and the Italian market has been rapidly penetrated by the imports concerned. Should this trend continue, it could lead to a further worsening of the situation of the Italian industry concerned so impeding its ongoing restructuring and thus putting its survival at risk.
The Commission concludes that it is therefore in the interest of the Community to take measures in order to eliminate the injurious effects on the Italian producers of the dumped imports concerned.
H. PROTECTIVE MEASURES
(28) The Commission considers, as discussed in recital 26 above, that it is inappropriate to impute the totality of the ascertained injury suffered by the Italian producers to dumped Turkish imports. These imports have, of course, affected indicators such as the price erosion and the losses incurred by the Italian industry in 1989, but the interpretation - and above all the quantification - of this effect is imprecise, owing to the presence of other factors operating at the same time and especially to the overcapacity shown by the majority of the Italian producers.
(29) In order to avoid this difficulty, the Commission considers that injury should only be measured in terms of the price undercutting found for the prices of the imported product. When this undercutting, which is determined at a resale price level in recital 16 above, is expressed at the cif Italian border level, a weighted average margin of 9,35 % is arrived at. This individual threshold thus found represents the price increase at the Italian border necessary to remove the injury defined in terms of undercutting.
However, since the dumping margin established in this proceeding is lower than the injury threshold of 9,35 % it is considered appropriate, so as to eliminate as far as possible the injurious effect of the dumped imports, that the protective measures to be taken correspond to the dumping margin found.
I. PRICE UNDERTAKING
(30) The Turkish exporter concerned was informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to take protective measures. Since the Community industry has been interpreted in this proceeding as referring to the producers in Italy only, the exporter in Turkey was given the opportunity to offer a price undertaking in respect of the Italian market in accordance with Article 13 (6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88. Taking such opportunity the exporter concerned has offered a price undertaking which the Commission regards as acceptable, considering that the effect of this undertaking will be to increase the prices of the product concerend to an extent sufficient to eliminate the margin of dumping found. In addition, it appears that correct operation of the undertaking can be effectively monitored.
Moreover, the Commission notes that in case of violation of this price undertaking it can impose a provisional duty in respect of the Community as a whole, and the Council a subsequent definitive duty based on the facts established in the present investigation and without carrying out new investigations concerning dumping and injury resulting therefrom.
(31) Objections to this course were raised in the Advisory Committee by one Member State. Therefore, in conformity with the provisions of Articles 9 (1) and 10 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88, the Commission submitted to the Council a report on the results of the consultation, together with a proposal that the undertakings be accepted and the investigation be terminated. As the Council has not decided otherwise within one month, the Commission can adopt the present Decision.
(32) The Commission has notified the EEC-Turkey Association Council that the interests of the Community call for immediate action. Moreover, the Commission has applied to the Association Council that it address recommendations to the person or persons with whom abovementioned practices originate for the purpose of putting an end to them,
HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Article 1
The undertaking offered by Elyafli cimento sanayi ve tecaret AS - Istanbul, Turkey in connection with the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of certain asbestos cement pipes falling within CN code ex 6811 30 00 and originating in Turkey is hereby accepted.
Article 2
The investigation in connection with the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of certain asbestos cement pipes originating in Turkey is hereby terminated. Done at Brussels, 21 June 1991. | [
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 904/2006
of 20 June 2006
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 21 June 2006.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 20 June 2006. | [
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COUNCIL DECISION of 29 October 1993 on the conclusion of an Agreement in the form of an exchange of letters concerning the provisional application of the Protocol establishing the fishing rights and financial compensation provided for in the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Government of the Republic of the Gambia on fishing off the Gambia for the period 1 July 1993 to 30 June 1996
(93/567/EEC)THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to the Agrement between the European Economic Community and the Government of the Republic of the Gambia on fishing off the Gambia (1), which entered into force on 1 July 1987,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,
Whereas the Community and the Republic of the Gambia conducted negotiations to determine the amendments or additions to be made to the abovementioned Agreement at the end of the period of application of the Protocol annexed thereto;
Whereas, as a result of those negotiations, a new Protocol was initialled on 17 June 1993;
Whereas, under that Protocol, Community fishermen enjoy fishing rights in the waters under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of the Republic of the Gambia for the period 1 July 1993 to 30 June 1996;
Whereas, in order to avoid any interruption in the fishing activities of Community vessels, it is indispensable that the new Protocol be applied as soon as possible; whereas, for this reason, the two parties initialled on Agreement in the form of an exchange of letter providing for the provisional application of the initialled Protocol from the day following the date of expiry of the Protocol in force; whereas that Agreement should be approved pending a final decision taken on the basis of Article 43 of the Treaty,
HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Article 1
The Agreement in the form of an exchange of letters concerning the provisional application of the Protocol establishing the fishing rights and financial compensation provided for in the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Government of the Republic of the Gambia on fishing off the Gambia for the period 1 July 1993 to 30 June 1996 is hereby approved on behalf of the Community.
The text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.
Article 2
The President of the Council is hereby authorized to designate the persons empowered to sign the Agreement in the form of an exchange of letters in order to bind the Community.
Done at Brussels, 29 October 1993. | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1822/2005
of 8 November 2005
amending Regulation (EC) No 466/2001 as regards nitrate in certain vegetables
(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 315/93 of 8 February 1993 laying down Community procedures for contaminants in food (1), and in particular Article 2(3) thereof,
After consulting the Scientific Committee on Food,
Whereas:
(1)
Commission Regulation (EC) No 466/2001 of 8 March 2001 setting maximum levels for certain contaminants in foodstuffs (2), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 563/2002 (3), makes provision in particular for specific measures concerning nitrate levels in lettuce and spinach and lays down transitional periods during which lettuce and spinach containing nitrate in excess of the maximum level can be marketed within national territory.
(2)
Despite developments in the application of good agricultural practice, monitoring data from Member States indicate ongoing problems in complying with the maximum levels of nitrate for lettuce and spinach.
(3)
Many of the failures to comply with the maximum levels for nitrate in fresh spinach occur in the month of October. The summer period for spinach currently includes October, whereas for lettuce October is in the winter period. For consistency, October should be included in the winter period for fresh spinach.
(4)
In regions where there are difficulties to keep nitrate below the maximum levels for fresh lettuce and fresh spinach, for example when associated with less daily sunlight, certain Member States have requested derogations and provided sufficient information to demonstrate that investigations are underway to help reduce levels in the future.
(5)
Pending further developments in the application of good agricultural practice, it is appropriate to authorise those Member States for a limited period to allow fresh lettuce and fresh spinach containing nitrate above the maximum levels to continue to be marketed, but solely within their national territory and for national consumption.
(6)
Nitrate is present in other vegetables, sometimes at high levels. To inform future discussions on a longer-term strategy for managing the risk from nitrate in vegetables, Member States should monitor nitrate levels in vegetables and aim to reduce levels where feasible, in particular by applying improved codes of good agricultural practice. An updated scientific risk assessment from the European Food Safety Authority would help to clarify the risks posed by nitrate in vegetables. The maximum levels laid down in Regulation (EC) No 466/2001 would be reviewed taking into account information from the above activities.
(7)
Regulation (EC) No 466/2001 should be amended accordingly.
(8)
The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Regulation (EC) No 466/2001 is amended as follows:
1.
Article 3 is deleted;
2.
the following Article 3a is inserted:
‘Article 3a
Member States shall monitor nitrate levels in vegetables containing significant levels, in particular green leafy vegetables, and communicate the results to the Commission by 30 June each year.’;
3.
the following Article 3b is inserted:
‘Article 3b
1. By way of derogation from Article 1(1), Belgium, Ireland, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom are authorised until 31 December 2008 to place on the market fresh spinach grown and intended for consumption in their territory with nitrate levels higher than the maximum levels set out in point 1.1 of Annex I.
2. By way of derogation from Article 1(1), Ireland and the United Kingdom are authorised until 31 December 2008 to place on the market fresh lettuce grown and intended for consumption in their territory and harvested throughout the year with nitrate levels higher than the maximum levels set out in point 1.3 of Annex I.
By way of derogation from Article 1(1), France is authorised until 31 December 2008 to place on the market fresh lettuce grown and intended for consumption in its territory and harvested from 1 October to 31 March with nitrate levels higher than the maximum levels set out in point 1.3 of Annex I.’;
4.
Section 1 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 466/2001 is replaced by the table as laid down in the Annex to this Regulation.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 8 November 2005. | [
1,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0
] |
*****
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 771/85
of 26 March 1985
amending Regulation (EEC) No 2213/76 on the sale of skimmed-milk powder from public storage and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 399/85
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 591/85 (2), and in particular Article 7 (5) thereof,
Whereas the application of Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2213/76 (3), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 79/85 (4), which lays down the conditions for the placing on the market of stocks of skimmed-milk powder purchased by intervention agencies, has been suspended by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 399/85 (5); whereas the application of the said Article should, in view of the recent trend of skimmed-milk powder prices on the Community market, no longer be suspended;
Whereas in order to discourage speculation in connection with the fixing of the new buying-in prices for skimmed-milk powder for the new marketing year, the quantity of skimmed milk put up for sale by the intervention agencies of the Member States should be limited to that which was put into storage prior to 1 January 1984, and the period allowed for taking over the skimmed-milk powder should be reduced;
Whereas pursuant to Article 2 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2213/76, operators supplying skimmed-milk powder from the market as part of food-aid operations may buy a certain quantity of intervention skimmed-milk powder at the buying-in price less 3 ECU per 100 kilograms; whereas in the light of market trends that possibility should no longer be offered to them; whereas, however, the provision in question should be maintained in the case of operators who continue to qualify under the scheme notwithstanding the suspension provided for in Regulation (EEC) No 399/85, that is, those already designated on 16 February 1985;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Milk and Milk Products,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Regulation (EEC) No 399/85 is hereby repealed.
Article 2
Regulation (EEC) No 2213/76 is hereby amended as follows:
1. Article 1 is replaced by the following:
'Article 1
The intervention agencies of the Member States shall sell, to any person wishing to purchase, skimmed-milk powder which they hold and which was stored prior to 1 January 1984.'
2. Article 2 (1) is replaced by the following:
'1. The skimmed-milk powder shall be sold:
(a) ex-storage depot at the buying-in price applied by the intervention agency when the contract of sale is concluded, plus 3 ECU per 100 kilograms;
(b) in lots of 10 tonnes or more.'
3. The first subparagraph of Article 3 (1) is replaced by the following:
'The purchaser shall take delivery of the skimmed-milk powder within 15 days calculated from the day on which the contract of sale was concluded.'
Article 3
Provided they furnish proof that, before 16 February 1985, they were designated by an intervention agency for the purpose of supplying a quantity of skimmed-milk powder from the market pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 1354/83 operators may, under Regulation (EEC) No 2213/76, purchase a quantity of skimmed-milk powder not exceeding that quantity at an ex-storage depot price equivalent to the purchase price applicable when the contract of sale was concluded,
less 3 ECU per 100 kilograms. The contract of sale shall be drawn up within one month of the expiry of the shipment period laid down in respect of that food-aid consignment.
Article 4
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 March 1985. | [
0,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 632/2009
of 20 July 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 21 July 2009.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 20 July 2009. | [
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 2667/80 of 17 October 1980 on certain transitional measures relating to imports of sheepmeat and goatmeat products consigned to the Community
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1837/80 of 27 June 1980 on the common organization of the market in sheepmeat and goatmeat (1), and in particular Article 33 thereof,
Whereas imports of sheepmeat and goatmeat products will, with effect from 20 October 1980, be subject to the system laid down by Regulation (EEC) No 1837/80 ; whereas, in particular, the import levy system will apply to products placed in free circulation within the Community as from that date ; whereas transitional measures should be taken in respect of products consigned to the Community before that date;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sheep and Goats,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Sheepmeat and goatmeat products consigned to the Community before 20 October 1980 and placed in free circulation within the Community as from that date shall be subject to one of the following systems: (a) products accompanied by the certificates for export to the Community referred to in Commission Regulations (EEC) No 2663/80 (2) and (EEC) No 2664/80 (3) shall be subject to the provisions of the said Regulations;
(b) other products shall be subject to the system applicable before the implementation of Regulation (EEC) No 1837/80.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 20 October 1980.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 17 October 1980. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Regulation (EC) No 1642/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 22 July 2003
amending Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 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
THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Articles 37, 95 and 133 and Article 152(4)(b) thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission(1),
Having regard to the opinion of the Court of Auditors(2),
Having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee(3),
Acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 251 of the Treaty(4),
Whereas:
(1) Certain provisions 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(5) should be brought into line with Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities(6) (hereinafter referred to as "the general Financial Regulation"), and in particular Article 185 thereof.
(2) The general principles and limits governing the exercise of the right of access to documents provided for in Article 255 of the Treaty have been laid down by Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents(7).
(3) When Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 was adopted, the three institutions agreed in a joint declaration that the agencies and similar bodies should have rules which conform to those of that Regulation.
(4) Appropriate provisions should therefore be included in Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 to make Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 applicable to the European Food Safety Authority, as should a provision on appeals against a refusal of access to documents.
(5) Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 should therefore be amended accordingly,
HAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 is hereby amended as follows:
1. Article 25(9) shall be replaced by the following:
"9. The financial rules applicable to the Authority shall be adopted by the Management Board after the Commission has been consulted. They may not depart from Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002 of 19 November 2002 on the framework Financial Regulation for the bodies referred to in Article 185 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities(8) unless such departure is specifically required for the Authority's operation and the Commission has given its prior consent.";
2. Article 26 shall be amended as follows:
(a) paragraph 2(f) shall be replaced by the following:
"(f) the preparation of the Authority's draft statement of estimates of revenue and expenditure, and the execution of its budget;"
(b) paragraph 3 shall be replaced by the following:
"3. Each year, the Executive Director shall submit to the Management Board for approval:
(a) a draft general report covering all the activities of the Authority in the previous year;
(b) draft programmes of work.
The Executive Director shall, following adoption by the Management Board, forward the programmes of work to the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission and the Member States, and shall have them published.
The Executive Director shall, following adoption by the Management Board and by 15 June, forward the Authority's general report to the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission, the Court of Auditors, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, and shall have it published.
The Executive Director shall forward annually to the budgetary authority all information relevant to the outcome of the evaluation procedures.";
(c) paragraph 4 shall be deleted.
3. Article 41 shall be replaced by the following:
"Article 41
Access to documents
1. Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents(9) shall apply to documents held by the Authority.
2. The Management Board shall adopt the practical arrangements for implementing Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 within six months after the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1642/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 July 2003 amending Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 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(10).
3. Decisions taken by the Authority pursuant to Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 may form the subject of a complaint to the Ombudsman or of an action before the Court of Justice, under the conditions laid down in Articles 195 and 230 of the EC Treaty respectively.";
4. Article 43 shall be amended as follows:
(a) paragraphs 3, 4, 5 and 6 shall be replaced by the following:
"3. The Executive Director shall draw up, in good time before the date referred to in paragraph 5, a draft statement of estimates of the Authority's revenue and expenditure for the following financial year and shall forward it to the Management Board, together with the establishment plan.
4. Revenue and expenditure shall be in balance.
5. Each year the Management Board, on the basis of a draft statement of estimates of revenue and expenditure, shall produce a statement of estimates of revenue and expenditure of the Authority for the following financial year. This statement of estimates, which shall include a draft establishment plan together with the provisional work programmes, shall be forwarded by 31 March at the latest by the Management Board to the Commission and to the countries with which the Community has concluded agreements in accordance with Article 49.
6. The statement of estimates shall be forwarded by the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council (hereinafter referred to as the budgetary authority) together with the preliminary draft general budget of the European Union.";
(b) the following paragraphs shall be added:
"7. On the basis of the statement of estimates, the Commission shall enter in the preliminary draft general budget of the European Union the estimates it deems necessary for the establishment plan and the amount of the subsidy to be charged to the general budget, which it shall place before the budgetary authority in accordance with Article 272 of the Treaty.
8. The budgetary authority shall authorise the appropriations for the subsidy to the Authority.
The budgetary authority shall adopt the establishment plan for the Authority.
9. The budget shall be adopted by the Management Board. It shall become final following final adoption of the general budget of the European Union. Where appropriate, it shall be adjusted accordingly.
10. The Management Board shall, as soon as possible, notify the budgetary authority of its intention to implement any project which may have significant financial implications for the funding of the budget, in particular any projects relating to property such as the rental or purchase of buildings. It shall inform the Commission thereof.
Where a branch of the budgetary authority has notified its intention to deliver an opinion, it shall forward its opinion to the Management Board within a period of six weeks from the date of notification of the project."
5. Article 44 shall be replaced by the following:
"Article 44
Implementation of the Authority's budget
1. The Executive Director shall implement the Authority's budget.
2. By 1 March at the latest following each financial year, the Authority's accounting officer shall communicate the provisional accounts to the Commission's accounting officer together with a report on the budgetary and financial management for that financial year. The Commission's accounting officer shall consolidate the provisional accounts of the institutions and decentralised bodies in accordance with Article 128 of the general Financial Regulation.
3. By 31 March at the latest following each financial year, the Commission's accounting officer shall forward the Authority's provisional accounts to the Court of Auditors, together with a report on the budgetary and financial management for that financial year. The report on the budgetary and financial management for the financial year shall also be forwarded to the European Parliament and the Council.
4. On receipt of the Court of Auditors' observations on the Authority's provisional accounts under Article 129 of the general Financial Regulation, the Executive Director shall draw up the Authority's final accounts under his own responsibility and submit them to the Management Board for an opinion.
5. The Management Board shall deliver an opinion on the Authority's final accounts.
6. The Executive Director shall, by 1 July at the latest following each financial year, forward the final accounts to the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission and the Court of Auditors, together with the Management Board's opinion.
7. The final accounts shall be published.
8. The Executive Director shall send the Court of Auditors a reply to its observations by 30 September at the latest. He shall also send this reply to the Management Board.
9. The Executive Director shall submit to the European Parliament, at the latter's request, all information necessary for the smooth application of the discharge procedure for the financial year in question, as laid down in Article 146(3) of the general Financial Regulation.
10. The European Parliament, on a recommendation from the Council acting by a qualified majority, shall, before 30 April of year N + 2, give a discharge to the Executive Director in respect of the implementation of the budget for year N."
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the first day of the month following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 22 July 2003. | [
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2007/31/EC
of 31 May 2007
amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards the specific provisions set for the use of the active substance fosthiazate
(Text with EEA relevance)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular the second indent of the second subparagraph of Article 6(1) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
By Commission Directive 2003/84/EC (2) fosthiazate was included as active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC.
(2)
When applying for the inclusion of fosthiazate its manufacturer ISK Biosciences Europe S.A. submitted data on uses to control nematodes which supported the overall conclusion that it may be expected that plant protection products containing fosthiazate will fulfil the safety requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC. Therefore, fosthiazate was included in Annex I to that Directive with the specific provisions that Member States may only authorise uses as nematicide.
(3)
In addition to the control of nematodes in certain agricultural uses, the notifier now has applied for an amendment to those specific provisions as regards the control of insects. In order to support such an extension of the use, the notifier submitted additional information.
(4)
The Netherlands and the United Kingdom evaluated the information and data submitted by the company. They informed the Commission in May and November 2006, respectively, that they conclude that the requested extension of use does not cause any risks in addition to those already taken into account in the specific provisions for fosthiazate in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC and in the Commission review report for that substance. This is particularly the case since the extension only concerns the organisms controlled, but not the application parameters as set out in the specific provisions of Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC.
(5)
Therefore it is justified to modify the specific provisions for fosthiazate.
(6)
It is therefore appropriate to amend Directive 91/414/EEC accordingly.
(7)
The measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:
Article 1
Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC is amended as set out in the Annex to this Directive.
Article 2
Member States shall adopt and publish by 1 September 2007 at the latest the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.
They shall apply those provisions from 2 September 2007.
When Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or shall be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.
Article 3
This Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Article 4
This Directive is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 31 May 2007. | [
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 94/69/EC of 19 December 1994 adapting to technical progress for the twenty-first time Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to 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 (1), as last amended by Commission Directive 93/101/EC (2), and in particular Article 28 thereof,
Whereas Annex I of Directive 67/548/EEC contains a list of dangerous substances, together with particulars of the classification and labelling procedures in respect of each substance;
Whereas present scientific and technical knowledge has shown that the list of dangerous substances in Annex I should be adapted and augmented, particularly to include a number of complex coal- and oil-derived substances, and whereas in consequence it is necessary to amend the Foreword to Annex I to include notas and particulars relating to the identification and labelling of complex coal- and oil-derived substances and corresponding preparations;
Whereas the provisions of this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on the Adaptation to Technical Progress of the Directives for the Elimination of Technical Barriers to Trade in Dangerous Substances and Preparations,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:
Article 1
Annex I of Directive 67/548/EEC is hereby amended as follows:
1. the foreword in Annex I to this Directive replaces the foreword to Annex I;
2. the entries in Annex I to this Directive replace the corresponding entries in Annex I of Directive 67/548/EEC;
3. the entries in Annex II to this Directive are included for the first time in Annex I of Directive 67/548/EEC.
Article 2
Not later than 1 September 1996, the Member States shall implement the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. Member States shall immediately inform the Commission thereof.
When Member States adopt these provisions, these shall contain a reference to this Directive or shall be accompanied by such reference at the time of their official publication. The procedure for such reference shall be adopted by Member States.
Article 3
This Directive shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
Done at Brussels, 19 December 1994. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION
of 13 November 2007
repealing Decision 1999/572/EC accepting undertakings offered in connection with the anti-dumping proceedings concerning imports of steel wire ropes and cables originating in the People’s Republic of China, Hungary, India, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, Poland, South Africa and Ukraine
(2007/775/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1), and in particular Articles 8 and 9 thereof,
After consulting the Advisory Committee,
Whereas:
A. PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS AND EXISTING MEASURES
(1)
In August 1999, the Council, by Regulation (EC) No 1796/1999 (2), imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of steel ropes and cables originating, inter alia, in South Africa.
(2)
In November 2005, following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, the Council, by Regulation (EC) No 1858/2005 (3) decided that the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of the product concerned originating, inter alia, in South Africa should be maintained.
(3)
The Commission, by Decision 1999/572/EC of 13 August 1999 (4), accepted a price undertaking from a South African company, Scaw Metals Group Haggie Steel Wire Rope (‘Haggie’ or ‘the company’).
(4)
By Decision 1999/572/EC the Commission also accepted price undertakings from the following companies: Usha Martin Industries & Usha Beltron Ltd, India; Aceros Camesa SA de CV, Mexico; and Joint Stock Company Silur, Ukraine. The Commission withdrew the acceptance of the undertaking offered by Joint Stock Company Silur, Ukraine by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1678/2003 (5). The anti-dumping measures on steel wire ropes and cables originating in Mexico expired on 12 August 2004 (6). The Commission withdrew the acceptance of the undertaking offered by Usha Martin Industries & Usha Beltron Ltd by Commission Decision 2006/38/EC of 22 December 2005.
(5)
As a result imports into the Community of the product concerned of South African origin, produced by the company and of the product type covered by the undertaking (the product covered) were exempted from the definitive anti-dumping duties.
(6)
In this regard it should be noted that certain types of steel wire ropes and cables currently produced by Haggie were excluded from the scope of the undertaking. Accordingly, such steel wire ropes and cables were liable to the payment of the anti-dumping duty when entered into free circulation in the Community.
B. BREACHES OF THE UNDERTAKING
1. Obligations of the company under the undertaking
(7)
The undertaking offered by the company obliges it to, inter alia, export the product covered to the European Community above certain minimum prices (MIPs) as stated in the undertaking.
(8)
It was further acknowledged by the company in the undertaking that with regard to the exemption from the anti-dumping duties afforded by the undertaking, such exemption is conditional upon the presentation to the Community customs services of an ‘undertaking invoice’. Moreover, the company undertook not to issue such undertaking invoices for sales of those types of product concerned which are not covered by the undertaking and which are therefore liable to the anti-dumping duty. The company also acknowledged that the undertaking invoices issued had to contain the information set out first in the Annex of Regulation (EC) No 1796/1999 and later in the Annex of Regulation (EC) No 1858/2005.
(9)
The terms of the undertaking also oblige the company to provide the Commission with regular and detailed information, in the form of a quarterly report of its sales of the product concerned to the European Community. Such reports should include the products covered by the undertaking which benefited from the exemption from the payment of the anti-dumping duty, as well as those types of steel ropes and cables which are not covered by the undertaking and which are therefore liable to the payment of the anti-dumping duty upon importation into the European Community.
(10)
It is clear that the aforementioned sales reports should be, as submitted, complete, exhaustive and correct in all particulars and that the transactions fully comply with the terms of the undertaking.
(11)
For the purpose of ensuring compliance with the undertaking, the Company also undertook to allow on-spot verification visits at its premises in order to verify the accuracy and veracity of data submitted in the said quarterly reports and to provide all information considered necessary by the Commission.
(12)
It should be noted that the company already received a warning letter from the Commission Services on 28 October 2003 for breaching the undertaking by issuing undertaking invoices for products not covered by the undertaking but otherwise being subject to the anti-dumping measures. The warning letter stated that in view of the particular circumstances under which these breaches took place it was not intended to withdraw the acceptance of the undertaking, but it was also pointed out that any subsequent infringement of the undertaking, even of a minor nature, would make it difficult for the Commission to maintain the acceptance of the undertaking from the company.
(13)
In this regard, a verification visit was carried out at the premises of the Company in South Africa from 5 February 2007 until 6 February 2007. The verification visit covered the period from 1 January 2004 until 31 December 2006.
2. Results of the verification visit to the Company
(14)
The verification visit established that the company, on two occasions, issued undertaking invoices (undertaking invoice numbers: 935515 and 935516) for the products subject to the anti-dumping measure but not covered by the undertaking. Therefore, these transactions unlawfully benefited from the exemption from the payment of the anti-dumping duty upon importation.
(15)
The verification visit established that, on one occasion, the company failed to adjust the unit sales price according to the terms of payment. The failure to make this adjustment for the financial cost linked to the actual time of the payment has led to a unit sale price below the applicable MIP.
(16)
Furthermore, the verification visit established that, on several occasions, the company issued undertaking invoices not in conformity with the Annex of Regulation (EC) No 1858/2005 by including the sentence ‘For sale offshore, not to be sold within the European Union’.
(17)
Examination of the undertaking invoices issued for the time period concerned by the verification visit showed that one transaction was not included in the quarterly undertaking sales report submitted to the Commission. Furthermore, it was also established that the company reported transactions not intended for release into free circulation in the Community as if they were intended to be released into free circulation in the Community. The verification visit also identified several transactions which were reported as transit sales, but, in reality, the goods were released into free circulation in the Community. Moreover discrepancies were found between the quarterly undertaking sales reports and the corresponding invoices.
3. Reasons to withdraw acceptance of the undertaking
(18)
The fact that the company issued undertaking invoices for product concerned which were not covered by the undertaking and the fact that these transactions benefited from the exemption from the payment of the anti-dumping duty only granted for the products covered by the undertaking constitute breaches of the undertaking.
(19)
The obligation of the company to respect the MIP for all sales of the product covered was not met.
(20)
Issuing undertaking invoices not in conformity with the Annex of Regulation (EC) No 1858/2005 for sales of product covered can be confusing for the customs authorities and no longer allow the customs authorities to effectively monitor the undertaking and, therefore, render the undertaking impractical.
(21)
The facts set out in recital (17) have led to the conclusion that the quarterly undertaking sales reports as submitted by the company were not complete, exhaustive and correct in all particulars and therefore these reports were not sufficiently reliable to be used for monitoring the undertaking. Non-compliance with reporting requirements also constitutes a breach of the undertaking.
4. Written submissions and hearing
(a) Lack of understanding of the Undertaking
(22)
The company acknowledged by its written submission that errors occurred when issuing undertaking invoices and preparing the undertaking reports due to a lack of understanding of the technical provisions of the undertaking, of incorrect reading of the text and/or the company’s failure to consult it. It was also stated in its written submission and during the hearing on 26 April 2007 that changes in the senior management and the restructuring of the organization contributed to lack of understanding of the complex requirements of the undertaking.
(23)
The company also admitted the receipt of the warning letter from the Commission Services on the 28 October 2003. However, the company argued that it never received a verification report which it assumed would have outlined the actual error made. The company argued that the fact that it was not made aware of the actual errors also contributed to its failure to change its practices concerning the preparation of undertaking reports or improve its understanding.
(24)
In respond to these arguments it has to be noted that the company on 18 September 2003 received a letter from the Commission which set out in detail the breaches identified. The warning letter of 28 October 2003 did not repeat the breaches in detail any longer but referred to the earlier correspondence between the Commission and the company.
(25)
It also should be noted that the company might have been confused when it referred to a verification report. The Commission did not carry out a verification visit prior to issuing the warning letter on 28 October 2003 as the breaches which let to issuance of the warning letter were established on the basis of desk analysis of the undertaking reports. The Commission did carry out a verification in May 2004 but since that verification did not lead to further action no letter relating to it needed to be sent the company.
(26)
Moreover, the company submitted during the hearing that, after the verification visit, the company revisited its complete system, based on the comments made on the spot, in order to accommodate the necessary changes to meet the requirements of the undertaking.
(27)
The arguments presented by the company in its defence regarding its lack of understanding of the undertaking do not alter the Commission’s view that the company failed to comply with the obligations of the undertaking. It also has to be noted that the company already received a warning letter for breaching the undertaking in the past and it failed to adopt the measures necessary to prevent that new breaches of the undertaking would occur. The lack of understanding of the requirements of the undertaking constitutes a high risk for the sufficiency and reliability of the monitoring of the undertaking.
(b) Proportionality
(28)
With regard to the price violation, the company admitted that a price violation occurred on one occasion because it failed to do the necessary adjustments in the sales price in respect of late payment. However, it was argued that the sales prices of all other transactions were strictly in compliance with the MIP. Moreover, it was submitted that the late payment occurred due to unforeseen circumstances as the client concerned normally pre-pays for goods prior to shipment taking place.
(29)
In response to these arguments it should be pointed out that in accordance with the undertaking, the company undertook to ensure that the Net Sales Price of all sales covered by the undertaking shall be at or above the MIPs set out in the undertaking.
(30)
Moreover, regarding the issue of proportionality, the basic Regulation contains no direct or indirect requirement that a breach of an undertaking must relate to a minimum percentage of sales or must relate to a minimum percentage of the MIP.
(31)
This approach has also been confirmed by the jurisprudence of the Court of First Instance which has ruled that any breach of an undertaking is sufficient to justify the withdrawal of acceptance of an undertaking (7).
(32)
Accordingly, the arguments presented by the company with regard to proportionality do not alter the Commission’s view that a breach of the undertaking occurred and that the acceptance of the undertaking should be withdrawn.
(c) Good faith of the company
(33)
The company argued that at the time of submitting their regular reports to the Commission, the company felt that the reports were complete, exhaustive and correct in all particulars.
(34)
At no time did the company try to report incorrect information or attempt to withhold any information requested.
(35)
The company also emphasised both in its written submission and during the hearing, that it did not derive any benefit from the breaches of the undertaking, in any but two cases, and that the errors were not carried out within the scope of a circumvention scheme.
(36)
Referring to the recitals above it must be noted that the company was not seen to be purposely trying to benefit from not respecting the requirements of the undertaking or by impeding the monitoring. However, the repeated occurrence of the errors renders the proper monitoring of the undertaking impractical.
C. REPEAL OF DECISION 1999/572/EC
(37)
In view of the above, the acceptance of the undertaking should be withdrawn and Commission Decision 1999/572/EC should be repealed. Accordingly, the definitive antidumping duty imposed by Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1858/2005 should apply,
HAS DECIDED:
Article 1
Decision 1999/572/EC is hereby repealed.
Article 2
This Decision shall take effect on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Done at Brussels, 13 November 2007. | [
0,
1,
0,
1,
1,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION
of 16 July 2008
on State aid C 14/07 (ex NN 15/07) implemented by Italy for NGP/SIMPE
(notified under document number C(2008) 3528)
(Only the Italian text is authentic)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2008/848/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 88(2) thereof,
Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,
Having called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the provisions cited above (1) and having regard to their comments,
Whereas:
1. PROCEDURE
(1)
On 14 July 2006 Italy notified its intention to grant restructuring aid to NGP SpA (NGP). Missing annexes were submitted by letter dated 28 July 2006. The Commission had previously received three complaints claiming that Italy intended to grant aid to NGP which would affect the synthetic fibre market.
(2)
By letter dated 22 August 2006, the Commission requested additional information which Italy submitted by letter dated 14 December 2006. On 12 February 2007 it requested further information which Italy submitted by letter dated 7 March 2007, registered as received on 8 March.
(3)
By letter dated 10 May 2007, the Commission informed Italy that it had decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty in respect of the aid.
(4)
By letter dated 16 July 2007, Italy presented its comments in the context of the above mentioned procedure. The Commission requested further information by letter dated 25 October 2007, to which Italy replied by letter of 23 November 2007. A meeting between the Italian authorities and the Commission departments took place on 13 December 2007. The Commission requested additional clarification by letter dated 8 February 2008, to which Italy replied by letter dated 25 February 2008. Italy submitted additional final comments by e-mail of 22 May 2008.
(5)
The Commission decision to initiate the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). The Commission called on interested parties to submit their comments.
(6)
The Commission received comments from interested parties. It forwarded them to Italy, which was given the opportunity to react; its comments were received by letter dated 21 September 2007.
2. DESCRIPTION
2.1. The beneficiary
(7)
According to the notification, the beneficiary of the aid is NGP, a firm located in Acerra, Campania (Italy). NGP was created in February 2003 through the divestment of the production of polyester polymer (polymerisation) from Montefibre, a producer of polyester fibre also located in Acerra. Polyester polymer is an intermediate product used, among other things, in the production of polyester fibre.
(8)
The assets of NGP comprised two production plants as well as a thermoelectric power station, some ancillary facilities and a research centre. The first production plant produced the intermediate product dimethylterephthalate (DMT). DMT was the raw material for the second production plant, the polymerisation plant. The second plant produced polymer either in molten state to supply the production plant of Montefibre or in the solid state in the form of chips for the external market.
(9)
The polymerisation plant operated with three production lines, (CP1, CP2 and CP3). Of these, CP3 had been created in 2003. Italy had granted regional aid of EUR 13,7 million for the investments in CP3. The aid had been provided under a regional aid scheme approved by the Commission (3).
2.2. The financial difficulties of NGP
(10)
NGP quickly ran into difficulties after its creation for several reasons. In 2003 a breakdown of the cooling system halted production. Although the broken equipment was provisionally replaced, the production plant did not return to full operation. The situation was aggravated by strong pressure on prices due to the weakening of the US dollar exchange rate, which made producers outside the euro area more competitive.
(11)
Moreover, the costs of production of DMT were to a large extent fixed costs, which are independent of the volumes produced. The reduced volume of chips and molten polymer sold led to reduced production of DMT, which, however, resulted in only a small decrease in total production costs because of the large share of fixed costs. In turn, unit production costs of DMT therefore increased considerably.
(12)
NGP recorded losses of EUR 29,68 million in 2003, its last year of full production, and losses of EUR 17,87 million in 2004. In 2005 it nevertheless recorded profits of EUR 5,27 million, which were largely due to extraordinary revenues.
2.3. The restructuring plan
(13)
In January 2004 the board of the firm took the decision to suspend production and to draw up a project to convert the existing industrial facilities. The objective was to change the raw material used for the polymerisation plant, replacing own-production DMT with another raw material, purified terephthalic acid (PTA), in order to create a more flexible cost structure. It was estimated that a further EUR 22 million would be needed for the raw material changeover. Because of insufficient financial means, NGP would not have been able to complete these investments.
(14)
In May 2004 a protocol of understanding (protocollo di intesa) was concluded between several public authorities, Montefibre, NGP and other companies in which all parties agreed to the need to safeguard the investments already carried out for CP3 and to finalise them.
(15)
In July 2005 an agreement (accordo di programma) was signed by national and regional authorities, NGP, Montefibre and Edison (another firm located in Acerra) concerning the NGP site as well as other activities at the Acerra site. The main elements of this agreement concerning NGP were as follows:
(16)
creation of a new firm, SIMPE SpA, in July 2005, with NGP as the majority shareholder and with Montefibre (19,1 % of the share capital) and a public development agency, Sviluppo Italia (9,8 % of the share capital) as minority shareholders. SIMPE would take over the polymerisation activities of NGP (i.e. production assets plus related liabilities) and part of the workforce. NGP would remain in activity only as a utilities provider (4);
(17)
closure of the DMT production plant and realisation by the new firm, SIMPE, of the planned investments in line CP3 with a view to replacing the original own-production DMT with a new raw material, purified terephthalic acid (PTA), to be acquired from outside sources (5);
(18)
granting by Italy of financial support measures totalling EUR 20,87 million to support the investments in the raw material changeover. These measures are described below.
2.4. Financial support
(19)
The first measure consists of a grant of EUR 10,75 million, of which EUR 5 million to be provided by the Region of Campania and the remainder by the Ministry of Industry. The measure was granted on 18 May 2006.
(20)
The second measure consists of a soft loan of EUR 6,523 million provided by the Ministry of Industry at a reduced interest rate (36 % of the reference rate). The loan was granted on 18 May 2006.
(21)
The third measure consists of a temporary participation of EUR 3,6 million in the risk capital of SIMPE by Sviluppo Italia (9,8 % of the company capital). The injection was made on 5 May 2006. The two other shareholders in SIMPE, NGP and Montefibre, were required to buy the shares from Sviluppo Italia within a period of three to five years at a price equal to the nominal value plus annual interest on the basis of the official reference rate for medium- to long-term operations plus two percentage points.
(22)
All three measures were granted to SIMPE.
2.5. New developments
(23)
In February 2007 the Spanish multinational chemical company, La Seda de Barcelona, acquired the Montefibre shares in SIMPE and invested additional capital of EUR 20,7 million in the firm, thus becoming its major shareholder with 50,1 % of shares. The other shareholders were NGP with 43,6 % and Sviluppo Italia with 6,3 %.
(24)
The acquisition of SIMPE by La Seda de Barcelona also meant changes to the original restructuring plan. Whereas, according to the plan agreed in July 2005 (see above), SIMPE would continue in the same line of business as NGP, i.e. producing mainly polymer for textile applications, SIMPE now planned to concentrate production mostly on polymer for the market in PET (polyethylene terephthalate), a plastic material of which La Seda de Barcelona is one of the EU’s largest producers.
3. GROUNDS FOR INITIATING THE FORMAL INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE
3.1. Restructuring aid
(25)
Italy notified the aid on the basis of the Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty (hereafter the Community guidelines) (6). The Commission, in its decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure under Article 88(2) of the Treaty, stated that it had doubts as to whether the conditions of the Community guidelines were fulfilled.
(26)
The Commission expressed doubts as to the actual beneficiary of the aid and its eligibility. Italy had notified NGP as the beneficiary of the aid. However, all three measures were granted to the new firm SIMPE, which, as a newly created firm, was not eligible for restructuring aid (point 12 of the Community guidelines). The Commission, therefore, questioned whether NGP and SIMPE, as a group, could qualify for the aid: SIMPE had been created by NGP in the context of the restructuring of the polymerisation assets, for which the aid measures in question were granted. On the other hand, NGP was not a newly created firm within the meaning of the Community guidelines and, what is more, appeared to be a firm in difficulty and therefore eligible for restructuring aid
(27)
However, even if NGP and SIMPE could be considered to form a single group eligible for aid, the Commission had doubts concerning the remaining criteria laid down in the Community guidelines. In particular, Italy had not submitted restructuring plans complying with all the requirements of Section 3.2.2 of the Community guidelines for either SIMPE or NGP. As regards SIMPE, the business plan submitted by Italy did not contain a detailed market survey or an analysis of the firm’s specific weaknesses and strengths. Nevertheless, the Commission noted that SIMPE had in the meantime been sold to another firm, the consequences of which the Commission could not assess at that stage. Regarding NGP, Italy had not provided any indication of the costs of the restructuring measures to be implemented and their precise financing. On the basis of the information available, the Commission doubted whether the conditions relating to the restoration of viability were fulfilled.
(28)
Italy had also not indicated any compensatory measures with respect to SIMPE or NGP. The Commission therefore doubted whether the condition of avoidance of undue distortions of competition was respected. Similarly, it had no information concerning total restructuring costs or the beneficiary’s contribution, and this would be necessary to determine whether the aid was limited to the minimum in compliance with the Community guidelines.
(29)
Finally, Italy had at the outset notified the capital contribution by Sviluppo Italia as aid but later claimed that it was granted on market terms and was not aid. However, the Commission had doubts about this argument.
3.2. Guidelines on national regional aid
(30)
The Commission also assessed whether the aid could be considered compatible on the basis of the guidelines on national regional aid (7). SIMPE is located in an area eligible for regional aid pursuant to Article 87(3)(a) of the Treaty, where the regional aid ceiling is 35 % nge (net grant equivalent) of the eligible investments. The measures were intended to enable SIMPE to carry out the investment projects on line CP3. However, the Commission had no information that would allow it to assess whether the costs concerning the investments in line CP3 could be considered eligible for regional investment aid or whether the regional aid ceiling of 35 % had been respected.
4. COMMENTS FROM ITALY
(31)
Regarding the aid measures, Italy again stated that the temporary participation by Sviluppo Italia in the capital of SIMPE does not qualify as State aid because it is in line with the market economy investor principle. It maintained that the other two shareholders in SIMPE (NGP and La Seda de Barcelona) are required to buy the shares of Sviluppo Italia within a period of three to five years at a price equal to the nominal value plus annual interest on the basis of the official reference rate for medium- to long-term operations plus two percentage points. In addition, this commitment is backed by guarantees provided by NGP in respect of its assets. According to Italy, any private investor would have invested with such guarantees of a return on capital.
(32)
Italy also stated that the other two measures were granted to SIMPE under a national scheme - Italian Law 181/89 - approved by the Commission (N 214/2003) (8) and that both the eligible costs and the aid intensity complied with the conditions of that scheme, i.e. maximum regional aid intensity of 35 % nge. Italy argued that, even if it had notified the aid as restructuring aid to NGP, the aid could therefore, in its view, be considered as regional aid to SIMPE under this scheme.
(33)
Italy argued that, if the Commission could not agree that the aid falls within scheme N 214/2003, it should, in the alternative, consider that the aid is compatible as restructuring aid.
(34)
Italy claimed that the beneficiary of the aid is NGP, which qualifies as a firm in difficulty.
(35)
Italy also submitted an amended restructuring plan for both NGP and SIMPE taking into account the new strategy of La Seda de Barcelona.
(36)
As explained above, according to this plan, SIMPE will produce mainly polyester polymer from line CP3 for the PET market. Italy submitted a market study showing that the plastic packaging material market is steadily expanding, with an increase in demand of about 7 % a year (9). In addition, SIMPE will continue to produce polyester polymer from lines CP1 and CP2 for Fidion, a company to which Montefibre has transferred its polyester fibre production.
(37)
NGP will remain in activity as a supplier of utilities and other services, such as research and laboratory services and treatment of waste water for the industrial businesses in Acerra, but will abandon all industrial production activities. Of the original 270 NGP employees, the firm will keep 54, with 76 of them being transferred to SIMPE.
(38)
The new restructuring plan includes investments of EUR 8,5 million by NGP for modernising the utilities infrastructure. As regards SIMPE, the firm will undertake investments totalling EUR 40,4 million, of which EUR 22 million will be for changing over to the new raw material (PTA) in line CP3, as proposed in the original plan, and the remainder for developing a new ‘post-polymerisation’ process necessary to complete the PET production cycle and for adapting lines CP1 and CP2 also to the use of PTA.
(39)
Italy supplied a table with details of the restructuring costs and sources of financing for both NGP and SIMPE. According to this table, the total restructuring costs amount to EUR 103,5 million.
(40)
The new plan presents a range of scenarios - best case, intermediate and worst case - for NGP and SIMPE respectively. NGP will become profitable - even under the worst case scenario - as early as 2009. As regards SIMPE, the results would not be positive until 2011 under a worst case scenario, by 2010 under the intermediate scenario; and as early as 2009 under the best case scenario.
5. COMMENTS BY THIRD PARTIES
(41)
NGP supported the comments made by Italy. The International Rayon and Synthetic Fibres Committee (CIRFS), one of the original complainants, noted that, if the aid is intended mainly for the PET market, it is of no relevance to synthetic fibre production.
6. ASSESSMENT
6.1. State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty
(42)
Under Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty, any aid granted by a Member State or through state resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods is, insofar as it affects trade between Member States, incompatible with the common market. Under the settled case law of the Court, the criterion of trade being affected is met if the beneficiary firm carries out an economic activity involving trade between Member States.
(43)
The grant and the loan were provided to SIMPE by the Ministry of Industry and the Region of Campania, two public authorities. The measures are thus financed through state resources and imputable to the State. The grant confers an advantage on the beneficiary. The loan also confers an advantage as it was granted at an interest rate below the reference rate for healthy businesses and no market economy investor would have granted assistance under these conditions.
(44)
As regards the capital contribution provided to SIMPE by Sviluppo Italia, Italy first notified the measure as State aid but then later claimed that it was not aid as it was in line with the market economy investor principle and did not confer an advantage on the firm.
(45)
However, contrary to the view of the Italian authorities, the Commission considers that the temporary participation by Sviluppo Italia in the capital of SIMPE constitutes aid within the meaning of Article 87(1). Sviluppo Italia is a public development agency and therefore capital injections by this agency are imputable to the State and constitute state aid, unless it can be established that Sviluppo Italia behaved like a private investor operating under market economy conditions.
(46)
In this respect the Commission notes that the participation by Sviluppo Italia in the capital of SIMPE was part of the restructuring plan of NGP. As NGP was a firm in difficulty and as SIMPE was created only for the purposes of the restructuring of NGP, it can be considered that Sviluppo Italia decided to acquire shares in a firm in difficulty. Moreover, Sviluppo Italia’s capital injection was combined, as part of the same operation, with two other measures which qualify as State aid under Article 87(1), namely a direct grant from the Region of Campania and the Ministry of Industry and a soft loan from the Ministry of Industry.
(47)
In previous decisions (10) the Commission has found that the market economy investor principle is respected in the case of public capital injections where the firm in question is a healthy firm. The market economy investor principle can also be fulfilled even if the firm is in difficulty. In this case, however, the State has to provide capital on the same terms as a private investor would do for such a high-risk firm: namely at a much higher interest rate than for healthy firms and with a clear prospect of a return to viability.
(48)
The Italian authorities have not provided evidence that a private investor would be prepared to acquire shares in the same circumstances. In fact, there is no evidence that the return on capital on the terms contracted by Sviluppo Italia (i.e. two percentage points above the reference rate) would be sufficient to trigger the interest of a private investor, bearing in mind that NGP had ceased activity and that there was no certainty (other than the fact that the investment was being supported by state aid) of a return to viability. In this respect, it should also be noted that La Seda de Barcelona acquired the participation in SIMPE only nine months after the capital injection by Sviluppo Italia and after the other forms of aid had been granted.
(49)
The Commission therefore concludes that the capital contribution by Sviluppo Italia conferred an advantage on the firm.
(50)
NGP and its successor SIMPE produce polyester polymer. As this product is widely traded across the European Union, the measures threaten to distort competition and to affect trade between Member States. The Commission thus concludes that the grant, the loan and the capital injection by Sviluppo Italia constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty and that their compatibility has thus to be assessed accordingly.
6.2. Legal basis
(51)
In its decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure, the Commission questioned whether the aid could be considered compatible under the Community guidelines on state aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty and under the guidelines on national regional aid.
(52)
Following the comments submitted by Italy, the Commission notes, however, that all the elements concerning a restructuring process seem to be present in this case. At the time the aid was granted, NGP was a firm in difficulty. The aid was granted with the aim of restoring the viability of the firm on the basis of a restructuring plan that the Italian authorities were committed to implement (see the terms of the accordo di programma in point 15 above). Further, even if, according to the Italian authorities, the aid was granted to SIMPE (and not NGP), SIMPE was created only for the purposes of the restructuring of NGP and is thus part of this restructuring plan. Finally, both NGP and SIMPE benefit from the aid.
(53)
The Commission also notes that, given the potential for distortion of competition that aid for the restructuring of firms in difficulty entails, the Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty contain specific criteria designed to ensure that the granting of aid is limited to the minimum required to restore a firm’s viability, while limiting distortions of competition by the obligation imposed on the beneficiary to adopt compensatory measures. These criteria could be sidestepped should the measures be assessed, instead, under the guidelines on national regional aid, which in any event cannot apply to firms in difficulty (11).
(54)
For the reasons explained above, the Commission concludes that the compatibility of the aid is to be assessed under the Community guidelines on state aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty (the Community guidelines).
6.3. Eligibility of the firm
(55)
According to Section 2.1 of the Community guidelines, the Commission considers a firm to be in difficulty where it is unable, whether through its own resources or with the funds it is able to obtain from its owner/shareholder or creditor, 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. The usual signs of a firm in difficulty are increasing losses, diminishing turnover, growing stock inventories, excess capacity, declining cash flow, mounting debt, rising interest charges and falling or nil asset value. In acute cases the firm may already have become insolvent or may be the subject of collective insolvency proceedings.
(56)
A newly created firm is not eligible for rescue and restructuring aid even if its financial position is insecure. A firm will normally be considered as newly created for the first three years following the start of operations in the relevant field of activity.
(57)
On the other hand, point 13 of the Community guidelines states that ‘where a firm in difficulty creates a subsidiary, the subsidiary, together with the firm in difficulty controlling it, will be regarded as a group and may receive aid under the conditions laid down in this point.’
(58)
In the decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure, the Commission doubted whether NGP could be the beneficiary of the aid because it had been granted to SIMPE. In addition, SIMPE, as a newly created firm, was not eligible for restructuring aid pursuant to Section 2.1 referred to above. The Commission, however, looked into whether both firms could be considered together as a group and, as such, be eligible for the aid.
(59)
SIMPE was created by NGP in the context of the restructuring of the polymerisation assets for which the aid measures in question were granted and is therefore an emanation of the former. On the other hand, NGP was created in February 2003 and started operations in March 2003, i.e. more than three years before the granting of the aid measures in May 2006. It is therefore not a new firm within the meaning of the Community guidelines. Moreover, NGP displays the characteristics of a firm in difficulty. It recorded losses of EUR 29,68 million in 2003, its last year of full production, and losses of EUR 17,87 million in 2004. In 2005 it nevertheless recorded profits of EUR 5.27, largely due to extraordinary revenues.
(60)
Further, NGP was the majority shareholder of SIMPE at the time the aid was granted to this firm. The Commission therefore concludes that both NGP and SIMPE can be considered as a group eligible for aid under the Community guidelines.
6.4. Restoration of viability
(61)
The granting of aid is conditional on the implementation of a restructuring plan the duration of which must be as short as possible. The plan must restore the long-term viability of the firm within a reasonable time scale and on the basis of realistic assumptions as to the future operating conditions. Among other things, the restructuring plan must include a market survey and the improvement in viability must derive mainly from internal measures contained in it (point 35 of the Community guidelines).
(62)
The Commission considers that the amended restructuring plan reflecting the changes imposed by La Seda de Barcelona complies with the requirements of the Community guidelines. Italy provided a market analysis which shows that the market of polymer for PET is in full expansion. Adequate internal measures are taken within the restructuring to overcome problems inherited from the past (i.e. changeover to a new raw material), combined with significant new investments by the new owner La Seda de Barcelona that allow SIMPE to operate in the market of polymer for PET while continuing to supply molten polymer for textile purposes to Fidion. Moreover, Italy presented best case, worst case and intermediate scenarios based on variations in production volume which show that NGP and SIMPE can be expected to return to profitability within a reasonable period. Consequently, the Commission considers that the condition on restoration of viability is fulfilled.
6.5. Aid limited to the minimum: real contribution free of aid
(63)
The amount of aid must be limited to the strict minimum required to enable restructuring to be undertaken in the light of the existing financial resources of the firm and its shareholders. In addition, beneficiaries are expected to make a significant contribution to the restructuring costs from their own resources or external financing at market conditions. In the case of large undertakings, the Commission will normally consider a contribution of at least 50 % to be appropriate.
(64)
On the basis of the information provided by Italy, about 80 % of the costs of restructuring are financed by the group’s own resources, thus complying with point 44 of the Community guidelines.
6.6. Avoidance of undue distortions of competition
(65)
In order to ensure that the adverse effects on trading conditions are minimised so that the positive effects pursued outweigh them, compensatory measures must be adopted. Otherwise the aid will be regarded as ‘contrary to the common interest’ and therefore incompatible with the common market (point 38 of the Community guidelines).
(66)
Italy proposes the following compensatory measures:
-
SIMPE will limit the annual production of polyester polymer for PET to 110 000 tonnes from the date of the Commission decision approving the aid until 31 December 2012;
-
by the end of February of the following year Italy will provide the Commission with information on the quantities of polyester polymer produced and sold each year by SIMPE, and this until 31 December 2012;
-
Italy additionally undertakes to refrain from granting any type of state aid to SIMPE and NGP or to any other firm or going concern controlled or otherwise belonging to the same group, following the Commission decision authorising the aid, until 31 December 2012.
(67)
Italy explained that, under the restructuring plan, NGP (or its successor SIMPE) will refrain altogether from operating in the market in polyester polymer in granulated form for textiles as well as in special types of polyester polymer, thereby abandoning 20 % of the market. In turn, SIMPE expects to achieve a 4 % share of the EU market in PET.
(68)
Point 40 of the Community guidelines states that: ‘The measures must be in proportion to the distortive effects of the aid and in particular (…) the relative importance of the firm on its market or markets. They should take place in particular in the market(s) where the firm will have a significant market position after restructuring.’
(69)
The Commission notes in this respect that the core market for SIMPE is polyester for PET. Moreover, La Seda de Barcelona, which is the majority shareholder in SIMPE, is one of the largest EU producers of polyester polymer for PET. Therefore the aid is likely to create a significant distortion of competition in this market. The production cap of 110 000 tonnes therefore represents a significant restraint on market presence when compared with SIMPE’s actual production capacity of polyester for PET, which is 160 000 tonnes a year. The fact that this limitation in production will be implemented until 2012 is also of significance considering that PET is a market in expansion. According to the market analysis provided by Italy, the increase in demand for this product in 2004 was 6,9 % and this trend is expected to continue.
(70)
As regards the production of polyester polymer in molten state, which will be continued on lines CP1 and CP2, it is noted that the production volumes of this product have already been substantially reduced as part of the restructuring, from 105 000 tonnes a year to 60 000 tonnes a year, and will be intended exclusively for Fidion (formerly Montefibre). A further reduction in capacity in this product area would not be realistic and might jeopardise the firm’s viability.
(71)
Lastly, the Commission notes that Italy has undertaken to refrain from granting any additional State aid to SIMPE and NGP or to any other firm or going concern controlled or otherwise belonging to the same group, following the Commission decision authorising the aid, until 31 December 2012 in order to ensure that any distortion created by the present aid will not be aggravated by future aid.
(72)
Accordingly, the Commission considers that the compensatory measures proposed by Italy are sufficient to mitigate the negative effects of the aid.
(73)
The Commission concludes that the notified State aid for NGP and SIMPE in connection with the implementation of the above restructuring plan can be considered compatible with the common market,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
The State aid granted which Italy has implemented for the restructuring plan of NGP/SIMPE, amounting to EUR 20,87 million, is compatible with the common market within the meaning of Article 87(3)(c) of the Treaty, subject to the conditions set out in Article 2.
Article 2
Italy shall ensure that the following conditions are fulfilled:
(a)
SIMPE will limit the annual production of polyester polymer for PET to 110 000 tonnes from the date of the Commission decision approving the aid until 31 December 2012;
(b)
by the end of February of the following year, Italy will provide the Commission with information on the quantities of polyester polymer produced and sold each year by SIMPE, and this until 31 December 2012;
(c)
Italy undertakes to refrain from granting any type of State aid to SIMPE and NGP or to any other firm or going concern controlled or otherwise belonging to the same group, following the Commission decision authorising the aid, until 31 December 2012.
Article 3
This Decision is addressed to the Italian Republic.
Done at Brussels, 16 July 2008. | [
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 104/93 of 18 January 1993 extending the provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of deadburned (sintered) magnesia originating in the People's Republic of China
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88 of 11 July 1988 on protection against dumped or subsidized imports from countries not members of the European Economic Community (1), and in particular Article 11 thereof,
Having regard to the Commission proposal,
Whereas Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2799/92 (2) imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of deadburned (sintered) magnesia originating in the People's Republic of China;
Whereas examination of the facts has not yet been completed and the Commission has informed the exporters known to be concerned of its intention to propose an extension of the validity of the provisional duty for an additional period of two months;
Whereas the exporters have raised no objections,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The validity of the provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of deadburned (sintered) magnesia originating in the People's Republic of China imposed by Regulation (EEC) No 2799/92 is hereby extended for a period of two months. It shall cease to apply if, before the expiry of that period, the Council adopts definitive measures or the proceeding is terminated under Article 9 of Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 18 January 1993. | [
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2846/95 of 7 December 1995 repealing Regulation (EC) No 1788/95 concerning the stopping of fishing for whiting by vessels flying the flag of France
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 21 (3) thereof,
Whereas Commission Regulation (EC) No 1788/95 (2) stopped fishing for whiting in the waters of ICES division VIII by vessels flying the flag of France or registered in France;
Whereas, on 13 October 1995, Spain transferred to France 1 500 tonnes of whiting in the waters of ICES division VIII; whereas fishing for whiting in the waters of ICES division VIII by vessels flying the flag of France or registered in France should therefore be permitted; whereas consequently it is necessary to repeal Regulation (EC) No 1788/95;
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Regulation (EC) No 1788/95 is hereby repealed.
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, 7 December 1995. | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0
] |
Regulation (EC) No 631/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 31 March 2004
amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, and Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, in respect of the alignment of rights and the simplification of procedures
(Text with relevance for the EEA and for Switzerland)
THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Articles 42 and 308 thereof,
Having regard to the Conclusions of the Barcelona European Council of 15 and 16 March 2002 concerning the creation of a European Health Insurance Card,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,
Having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee(1),
After consulting the Committee of the Regions,
Acting in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 251 of the Treaty(2),
Whereas:
(1) According to the conclusions of the Barcelona European Council of 15 and 16 March 2002 a European Health Insurance Card would replace the current paper forms needed for health treatment in another Member State. The Commission was called on to present a proposal to that effect before the Spring European Council of 2003. Such a card would simplify procedures.
(2) To attain and even surpass this objective by optimising the advantages offered by the European Health Insurance Card for insured persons and institutions, certain changes to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, self-employed persons and their families moving within the Community(3) are necessary.
(3) Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 currently provides for access to different types of benefits in kind during a temporary stay in a Member State other than the competent State or the State of residence, depending on the category to which the insured person belongs, and draws a distinction between "immediately necessary care" and "necessary care". For greater protection for insured persons, provision should be made to bring into line the rights of all insured persons in respect of access to benefits in kind during a temporary stay in a Member State other than the State in which the person concerned is insured or resident. In these conditions, all insured persons shall be entitled to the benefits in kind which become necessary on medical grounds during their stay in the territory of another Member State, taking account of the nature of the benefits and the expected length of the stay.
(4) It is essential that all measures be taken to ensure the proper implementation of Article 22(1)(a)(i) in all Member States with particular reference to care providers.
(5) For certain types of continuous treatment requiring a specific infrastructure, such as dialysis, it is essential for the patient that the treatment be available during his stay in another Member State. In this connection, the Administrative Commission establishes a list of the benefits in kind that are subject to prior agreement between the insured person and the institution providing the treatment in order to guarantee the availability of the care and the insured person's freedom to stay temporarily in another Member State.
(6) Access to benefits in kind during a temporary stay in another Member State is granted, in principle, on presentation of the appropriate form provided for by Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of the Council of 21 March 1972 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71(4). Certain Member States still require - formally, even if not in practice - the completion of extra formalities on arrival in their territory. These requirements, specifically the obligation to submit systematically and in advance a certified statement to the institution of the place of stay certifying entitlement to benefits in kind, appear today to be needlessly restrictive and of a nature to hamper the free movement of the persons concerned.
(7) Member States should ensure that appropriate information is provided regarding changes in rights and obligations introduced by this Regulation.
(8) For the effective and fair implementation of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, cooperation between the institutions and the persons covered by the said Regulation is indispensable. This cooperation presupposes, on the part of both institutions and insured persons, the provision of complete information on any changes that could affect entitlement to benefits, such as any cessation or change of the employment or self-employment of the insured person, any transfer of the residence or place of stay of that person or of a member of his family, changes in the family situation or amendments to legislation.
(9) Given the complexity of certain individual situations involving the movement of persons, provision should be made for a mechanism allowing institutions to rule on individual cases in which differing interpretations of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 and its implementing Regulation could jeopardise the rights of the person concerned. If a solution cannot be found whereby all the rights of the individual concerned are observed, provision should be made for the option of referring the matter to the Administrative Commission.
(10) In order to bring the Regulation into line with developments in data processing, in which the European Health Insurance Card is an essential element as it is intended in the long term to constitute an electronic medium readable in all Member States, certain Articles of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 should be amended to cover the concept of document as any content whatever its medium, written on paper or stored in electronic form or as a sound or visual or audiovisual recording,
HAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 is hereby amended as follows:
1. Article 22 shall be amended as follows:
(a) subparagraph 1(a) shall be replaced by the following:
"(a) whose condition requires benefits in kind which become necessary on medical grounds during a stay in the territory of another Member State, taking into account the nature of the benefits and the expected length of the stay;"
(b) the following paragraph shall be inserted:
"1a. The Administrative Commission shall establish a list of benefits in kind which, in order to be provided during a stay in another Member State, require, for practical reasons, a prior agreement between the person concerned and the institution providing the care;"
(c) in paragraph 3, the first subparagraph shall be replaced by the following:"Paragraphs 1, 1a and 2 shall apply by analogy to members of the family of an employed or self-employed person."
2. Article 22a shall be replaced by the following:
"Article 22a
Special rules for certain categories of persons
Notwithstanding Article 2, Article 22(1)(a) and (c) and (1a) shall also apply to persons who are nationals of one of the Member States and who are insured under the legislation of a Member State and to the members of their families residing with them."
3. Article 22b shall be deleted;
4. Article 25 shall be amended as follows:
(a) paragraph 1 shall be replaced by the following:
"1. An unemployed person who was formerly employed or self-employed and to whom the provisions of Article 69(1) or Article 71(1)(b)(ii), second sentence apply and who satisfies the conditions laid down in the legislation of the competent State for entitlement to benefits in kind and cash benefits, taking account where necessary of the provisions of Article 18, shall receive for the period of time referred to in Article 69(1)(c):
(a) benefits in kind which become necessary on medical grounds for this person during his stay in the territory of the Member State where he is seeking employment, taking account of the nature of the benefits and the expected length of the stay. These benefits in kind shall be provided on behalf of the competent institution by the institution of the Member State in which the person is seeking employment, in accordance with the provisions of the legislation which the latter institution administers, as if he were insured with it;
(b) cash benefits provided by the competent institution in accordance with the provisions of the legislation which it administers. However, by agreement between the competent institution and the institution of the Member State in which the unemployed person seeks employment, benefits may be provided by the latter institution on behalf of the former institution in accordance with the provisions of the legislation of the competent State. Unemployment benefits under Article 69(1) shall not be granted for the period during which cash benefits are received."
(b) the following paragraph shall be inserted:
"1a. Article 22(1a) shall apply by analogy.";
5. Article 31 shall be replaced by the following:
"Article 31
Stay of a pensioner and/or members of his family in a Member State other than the State in which they reside
1. A pensioner entitled to a pension or pensions under the legislation of one Member State or to pensions under the legislation of two or more Member States who is entitled to benefits under the legislation of one of those States shall, with members of his family who are staying in the territory of a Member State other than the State in which they reside, receive:
(a) benefits in kind which become necessary on medical grounds during a stay in the territory of the Member State other than the State of residence, taking into account the nature of the benefits and the expected length of the stay. These benefits in kind shall be provided by the institution of the place of stay, in accordance with the provisions of the legislation which it administers, on behalf of the institution of the place of residence of the pensioner or of the members of his family;
(b) cash benefits provided, where appropriate, by the competent institution as determined by Article 27 or 28(2), in accordance with the provisions of the legislation which it administers. However, upon agreement between the competent institution and the institution of the place of stay, these benefits may be provided by the latter institution on behalf of the former, in accordance with the provisions of the legislation of the competent State.
2. Article 22(1a) shall apply by analogy."
6. Article 34a shall be replaced by the following:
"Article 34a
Special provisions for students and members of their families
Articles 18, 19, 22(1)(a) and (c) and (1a), 22(2), second subparagraph, 22(3), 23 and 24 and sections 6 and 7 shall apply by analogy to students and the members of their families as required."
7. Article 34b shall be deleted;
8. the following Article shall be inserted:
"Article 84a
Relations between the institutions and the persons covered by this Regulation.
1. The institutions and persons covered by this Regulation shall have a duty of mutual information and cooperation to ensure the correct implementation of this Regulation.
The institutions, in accordance with the principle of good administration, shall respond to all queries within a reasonable period of time and shall in this connection provide the persons concerned with any information required for exercising the rights conferred on them by this Regulation.
The persons concerned shall inform the institutions of the competent State and of the State of residence as soon as possible of any changes in their personal or family situation which affect their right to benefits under this Regulation.
2. Failure to respect the obligation of information referred to in paragraph 1, third subparagraph, may result in the application of proportionate measures in accordance with national law. Nevertheless, these measures shall be equivalent to those applicable to similar situations under domestic law and shall not make it impossible or excessively difficult in practice for claimants to exercise the rights conferred on them by this Regulation.
3. In the event of difficulties in the interpretation or application of this Regulation which could jeopardise the rights of a person covered by it, the institution of the competent State or of the State of residence of the person involved shall contact the institution(s) of the Member State(s) concerned. If a solution cannot be found within a reasonable period, the authorities concerned may call on the Administrative Commission to intervene."
Article 2
Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 is hereby amended as follows:
1. in Article 2, paragraph 1 shall be replaced by the following:
"1. Models of the documents necessary for application of the Regulation and of the implementing Regulation shall be drawn up by the Administrative Commission.
These documents may be transferred between institutions either in paper or other form or by means of telematic services as standardised electronic messages in accordance with Title VIa. The exchange of information by means of telematic services shall be subject to agreement between the competent authorities or the bodies designated by the competent authorities of the sending Member State and those of the receiving Member State;"
2. in Article 17, paragraphs 6 and 7 shall be deleted;
3. in Article 19a, paragraph 2 shall be replaced by the following:
"2. Article 17(9) of the implementing Regulation shall apply by analogy."
4. Article 20 shall be deleted;
5. Article 21 is replaced by the following:
"Article 21
Benefits in kind in the case of a stay in a Member State other than the competent State
1. In order to receive benefits in kind under Article 22(1)(a)(i) of the Regulation, an employed or self-employed person shall submit to the care provider a document issued by the competent institution certifying that he is entitled to benefits in kind. That document shall be drawn up in accordance with Article 2. If the person concerned is not able to submit that document, he shall contact the institution of the place of stay which shall request from the competent institution a certified statement testifying that the person concerned is entitled to benefits in kind.
A document issued by the competent institution for entitlement to benefits in accordance with Article 22(1)(a)(i) of the Regulation, in each individual case concerned, shall have the same effect with regard to the care provider as national evidence of the entitlements of the persons insured with the institution of the place of stay.
2. Article 17(9) of the implementing Regulation shall apply by analogy."
6. in Article 22, paragraph 2 shall be replaced by the following:
"2. Article 17(9) of the implementing Regulation shall apply by analogy.;"
7. in Article 23, the second paragraph shall be replaced by the following:"However, in the cases referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 22(3) of the Regulation, the institution of the place of residence and the legislation of the country of residence of the members of the family shall be considered, respectively, as the competent institution and as the legislation of the competent State for the purposes of Articles 17(9), 21 and 22 of the implementing Regulation."
8. Article 26 is amended as follows:
(a) paragraph 1 shall be replaced by the following:
"1. In order to receive benefits in kind under Article 25(1)(a) and (1a) of the Regulation, an unemployed person or a family member accompanying him shall submit to the care provider a document issued by the competent institution certifying that he is entitled to benefits in kind. That document shall be drawn up in accordance with the provisions of Article 2. If the person concerned is not able to submit that document, he shall contact the institution of the place of stay which shall request from the competent institution a certified statement testifying that the person concerned is entitled to benefits in kind.
A document issued by the competent institution for entitlement to benefits in accordance with Article 25(1)(a) of the Regulation, in each individual case concerned, shall have the same effect with regard to the care provider as national evidence of the entitlements of persons insured with the institution of the place to which the unemployed person has gone."
(b) the following paragraph shall be inserted:
"1a. In order to receive benefits in cash under Article 25(1)(b) of the Regulation for himself and for members of his family, an unemployed person shall submit to the insurance institution of the place where he has gone a certified statement for which, prior to his departure, he shall have applied to the competent insurance institution. If the unemployed person does not submit that certified statement, the institution of the place to which he has gone shall obtain it from the competent institution. That certified statement must testify the existence of the right to the benefits in question under the conditions set out in Article 69(1) (a) of the Regulation, indicate the duration of such right taking into account the provisions of Article 69(1)(c) of the Regulation and, in the case of incapacity for work or hospitalisation, specify the amount of cash benefits to be provided, where appropriate, by way of sickness insurance during the abovementioned period."
(c) paragraph 3 shall be replaced by the following:
"3. Article 17(9) of the implementing Regulation shall apply by analogy."
9. Article 31 shall be replaced by the following:
"Article 31
Benefits in kind for pensioners and members of their families staying in a Member State other than the one in which they reside
1. In order to receive benefits in kind under Article 31 of the Regulation, a pensioner shall submit to the care provider a document issued by the institution of the place of residence certifying that he is entitled to the benefits in kind. That document shall be drawn up in accordance with Article 2. If the person concerned is not able to submit that document, he shall contact the institution of the place of stay which shall request from the institution of the place of residence a certified statement testifying that the person concerned is entitled to benefits in kind.
A document issued by the competent institution for entitlement to benefits in accordance with Article 31 of the Regulation, in each individual case concerned, shall have the same effect with regard to the care provider as national evidence of the entitlements of persons insured with the institution of the place of stay.
2. Article 17(9) of the implementing Regulation shall apply by analogy.
3. Paragraphs 1 and 2 shall apply by analogy in respect of the granting of benefits in kind to the members of the family covered by Article 31 of the Regulation. If these family members reside in the territory of a Member State other than that of the pensioner, the document referred to in paragraph 1 shall be issued by the institution of their place of residence.;"
10. in Article 117, paragraph 1 shall be replaced by the following:
"1. Based on the research and proposals of the Technical Commission referred to in Article 117c of the implementing Regulation, the Administrative Commission shall adapt to new data processing techniques the models of documents as well as the routing channels and the data transmission procedures necessary for applying the Regulation and the implementing Regulation."
Article 3
Member States shall ensure that appropriate information is provided regarding the changes in rights and obligations introduced by this Regulation.
Article 4
For the purpose of the implementation of this Regulation, the institutions in the State of stay shall ensure that all care providers are fully aware of the criteria set out in Article 22(1)(a)(i) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71.
Article 5
This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 June 2004.
Direct access to care providers shall be guaranteed by 1 July 2004 at the latest.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Strasbourg, 31 March 2004. | [
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0
] |
COUNCIL DECISION
of 24 June 2005
appointing two German members and two German alternate members of the Committee of the Regions
(2005/570/EC)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 263 thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the German Government,
Whereas:
(1)
On 22 January 2002 the Council adopted Decision 2002/60/EC (1) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2002 to 25 January 2006.
(2)
Two members’ seats on the Committee of the Regions have become vacant following expiry of the mandates of Mr Stanislaw TILLICH and Ms Ulrike RODUST and two alternate members’ seats on the Committee of the Regions have become vacant following expiry of the mandates of Mr Volker SCHIMPFF and Ms Heide SIMONIS,
HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Article 1
The following are hereby appointed to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the term of office still to run, namely until 25 January 2006:
(a)
as members:
Mr Uwe DÖRING
Minister für Justiz, Arbeit und Europa des Landes Schleswig-Holstein
to replace Ms Ulrike RODUST;
Mr Hermann WINKLER
Sächsischer Staatsminister und Chef der Staatskanzlei,
Mitglied des Sächsischen Landtages
to replace Mr Stanislaw TILLICH;
(b)
as alternate members:
Mr Peter Harry CARSTENSEN
Ministerpräsident des Landes Schleswig-Holstein
to replace Ms Heide SIMONIS;
Mr Georg MILBRADT
Ministerpräsident des Freistaates Sachsen,
Mitglied des Sächsischen Landtages
to replace Mr Volker SCHIMPFF.
Article 2
This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.
It shall take effect on the day of its adoption.
Done at Luxembourg, 24 June 2005. | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1382/2000
of 28 June 2000
determining the allocation of export licences for certain milk products to be exported to the Dominican Republic under the quota referred to in Article 20a of Regulation (EC) No 174/1999
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products(1), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1040/2000(2),
Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 174/1999 of 26 January 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 as regards export licences and export refunds in the case of milk and milk products(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1596/1999(4), and in particular Article 20a(11) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1158/2000(5) opens the procedure for allocating export licences for certain milk products to be exported to the Dominican Republic from 1 July 2000 under a quota opened for that country.
(2) Applications submitted for the products referred to in Article 20a of Regulation (EC) No 174/1999 cover quantities greater than those available. As a result, allocation coefficients should be set for the quantities applied for,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The quantities covered by export licence applications for the products referred to in Article 20a(3) of Regulation (EC) No 174/1999 submitted for the period 1 July 2000 to 30 June 2001 shall be multiplied by the following allocation coefficients:
- 0,626595 for applications submitted for the part of the quota referred to in Article 20a(4)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 174/1999,
- 0,636997 for applications submitted for the part of the quota referred to in Article 20a(4)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 174/1999.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 July 2000.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 28 June 2000. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 2187/93 of 22 July 1993 providing for an offer of compensation to certain producers of milk and milk products temporarily prevented from carrying on their trade
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
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, when the additional levy scheme was introduced in 1984 in the milk and milk products sector, Community legislation did not provide for the allocation of an individual reference quantity to producers who, as a result of an undertaking pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1078/77 of 17 May 1977 introducing a system of premiums for the non-marketing of milk and milk products and for the conversion of dairy herds (4), had not delivered or sold milk during the reference year adopted by the Member State;
Whereas, on the application of five producers, the Court of Justice, in its judgment of 19 May 1992 in Joined Cases C-104/89 and C-37/90, ordered the Community to make good the damage the said producers had suffered in so far as the original Community legislation did not in fact provide for the allocation of an individual reference quantity to them;
Whereas, in a communication published in the Official Journal of the European Communities on 5 August 1992 (5), the institutions undertook to comply in full with the judgment of 19 May 1992 as regards all potentially qualifying producers;
Whereas the sheer number of those potentially eligible makes it impossible to take each case into account on an individual basis and necessitates a solution based on a flat-rate approach, to be expressed in the form of an offer from the institutions to be accepted in full and final settlement or else rejected; whereas the factors on the basis of which the offer is calculated should be set out;
Whereas a direct link should be drawn between the actual resumption of milk production in full compliance with the Community provisions which permitted such resumption and the existence of an injury consisting in the fact of not having been able to resume milk production in good time, despite the wishes of the person concerned; whereas, in the same spirit and to ensure that a producer has not resumed activity with the sole aim of speculating on the supposed asset value of the reference quantity allocated to him, both the broad entitlement to compensation and the amount of that compensation should be subject to certain conditions;
Whereas, furthermore, the Court of Justice in its judgment of 19 May 1993 in Case C-81/91 ruled that the Community legislation concerned must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of the transfer of part of a holding where the transferee agrees to observe the non-marketing undertaking made by the transferor pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 1078/77, the special reference quantity may be divided between the transferor and the transferee on the basis of the proportion of the land transferred; whereas in the ground of its judgment the Court of Justice states that the transferor cannot legitimately expect to receive the entirety of the special reference quantity after having disposed of part of his holding;
Whereas as a result of that judgment it is necessary to take appropriate action in the present case and to provide, in the situation which is envisaged therein, that the annual quantity to be compensated in respect of a producer who has transferred part of his holding should also be reduced in proportion to the forage areas transferred;
Whereas, subject to the above, the quantity to be compensated must be calculated in accordance with the principles underlying the terms of the judgment of the Court of Justice of 19 May 1992;
Whereas in their communication of 5 August 1992 the institutions waived, for the benefit of potential beneficiaries and for the future, their right to plead the five-year time bar on claims laid down in Article 43 of the Statute of the Court of Justice; whereas it can furthermore be accepted that in the present case the injury ended only upon resumption of milk production; whereas, therefore, for the benefit of all those concerned, the period for which compensation is being offered and the circumstances under which the time bar on entitlement may once again come into effect should be stated; whereas for administrative reasons it is necessary to stipulate that if the producer's application for compensation pursuant to this Regulation is not submitted to the competent authority by a given date, it will be rejected;
Whereas, when this Regulation is implemented the competent authorities of the Member States shall act, on behalf of the Community and the Commission by virtue of a mandate, which has to do only with the execution, in compliance with the provisions of this Regulation, of the administrative tasks necessary for its implementation;
Whereas under the terms of the Court judgment the amount of the compensation must equal the difference between, on the one hand, the income which those concerned would have received from marketing milk had they not been prevented from doing so and, on the other hand, the income which they actually obtained during the same period or could have obtained by showing reasonable diligence; whereas, however, with the intention of offering beneficiaries compensation all the elements of which have economic justification, the amounts have been calculated according to a method the objectivity of which can be appreciated by each person concerned; whereas, moreover, the global nature of the outcome has been mitigated by introducing into the calculation of the compensation per 100 kg of milk two differentiation factors, one relating to the year concerned and the other to the size of the holding;
Whereas the number of variables to be considered first of all in reconstituting the income from milk production and secondly in establishing alternative sources of income would lead in the end to the merits of each case being looked at separately, which cannot reasonably be expected given the sheer number of producers involved; whereas only a comprehensive estimate of the damage is thus feasible; whereas to avoid underestimating the injury, however, the various factors chosen for calculating the compensation operate as a general rule to the benefit of the applicants;
Whereas the potential revenue from marketing is calculated from the gross margin for dairy farming, which on the receipts side includes sales of milk, calves born to dairy cows and the residual value of the dairy cow, and on the expenses side deducts only the variable costs which are immediately eliminated when milk production ceases and not the fixed costs relating to land, labour and capital; whereas, however, this reasoning fails to take account of the financial capital retained pending reinvestment in livestock; whereas it is therefore necessary to take into account the likely return on such capital; whereas, moreover, the cost of amortizing the renewal of the herd is saved where there is no herd;
Whereas, in calculating the replacement income, no account was taken, inter alia, of the alternative income from the capital released by abandoning milk production, on the basis that the producer concerned wanted eventually to resume such production and that the options for using the capital otherwise were accordingly limited;
Whereas failure by the producer to accept the offer made by the competent authority of the Member State in accordance with the provisions of this Regulation would amount to refusal of the Community offer; whereas any legal proceedings continued or initiated thereafter by the producer would fall within the Community's juridiction,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Compensation on the terms set out in this Regulation shall be granted to those producers who have suffered loss as a result of being prevented by an undertaking given pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 1078/77 from delivering or selling milk or milk products during the reference year selected by the Member State concerned under the additional levy scheme in the milk and milk product sector.
Article 2
An application for compensation shall be deemed eligible if it is submitted by a producer who has been allocated a definitive special reference quantity under the conditions set out in Article 3a (3) of Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 (6), either on 29 March 1991 pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 764/89 (7) or on 1 July 1993 pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 1639/91 (8).
Article 3
The application shall be submitted by the person to whom the reference quantity has been allocated or by his or her heir or heirs, without prejudice to the application of the provisions of Member States' national law.
Article 4
By way of derogation from Article 2, an application shall not be accepted in the producer who has received the definitive allocation of a reference quantity pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 764/89 either did not comply with his undertaking not to take part in any programme of cessation of milk production until 31 March 1992 or sold or leased his entire holding before that date.
Article 5
An application made by a producer who will receive the definitive allocation of the reference quantity pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 1639/91 on 1 July 1993 shall be accepted on condition that he does not take part in any programme of cessation of milk production and that he does not sell or lease his entire holding on or before 1 July 1994.
Article 6
The competent authority referred to in Article 10 shall determine the annual quantity in respect of which compensation is due on the basis of the quantity used to calculate the premium granted pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 1078/77, increased by 1 % and reduced by a percentage representing the reductions applied in each Member State to the reference quantities of producers established in accordance with Articles 2 and 6 of Regulation (EEC) No 857/84.
If a producer gives up part of his holding while it is subject to the provisions of Regulation (EEC) No 1078/77, the annual quantity in respect of which compensation is due as referred to in the previous subparagraph shall also be reduced in proportion to the areas under fodder given up within the meaning of Article 1 (1) (d) of Regulation (EEC) No 1391/78 (9).
The reduction referred to in the previous subparagraph shall be made in any event, irrespective of whether a special reference quantity has been allocated to the person taking over the part of the holding given up.
Article 7
If the definitive special quantity allocated pursuant to Article 3a of Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 is less than 80 % of the provisional special quantity or if the holding is sold or leased in part before 1 April 1992 or before 1 July 1994 as the case may be, the annual quantity in respect of which compensation is due shall be reduced by the quantity returned to the national reserve.
Article 8
1. Compensation shall be granted only for the period for which the right to compensation is not time-barred.
2. For the purpose of determining the period for which compensation shall be offered:
(a) the date of interruption of the five-year time bar set by Article 43 of the Statute of the Court of Justice shall be the date of the application addressed to a Community institution or, in the case of an action brought before the Court of Justice, the date on which the application is entered in its register, or at the latest the date of the communication of the institutions published in the Official Journal of the European Communities No C 198 of 5 August 1992;
(b) the starting date of the compensation period shall be five years before the date of interruption of the bar, but it may not fall before 2 April 1984 or before the date on which the non-marketing or conversion undertaking expired;
(c) the closing dates of the compensation period shall be 29 March 1989 for those producers who received the special reference quantity pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 764/89 and 15 June 1991 for those producers who received the special reference quantity pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 1639/91.
Article 9
If production was resumed before allocation of the provisional special quantity the quantity in respect of which compensation is due shall be reduced for the period concerned by the quantities delivered or sold directly which exceed the reference quantity which could be available to the producer, if appropriate, before the abovementioned allocation, excluding those referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 3a (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 857/94.
Article 10
1. Each application for compensation must be addressed to the competent authority designated for that purpose in each Member State, using a form drawn up in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 30 of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 (10).
2. The producer shall send his application to the competent authority. The application for production shall reach the competent authority, subject to rejection, by 30 September 1993 at the latest.
The limitation period pursuant to Article 43 of the Statute of the Court shall start to run afresh for all producers on whichever of the two dates referred to in the first subparagraph is appropriate if the application referred to in that subparagraph has not been made by that date save where the limitation period has been interrupted by an application to the Court of Justice made in accordance with the same Article 43.
Article 11
The competent authority referred to in Article 10 shall check the accuracy of the information provided by the producer and shall calculate the amount of the compensation on the basis of the quantity and the period in respect of which compensation is due, using the amounts specified in the Annex.
Article 12
The amount of the compensation shall be increased by default interest of 8 % per year until the compensation is paid.
Article 13
The total amount of the compensation shall be converted into national currency using the agricultural conversion rate applicable on the date on which this Regulation enters into force.
Article 14
Within four months on receipt of an application the competent authority referred to in Article 10 shall, in the name and on behalf of the Council and the Commission, make an offer of compensation to the producer, accompanied by a receipt in full and final settlement.
Where the producer derives his right to a special reference quantity:
- from Regulation (EEC) No 764/89, the compensation shall be paid on receipt of the returned receipt, duly approved and signed by the producer,
- from Regulation (EEC) No 1639/91, the compensation shall be paid, on condition that the receipt has been returned duly approved and signed by the producer, after 1 July 1994, so as to allow the competent authority to check that Articles 5 and 7 have been complied with, unless the producer lodges with that authority a security amounting to 115 % of the compensation fixed before the application of the aforementioned Articles, as a guarantee of compliance with the conditions set out in those Articles.
Failure to accept the offer within two months of its receipt shall mean that it shall not be binding in the future on the Community institutions concerned.
Acceptance of the offer by the return to the competent authority of the duly approved and signed receipt shall imply the relinquishment of any claim of whatever nature against Community institutions in respect of any loss within the meaning of Article 1.
Article 15
Detailed rules for the application of this Regulation, and in particular the provisions regarding payment of the costs of producers' agents incurred before 5 August 1992, shall be adopted by the Commission in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 30 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 804/68.
Article 16
The financing of the payments made pursuant to this Regulation shall be deemed to be intervention within the meaning of Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 (11).
Expenditure shall be committed against 1993 appropriations on the basis of information notified by the Member States, the total amount of which shall be communicated to the Commission no later than 30 September 1993. The paying agencies must effect the payments before 15 October 1994.
Article 17
This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 22 July 1993. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 2006/91/EC
of 7 November 2006
on control of San José Scale
(Codified version)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Articles 37 and 94 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 European Economic and Social Committee (2),
Whereas:
(1)
Council Directive 69/466/EEC of 8 December 1969 on control of San José Scale (3) has been substantially amended (4). In the interests of clarity and rationality the said Directive should be codified.
(2)
The production of woody dicotyledonous plants and their fruit occupies an important place in Community agriculture.
(3)
The yield of that production is constantly threatened by harmful organisms.
(4)
Through the protection of such plants against such harmful organisms, not only should productive capacity be maintained but also agricultural productivity increased.
(5)
Protective measures to prevent the introduction of harmful organisms into individual Member States would have only a limited effect if such organisms were not controlled simultaneously and methodically throughout the Community and were not prevented from spreading.
(6)
One of the organisms most harmful to woody dicotyledonous plants is San José Scale (Quadraspidiotus perniciosus Comst.).
(7)
This pest has occurred in several Member States and there are contaminated areas within the Community.
(8)
There is a permanent risk to the cultivation of woody dicotyledonous plants throughout the Community if effective measures are not taken to control this pest and prevent it from spreading.
(9)
To eradicate this pest, minimum provisions should be adopted for the Community. Member States should be able to adopt additional or stricter provisions where necessary.
(10)
This Directive should be without prejudice to the obligations of the Member States relating to the timelimits for transposition into national law of the Directives set out in Annex I, Part B,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:
Article 1
This Directive concerns the minimum measures to be taken within the Member States to control San José Scale (Quadraspidiotus perniciosus Comst.) and to prevent it from spreading.
Article 2
For the purposes of this Directive, the following definitions shall apply:
(a)
‘plants’ means live plants and live parts of plants with the exception of fruit and seeds;
(b)
‘contaminated plants or fruit’ means plants or fruit on which one or more San José Scale insects are found, unless it is confirmed that they are dead;
(c)
‘San José Scale host plants’ means plants of the genera Acer L., Cotoneaster Ehrh., Crataegus L., Cydonia Mill., Euonymus L., Fagus L., Juglans L., Ligustrum L., Malus Mill., Populus L., Prunus L., Pyrus L., Ribes L., Rosa L., Salix L., Sorbus L., Syringa L., Tilia L., Ulmus L., Vitis L.;
(d)
‘nurseries’ means plantations in which plants intended for transplanting, multiplying or distributing as individually rooted plants are grown.
Article 3
When an occurrence of San José Scale is recorded, Member States shall demarcate the contaminated area and a safety zone large enough to ensure the protection of the surrounding areas.
Article 4
The Member States shall provide that, in contaminated areas and safety zones, San José Scale host plants shall be appropriately treated to control this pest and prevent it from spreading.
Article 5
The Member States shall provide that:
(a)
all contaminated plants in nurseries shall be destroyed;
(b)
all other plants which are contaminated or suspected of being contaminated and which are growing in a contaminated area shall be treated in such a way that those plants and the fresh fruit therefrom are no longer contaminated when moved;
(c)
all rooted San José Scale host plants growing within a contaminated area, and parts of such plants which are intended for multiplication and are produced within that area, may be replanted within the contaminated area or transported away from it only if they have not been found to be contaminated and if they have been treated in such a way that any San José Scale insects which might still be present are destroyed.
Article 6
The Member States shall ensure that in the safety zones San José Scale host plants are subjected to official supervision and are inspected at least once a year in order to detect any occurrence of San José Scale.
Article 7
1. The Member States shall provide that in any batch of plants (other than those that are rooted in the ground) and of fresh fruit within which contamination has been found, the contaminated plants and fruit shall be destroyed and the other plants and fruit in the batch treated or processed in such a way that any San José Scale insects which might still be present are destroyed.
2. Paragraph 1 shall not apply to slightly contaminated batches of fresh fruit.
Article 8
The Member States shall revoke the measures taken to control San José Scale or to prevent it from spreading only if San José Scale is no longer found to be present.
Article 9
The Member States shall prohibit the holding of San José Scale.
Article 10
1. Member States may authorise:
(a)
derogations from the measures referred to in Articles 4 and 5, Article 7(1) and Article 9 for scientific and phytosanitary purposes, tests and selection work;
(b)
by way of derogation from point (b) of Article 5 and Article 7(1), the immediate processing of contaminated fresh fruit;
(c)
by way of derogation from point (b) of Article 5 and Article 7(1), the movement of contaminated fresh fruit within the contaminated area.
2. The Member States shall ensure that the authorisations provided for in paragraph 1 are granted only where adequate controls guarantee that they do not prejudice the control of San José Scale and create no risk of the spread of this pest.
Article 11
Member States may adopt such additional or stricter provisions as may be required to control San José Scale or to prevent it from spreading.
Article 12
Directive 69/466/EEC is hereby repealed, without prejudice to the obligations of the Member States relating to the time limits for transposition into national law of the Directives set out in Annex I, Part B.
References to the repealed Directive shall be construed as references to this Directive and shall be read in accordance with the correlation table in Annex II.
Article 13
This Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Article 14
This Directive is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 7 November 2006. | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION
of 9 June 1992
approving the plan for the approval of establishments for the purposes of intra-Community trade in poultry and hatching eggs submitted by Spain
(Only the Spanish text is authentic)
(92/345/EEC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Directive 90/539/EEC of 15 October 1990 on animal health conditions governing intra-Community trade in, and imports from third countries of, poultry and hatching eggs (1), as last amended by Directive 91/496/EEC (2), and in particular Article 3 (2) thereof,
Whereas by letter dated 3 April 1992 Spain transmitted a plan to the Commission;
Whereas the plan has been examined and found to meet the requirements of Directive 90/539/EEC, and in particular Annex II thereof;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
The plan submitted by Spain for the approval of establishments for the purposes of intra-Community trade in poultry and hatching eggs is hereby approved.
Article 2
Spain shall bring into force by 1 July 1992 the laws, regulations and administrative provisions for implementation of the plan referred to in Article 1.
Article 3
This Decision is addressed to Spain.
Done at Brussels, 9 June 1992. | [
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1620/95 of 4 July 1995 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2427/93 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2075/92 with regard to the Community Fund for tobacco research and information
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2075/92 of 30 June 1992 on the common organization of the market in raw tobacco (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 711/95 of 27 March 1995 (2), and in particular Article 13 (3) thereof,
Whereas Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2427/93 (3), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2678/94 (4), lays down detailed rules for the application of Regulation (EEC) No 2075/92 as regards the Community Fund for tobacco research and information; whereas experience indicates that the application of the accounting provisions laid down in Regulation (EEC) No 2427/93, as amended entails the national entry in the accounts of expenditure exceeding payments actually made and of revenues not collected; whereas this procedure is causing declaration problems for Member States; whereas the system should accordingly be revised;
Whereas this change in accounting practice does not affect the recipients' rights;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Tobacco,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Article 10 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2427/93 is hereby replaced by the following:
'2. Pursuant to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3478/92 of 1 December 1992 laying down detailed rules for the application of the premium system for raw tobacco, the amount to be withheld as referred to in paragraph 1 shall be deducted at the time of payment from the premium to be paid to producers and from the reimbursement to be made by Member States to processors.
The premium after deduction shall be declared by the Member States as expenditure by the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF).`
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
The book-keeping laid down in Article 10 (2) shall apply to all of the premiums for the 1994 harvest.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 4 July 1995. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 501/2000
of 14 February 2000
on administering the double-checking system without quantitative limits in respect of the export of certain steel products covered by the EC and ECSC Treaties from Ukraine to the European Community for the period from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2001 (extension of the double-checking system)
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) The Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States and Ukraine(1) entered into force on 1 March 1998.
(2) The Parties have decided by an Exchange of Letters(2) to extend the double-checking system without quantitative limits in respect of the export of certain steel products covered by the EC and ECSC Treaties from Ukraine to the European Community for the period from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2001.
(3) It is consequently necessary to extend the Community implementing legislation introduced by Council Regulation (EC) No 1526/97 of 26 June 1997 on administering the double-checking system without quantitative limits in respect of the export of certain steel products covered by the EC and ECSC Treaties from Ukraine to the European Community(3),
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Regulation (EC) No 1526/97 shall continue to apply for the period from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2001, in accordance with the provisions of Council Decision 2000/202/EC on the conclusion of an Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Community and Ukraine extending the double-checking system without quantitative limits in respect of the export of certain steel products covered by the EC and ECSC Treaties from Ukraine to the European Community for the period from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2001.
Article 2
Regulation (EC) No 1526/97 shall in consequence be amended as follows:
(a) in article 1(1) and (2) the words "31 December 1999" shall be replaced by the words "31 December 2001";
(b) the Annex shall be replaced by the Annex 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.
This Regulation 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, 14 February 2000. | [
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION
of 27 November 2009
concerning the adoption of a financing decision for 2010 for communication measures, studies, evaluations and on a direct grant to the OIE based on Article 168(1)(c) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002
(2009/856/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Decision 2009/470/EC of 25 May 2009 on expenditure in the veterinary field (1), and in particular Articles 20, 23 and 41 thereof,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (2) (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Financial Regulation’), and in particular Article 75 thereof,
Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (3) (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Implementing Rules’), and in particular Article 90 thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
Decision 2009/470/EC lays down the procedures governing the Community’s financial contribution towards specific veterinary measures, in particular as regards the information policy for animal health, animal welfare and food safety, and technical and scientific measures.
(2)
Pursuant to Article 19 of Decision 2009/470/EC, the Community shall make a financial contribution to the establishment of an information policy in the field of animal health, animal welfare and food safety in products of animal origin including the performance of studies necessary for the preparation and development of legislation in the field of animal welfare.
(3)
The Community Action Plan on the Protection and Welfare of Animals 2006-2010 (4) in particular foresees to involve and inform animal keepers/handlers as well as the general public on current standards of animal protection and welfare, and to continue to support and initiate further international initiatives to raise awareness and create a greater consensus on animal welfare. In this regard, a European strategy to communicate on animal welfare in Europe and abroad is being implemented, to explain to citizens the variations in animal production systems and the costs and benefits of higher animal welfare standards.
(4)
The Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on a new Animal Health Strategy for the EU (2007 to 2013) acknowledges the importance of dialogue between citizens, civil society associations and the EC institutions (particularly the Commission).
(5)
An effective communication strategy has been put in place in previous years to promote animal health issues and the Animal Health Strategy principles to stakeholders, organisations and society as a whole. This communication strategy should be continued. In 2010, it is the intention of the Commission to promote in particular the importance of identification and traceability of live animals and along the food chain during the EU Veterinary Week.
(6)
The year 2011 has been designated as ‘World Veterinary Year 2011’ and will mark the 250th anniversary of veterinary education in the world. A communication strategy aimed at different stakeholders will be prepared to highlight its importance and to inform the stakeholders about the different events that are to be organised in that year to celebrate this occasion.
(7)
Article 41 of Decision 2009/470/EC provides for the Commission to submit a report to the Council and Parliament on the animal health situation and the cost effectiveness of the implementation of programmes for the eradication control and monitoring of animal diseases.
(8)
It is therefore appropriate for the Community to fund for the year 2010, studies, impact assessments, evaluations, and information policy covering the areas of food safety, animal health and welfare and zootechnics. The maximum amount to be allocated to these actions should be specified.
(9)
Pursuant to Article 22 of Decision 2009/470/EC, the Community may undertake, or assist the Member States or international organisations in undertaking, the technical and scientific measures necessary for the development of Community veterinary legislation and for the development of veterinary education or training.
(10)
The World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) is the intergovernmental organisation responsible for improving animal health worldwide. It is recognised as a reference organisation by the World Trade Organization (WTO) for setting standards for international trade of animals and their products.
(11)
The OIE has organised a worldwide conference on ‘Evolving veterinary education for a safer world’, from 12-14 October 2009.
(12)
The OIE conference could ensure a better understanding of the Community policy on animal health amongst deans and directors of veterinary institutions and key national policy makers from all over the world and in developing veterinary education in the participating countries. Financial support by the Community for the dissemination of the proceedings related to the OIE global conference is therefore in line with its goal to improve the veterinary situation in the Community.
(13)
The OIE is planning an International Conference on foot and mouth disease. This conference will support the actions identified in the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on a new Animal Health Strategy for the EU (2007 to 2013). Therefore it is appropriate for the Community to contribute to this initiative in order to foster the development of Community legislation related to this disease. Therefore, the Community should contribute to this OIE initiative.
(14)
In accordance with Article 75 of the Financial Regulation and Article 90(1) of the Implementing Rules, the commitment of expenditure from the Community budget shall be preceded by a financing decision setting out the essential elements of the action involving expenditure and adopted by the institution or the authorities to which powers have been delegated by the institution.
(15)
Under Article 168(1)(c) of the Implementing Rules, grants may be awarded without a call for proposals in the case of bodies with a de facto monopoly. The OIE has a de facto monopoly in its sector, hence a call for proposals is not required in order for the Community to contribute to the dissemination of technical and scientific material related to the OIE conference ‘Evolving veterinary education for a safer world’ and the organization and hosting of an International Conference on Foot and Mouth Disease.
(16)
The present financing decision may also cover the payment of interest due for late payment on the basis of Article 83 of the Financial Regulation and Article 106(5) of the Implementing Rules.
(17)
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 DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Article 1
The activities for the implementation of the communication measures, the studies and evaluations and on a direct grant to the OIE, as set out in the Annex, are hereby adopted. It constitutes a financing decision in the meaning of Article 75 of the Financial Regulation.
Article 2
The maximum contribution authorised by this Decision for the implementation of the Programme is set at EUR 3 685 000 to be financed from the following Budgetary Line of the General Budget of the European Communities for 2009:
-
Budgetary Line no 17 04 02 01: EUR 3 685 000.
These appropriations may also cover interest due for late payment.
Article 3
The grants for the OIE will be awarded through a grant agreement without a call for proposals as the OIE is the intergovernmental organisation for improving animal health worldwide and has therefore a de facto monopoly, in accordance with the conditions detailed in the annexed work programme.
Done at Brussels, 27 November 2009. | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
1
] |
COMMISSION DECISION
of 7 April 2006
amending Decision 2006/115/EC concerning certain protection measures in relation to highly pathogenic avian influenza in wild birds in the Community
(notified under document number C(2006) 1480)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2006/277/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to Council Directive 89/662/EEC of 11 December 1989 concerning veterinary checks in intra-Community trade with a view to the completion of the internal market (1), and in particular Article 9(4) thereof,
Having regard to Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990 concerning veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Community trade in certain live animals and products with a view to the completion of the internal market (2), and in particular Article 10(4) thereof,
Having regard to Regulation (EC) 998/2003 of 26 May 2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the animal health requirements applicable to the non-commercial movement of pet animals and amending Council Directive 92/65/EEC (3), and in particular Article 18 thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
Avian influenza is an infectious viral disease in poultry and birds, causing mortality and disturbances which can quickly take epizootic proportions liable to present a serious threat to animal and public health and to reduce sharply the profitability of poultry farming. There is a risk that the disease agent might be spread from wild birds to domestic birds, notably poultry, and from one Member State to other Member States and third countries through the international trade in live birds or their products.
(2)
Cases of highly pathogenic avian influenza of the subtype virus H5NI are suspected or confirmed in several Member States. Taking into account the epidemiological situation, the Commission adopted Decision 2006/115/EC of 17 February 2006 concerning certain protection measures in relation to highly pathogenic avian influenza in wild birds in the Community and repealing Decisions 2006/86/EC, 2006/90/EC, 2006/91/EC, 2006/94/EC, 2006/104/EC and 2006/105/EC (4).
(3)
The specific measures provided for in this Decision should apply without prejudice to the measures to be taken by Member States in the framework of Council Directive 92/40/EEC of 19 May 1992 introducing Community measures for the control of avian influenza (5).
(4)
However, the measures provided for in Directive 92/40/EEC are minimum control measures and require supplementary provisions notably on the movement of certain birds and of products from poultry and other birds originating in the zone affected by the disease in wild birds.
(5)
It is necessary to clarify the interaction between Community measures taken in relation to highly pathogenic avian influenza caused by an influenza A virus of the serotype H5N1 in wild birds and those to be applied in case of the disease in poultry.
(6)
It appeared also necessary to further specify the starting point for the minimum duration of the measures provided for in this Decision.
(7)
It is appropriate to control and restrict the movement of, in particular, live birds and hatching eggs while allowing the controlled dispatch from the zones of such birds and products of avian origin subject to certain conditions. However certain adjustments are admissible as long as they are in accordance with the relevant provisions of the above Directive.
(8)
Transport of hatching eggs from the protection zones should be permitted under certain conditions. Specific derogations should be provided for hatching eggs or SPF-eggs used in specialised laboratories or institutes for scientific, diagnostic or pharmaceutical purposes.
(9)
Council Directive 2002/99/EC of 16 December 2002 laying down the animal health rules governing the production, processing, distribution and introduction of products of animal origin for human consumption (6), establishes a list of treatments rendering meat from restricted areas safe, and provides for the possibility to establish a specific health mark and the health mark required for meat not authorised for placing on the market for animal health reasons. It is appropriate to permit the dispatch from the protection zones of meat bearing the health mark provided for in that Directive and meat products subjected to treatment referred to therein.
(10)
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 and amending Regulations (EC) No 853/2004 and (EC) No 854/2004 (7), provides for transitional measures allowing the use of a national identification mark for products of animal origin intended for human consumption which may only be marketed in the national territory of the Member State where they are produced.
(11)
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 (8), authorises the placing on the market of a range of animal by-products, such as gelatine for technical use, materials for pharmaceutical use and others, originating in areas of the Community under animal health restrictions, because those products are considered safe due to the specific conditions of production, processing and utilisation that effectively inactivate possible pathogens or prevent contact with susceptible animals. However it should also be possible to authorise the transport of such by-products to designated processing plants in order to be treated to the standards mentioned above, or to avail of the derogations provided for in Article 23 of that Regulation.
(12)
Commission Decision 2006/115/EC should be amended accordingly.
(13)
The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
Decision 2006/115/EC is amended as follows:
1.
the following paragraph is added to Article 2:
‘5. The measures laid down in this Decision shall be applied without prejudice to the measures to be applied in the event of an outbreak of avian influenza in poultry taken in accordance with Directive 92/40/EEC or, where applicable, to more stringent Community protective measures in relation to highly pathogenic avian influenza in poultry caused by an influenza virus of the type H5N1.’;
2.
the second paragraph of Article 5 is replaced by the following:
‘If the presence of a highly pathogenic influenza A virus, in particular of the subtype H5N1, is confirmed in wild birds, the measures provided for in Articles 3 and 4 shall apply for as long as is necessary having regard to the geographical, administrative, ecological and epizootiological factors relating to avian influenza and for at least 21 in the case of the protection zone and 30 days in the case of the surveillance zone after the date of collection from wild birds of the samples on which a highly pathogenic H5 avian influenza virus was confirmed.’;
3.
Article 6(1) is replaced by the following:
‘1. By way of derogation from Article 3(2)(a), the affected Member State may authorise the transport of
(a)
poultry and farmed feathered game to holdings under official control situated either in the protection or in the surveillance zone;
(b)
ready-to-lay pullets to holdings under official control in the same Member State and the poultry shall remain on the holding of destination for 21 days following the arrival of those pullets.’;
4.
Article 6(2)(b) is replaced by the following:
‘(b)
day-old chicks from the protection zone to holdings under official control on its territory provided, that either on the holding of destination there are no other poultry or captive birds, except pet birds referred to in Article 1(2)(c)(i), which are kept separated from poultry, or the transport is carried out under the conditions described in Article 24(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 2005/94/EC and the poultry shall remain on the holding of destination for 21 days following the arrival of those chicks;’
5.
the following is added to Article 7(1):
‘(c)
the dispatch of hatching eggs or SPF-eggs from the protection zone to designated laboratories or institutes for scientific, diagnostic or pharmaceutical uses.’;
6.
the following is added to Article 8(1):
‘(g)
fresh meat from poultry or farmed feathered game, minced meat and meat preparations and mechanically separated meat containing such meat, obtained from slaughter poultry or farmed feathered game originating in or outside that zone to the remaining part of its national territory, if such meat:
(i)
was, in accordance with Article 4 of Directive 2002/99/EC, identified either with the mark provided for in Annex II to Directive 2002/99/EC or the national mark established in accordance with Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 2076/2005;
(ii)
was obtained, cut, stored and transported separately from other fresh meat from poultry or farmed feathered game destined for dispatch to other Member States or for exports to third countries; and
(iii)
is used in such a way as to avoid it being introduced into meat products or meat preparations intended for placing on the market in other Member States or for export to third countries, unless it has undergone the treatment as required for avian influenza specified in table 1(a), (b) or (c) of Annex III to Directive 2002/99/EC.’
7.
Article 8(2) is deleted.
8.
Article 9(1)(a) is replaced by the following:
‘(a)
animal by-products which
(i)
comply with the conditions set out in Chapters II(A), III(B), IV(A), VI(A and B), VII(A), VIII(A), IX(A) and X(A) of Annex VII, and Chapter II(B) and Chapter III Title (II)(A) of Annex VIII to Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002; or
(ii)
are transported under bio-secure conditions to designated processing plants approved in accordance with Chapter III or Chapter IV of Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 for treatment to ensure at least the inactivation of the avian influenza virus; or
(iii)
are transported under bio-secure conditions for processing into feed for animals in accordance with the derogation provided for in Article 23(2)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002.’
Article 2
Member States shall immediately adopt and publish the measures necessary to comply with this Decision. They shall immediately inform the Commission thereof.
Article 3
Addressee
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 7 April 2006. | [
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION of 10 December 1991 on the establishment of an addendum to the Community support framework for Community structural assistance in Spain (Andalucía, Asturias, Castilla y León, Castilla-La Mancha, Comunidad Valenciana, Extremadura, Galicia, Canarias, Murcia, Ceuta y Melilla) on the improvement of the conditions under which agricultural products are processed and marketed (Only the Spanish text is authentic) (91/649/EEC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 of 24 June 1988 on the tasks of the Structural Funds and their effectiveness and on coordination of their activities between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments (1), and in particular Article 8 (5) thereof,
After consultation of the Committee for the Development and Reconversion of Regions,
Whereas the Commission has approved by Decision 89/641/EEC (2) the Community support framework for structural assistance in Spain (Andalucia, Asturias, Castilla y León, Castilla-La Mancha, Comunidad Valenciana, Extremadura, Galicia, Canarias, Murcia, Ceuta y Melilla);
Whereas the Spanish Government submitted to the Commission on 27 March 1991 eight sectoral plans on the modernization of the conditions under which agricultural products are processed and marketed referred to in Article 2 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 866/90 of 29 March 1990 on improving the processing and marketing conditions for agricultural products (3);
Whereas the plans submitted by the Member State include descriptions of the main priorities selected and indications of the use to be made of assistance under the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), Guidance Section in implementing the plan;
Whereas measures falling within the scope of Regulation (EEC) No 866/90 and Council Regulation (EEC) No 867/90 of 29 March 1990 on improving the processing and marketing conditions for forestry products (4) may be taken into consideration by the Commission when establishing the Community support frameworks for areas covered by Objective 1 as provided for in Title III of Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88;
Whereas this addendum to the Community support framework has been established in agreement with the Member State concerned through the partnership defined in Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88;
Whereas all measures which constitute the addendum are in conformity with Commission Decision 90/342/EEC of 7 June 1990 on the selection criteria to be adopted for investments for improving the processing and marketing conditions for agricultural and forestry products (5);
Whereas the Commission is prepared to examine the possibility of the other Community lending instruments contributing to the financing of this addendum in accordance with the specific provisions governing them;
Whereas in accordance with Article 10 (2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988 laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the different Structural Funds between themselves and with the operation of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments (6), this Decision is to be sent as a declaration of intent to the Member State;
Whereas in accordance with Article 20 (1) and (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 budgetary commitments relating to the contribution from the Structural Funds to the financing of the operations covered by the Community support framework will be made on the basis of subsequent Commission decisions approving the operations concerned;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for Agricultural Structures and Rural Development,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
The addendum to the Community support framework for Community structural assistance on the improvement of the conditions under which agricultural products are processed and marketed in Spain (Andalucia, Asturias, Castilla y León, Castilla-La Mancha, Comunidad Valenciana, Extremadura, Galicia, Canarias, Murcia, Ceuta y Melilla) covering the period 1 January 1991 to 31 December 1993, is hereby established.
The Commission declares that it intends to contribute to the implementation of this addendum to the Community support framework in accordance with the detailed provisions thereof and in compliance with the rules and guidelines of the Stuctural Funds and the other existing financial instruments.
Article 2
The addendum to the Community support framework contains the following essential information:
(a) a statement of the main priorities for joint action in the following sectors:
1. Forestry
2. Meat
3. Milk and milk products
4. Eggs and poultry
5. Diverse animal products
6. Cereals
7. Oil-producing crops
8. Wines and alcohols
9. Fruits and vegetables
10. Flowers and plants
11. Seeds
12. Potatoes;
(b) an indicative financing plan specifying, at constant 1991 prices, the total cost of the priorities adopted for joint action by the Community and the Member State concerned, ECU 286 252 000 for the whole period, and the financial arrangements envisaged for budgetary assistance from the Community, broken down as follows:
(in ecus)
1. Forestry 4 070 000
2. Meat 11 555 000
3. Milk and milk products 9 800 000
4. Eggs and poultry 1 372 000
5. Diverse animal products 4 567 000
6. Cereals 6 979 000
7. Oil-producing crops 5 774 000
8. Wines and alcohols 9 115 000
9. Fruits and vegetables 29 656 000
10. Flowers and plants 810 000
11. Seeds 1 560 000
12. Potatoes 998 000
Total 86 256 000
The resultant national financing requirement, approximately ECU 14 409 000 for the public sector and ECU 185 587 000 for the private sector, may be partially covered by Community loans from the European Investment Bank and the other loan instruments.
Article 3
This declaration of intent is addressed to the Spanish Kingdom. Done at Brussels, 10 December 1991. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COUNCIL DECISION
of 13 November 2006
on the conclusion of a Protocol amending 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, on tariff quotas for sugar and sugar products originating in Croatia or in the Community
(2006/882/EC)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 133, in conjunction with the first sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 300(2) thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,
Whereas:
(1)
On 28 February 2005 the Council authorised the Commission to enter into negotiations with the Republic of Croatia to amend the preferential arrangements as regards imports of sugar originating in Croatia into the Community under 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 (1), approved by Council and Commission Decision 2005/40/EC, Euratom (2).
(2)
The Commission has finalised negotiations for a Protocol amending the Stabilisation and Association Agreement. The said Protocol should therefore be approved.
(3)
The measures necessary for the implementation of the Protocol should be adopted by the Commission according to the same procedure as that provided for as regards the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 of 20 February 2006 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (3),
HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Article 1
The Protocol amending 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, on tariff quotas for sugar and sugar products originating in Croatia or in the Community (hereinafter referred to as the Protocol) is hereby approved on behalf of the Community.
The text of the Protocol is attached to this Decision.
Article 2
The President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Protocol in order to bind the Community.
Article 3
The Commission shall adopt the detailed rules for implementing the Protocol in accordance with the procedure as laid down in Article 39 of Regulation (EC) No 318/2006.
Done at Brussels, 13 November 2006. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2332/2001
of 29 November 2001
fixing the export refunds on rice and broken rice and suspending the issue of export licences
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 3072/95 of 22 December 1995 on the common organisation of the market in rice(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1987/2001(2), and in particular the second subparagraph of Article 13(3) and (15) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 3072/95 provides that the difference between quotations or prices on the world market for the products listed in Article 1 of that Regulation and prices for those products within the Community may be covered by an export refund.
(2) Article 13(4) of Regulation (EC) No 3072/95, provides that when refunds are being fixed account must be taken of the existing situation and the future trend with regard to prices and availabilities of rice and broken rice on the Community market on the one hand and prices for rice and broken rice on the world market on the other. The same Article provides that it is also important to ensure equilibrium and the natural development of prices and trade on the rice market and, furthermore, to take into account the economic aspect of the proposed exports and the need to avoid disturbances of the Community market with limits resulting from agreements concluded in accordance with Article 300 of the Treaty.
(3) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1361/76(3) lays down the maximum percentage of broken rice allowed in rice for which an export refund is fixed and specifies the percentage by which that refund is to be reduced where the proportion of broken rice in the rice exported exceeds that maximum.
(4) Export possibilities exist for a quantity of 18114 tonnes of rice to certain destinations. The procedure laid down in Article 7(4) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1162/95(4), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 409/2001(5) should be used. Account should be taken of this when the refunds are fixed.
(5) Article 13(5) of Regulation (EC) No 3072/95 defines the specific criteria to be taken into account when the export refund on rice and broken rice is being calculated.
(6) The world market situation or the specific requirements of certain markets may make it necessary to vary the refund for certain products according to destination.
(7) A separate refund should be fixed for packaged long grain rice to accommodate current demand for the product on certain markets.
(8) The refund must be fixed at least once a month; whereas it may be altered in the intervening period.
(9) It follows from applying these rules and criteria to the present situation on the market in rice and in particular to quotations or prices for rice and broken rice within the Community and on the world market, that the refund should be fixed as set out in the Annex hereto.
(10) For the purposes of administering the volume restrictions resulting from Community commitments in the context of the WTO, the issue of export licences with advance fixing of the refund should be restricted.
(11) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The export refunds on the products listed in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 3072/95 with the exception of those listed in paragraph 1(c) of that Article, exported in the natural state, shall be as set out in the Annex hereto.
Article 2
With the exception of the quantity of 18114 tonnes provided for in the Annex, the issue of export licences with advance fixing of the refund is suspended.
Article 3
This Regulation shall enter into force on 30 November 2001.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 29 November 2001. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2731/1999
of 21 December 1999
amending Regulation (EC) No 2603/97 laying down the detailed implementing rules for imports of rice originating in the ACP countries or the overseas countries and territories (OCT)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Decision 91/482/EEC of 25 July 1991 on the association of the overseas countries and territories with the European Economic Community(1), as last amended by Decision 97/803/EC(2), and in particular Article 108a(5) thereof,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1706/98 of 20 July 1998 on the arrangements applicable to agricultural products and goods resulting from the processing of agricultural products originating in the African, Caribbean and Pacific States (ACP) and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 715/90(3), and in particular Article 30(1) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2603/97(4), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1595/98(5), lays down the detailed implementing rules for the annual import of 160000 tonnes of rice in husked rice equivalent originating in the ACP countries or the overseas countries and territories (OCTs). Experience has shown that the applications submitted for each tranche relate to a total quantity far exceeding that available and thus result in the issue of licences for reduced quantities. There are therefore grounds for tightening up the conditions under which applications are submitted so that they are submitted by operators who are commercially engaged in the import or export of rice. The amount of the security in respect of the licence should also be increased.
(2) Article 9(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2603/97 allows operators to withdraw applications for licences where a reduction percentage is applied. In the light of experience, there are grounds for limiting withdrawal of applications to cases where the application of a reduction percentage would result in the issue of an import licence for a quantity that is not economically viable.
(3) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for cereals,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Regulation (EC) No 2603/97 is hereby amended as follows:
1. In Article 8(5) the first indent is replaced by the following:
"- applications must be submitted by natural or legal persons who, in at least one of the three years preceding the date of submission of the application, have been engaged in the commercial import or export of rice and were entered in a public register of a Member State. Proof of import or export shall be furnished by the production of at least two duly endorsed import or export licences or by customs declarations where applicable,".
2. Article 8(6) is replaced by the following:
"6. Notwithstanding Article 10 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1162/95(6), the security for import licences shall be EUR 120 per tonne."
3. Article 9(3) is replaced by the following:
"3. Where the quantity for which the licence is required is less than 20 tonnes following the application of the percentage reduction referred to in paragraph 2, the licence application may be withdrawn within a period of two working days from the date of publication of the regulation fixing that percentage. The security shall be released immediately."
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 January 2000.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 21 December 1999. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1
] |
*****
COMMISSION DECISION
of 5 February 1986
adopting certain special rules for the application in the beef and veal sector of Regulation (EEC) No 1055/77 on the storage and movement of products bought in by an intervention agency
(86/31/EEC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1055/77 of 17 May 1977 on the storage and movement of products bought in by an intervention agency (1), and in particular Article 4 thereof,
Whereas certain products held by the French intervention agency are in storage in Austria; whereas these products have been sold for processing in Germany;
Whereas specific rules covering cases such as this have not yet been adopted;
Whereas in order to ensure equality of treatment of the interested parties pending the adoption of specific rules on this matter it should be specified that when the products are imported into Germany monetary compensatory amounts shall be applicable but not customs duties or levies;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Beef and Veal,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
When the products held by the French intervention agency in storage in Austria that have been sold under the sales contracts listed in the Annex hereto are reimported into Germany:
- no customs duties or levies shall be imposed, and
- no import licence need be presented,
provided that a removal order as specified in Article 6 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1687/76 (2), referring to one of the said sales contracts is produced at the customs office for re-importation. At the time of importation that customs office shall issue the control copy T No 5 mentioned in Article 2 (3) of that Regulation.
Article 2
The competent authorities concerned shall cooperate in verification of the particulars of the sales operations concerned. In particular, the French intervention agency shall notify the relevant removal order serial numbers to the competent German authorities.
Article 3
This Decision is addressed to the French Republic and the Federal Republic of Germany.
Done at Brussels, 5 February 1986. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE of 12 December 1977 aiming at the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications for goods haulage operators and road passenger transport operators, including measures intended to encourage these operators effectively to exercise their right to freedom of establishment (77/796/EEC)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Articles 49, 57 and 235 thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,
Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (1),
Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee (2),
Whereas, in its Directives 74/561/EEC (3) and 74/562/EEC (4), the Council imposed certain conditions for admission to the occupation of goods haulage operator and road passenger transport operator in national and international transport and whereas it is appropriate to ensure the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications in respect of the activities covered by these Directives ; whereas this Directive does not concern those undertakings referred to in the abovementioned Directives unless they are companies or firms within the meaning of Article 58 of the Treaty;
Whereas, in respect of good repute and financial standing, it would be appropriate to acknowledge [relevant] documents issued by a competent authority in the transport operator's country of origin or the country whence he comes as sufficient proof for admission to the activities concerned in a host Member State;
Whereas, in respect of professional competence, the certificates issued pursuant to the Community provisions on admission to the occupation of transport operator, must be recognized as sufficient proof by the host Member State;
Whereas to the extent that Member States also make admission to, or the carrying out of, the activities covered by this Directive by employees subject to the possession of skills and professional competence, this Directive must also apply to that category of person ; whereas it would therefore also be appropriate to apply to employees the provisions on proof of good repute and of no previous bankruptcy,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:
Article 1
1. Member States shall, in respect of the activities referred to in Article 2, take the measures defined in this Directive concerning the establishment in their territories of the natural persons and undertakings referred to in Title I of the General Programme for the abolition of restrictions on freedom of establishment.
2. This Directive shall also apply to nationals of Member States who, pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (5), carry on the activities referred to in Article 2 in the capacity of employees.
Article 2
This Directive shall apply to activities covered by Council Directives 74/561/EEC and 74/562/EEC.
Article 3
1. Without prejudice to paragraphs 2 and 3 below, a host Member State shall, for the purpose of admission to any of the activities referred to in Article 2, accept as (1)OJ No C 125, 8.6.1976, p. 54. (2)OJ No C 197, 23.8.1976, p. 35. (3)OJ No L 308, 19.11.1974, p. 18. (4)OJ No L 308, 19.11.1974, p. 23. (5)OJ No L 257, 19.10.1968, p. 2.
sufficient proof of good repute or of no previous bankruptcy an extract from a judicial record or, failing that, an equivalent document issued by a competent judicial or administrative authority in the transport operator's country of origin or the country whence he comes, showing that these requirements have been met.
2. Where the host Member State imposes on its own nationals certain requirements as to good repute and proof that such requirements are satisfied cannot be obtained from the document referred to in paragraph 1, that State shall accept as sufficient evidence in respect of nationals of other Member States a certificate issued by a competent judicial or administrative authority in the country of origin or in the country whence the foreign national comes stating that the requirements in question have been met. Such certificates shall relate to the specific facts regarded as relevant by the host country.
3. Where the country of origin or country whence the foreign national comes does not issue the document required in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2, such document may be replaced by a declaration on oath or by a solemn declaration - made by the person concerned before a competent judicial or administrative authority or, where appropriate, a notary in that person's country of origin or the country whence he comes ; such authority or notary shall issue a certificate attesting the authenticity of the declaration on oath or solemn declaration. The declaration in respect of no previous bankrupty may also be made before a competent professional body in the same country.
4. Documents issued in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not be accepted if produced more than three months after their date of issue. This condition shall apply also to declarations made in accordance with paragraph 3.
Article 4
1. Where in a host Member State a certificate is required as proof of financial standing, that State shall regard corresponding certificates issued by banks in the country of origin or in the country whence the foreign national comes or by other financial bodies designated by that country, as equivalent to certificates issued in its own territory.
2. Where a Member State imposes on its own nationals certain requirements as to financial standing and where proof that such requirements are satisfied cannot be obtained from the document referred to in paragraph 1, that State shall accept as sufficient evidence, in respect of nationals of other Member States, a certificate issued by a competent administrative authority in the country of origin or in the country whence the foreign national comes, stating that the requirements in question have been met. Such certificate shall relate to the specific facts regarded as relevant by the host country.
Article 5
1. Member States shall recognize the certificates referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 3 (4) of Directive 74/561/EEC and the second subparagraph of Article 2 (4) of Directive 74/562/EEC and issued by another Member State as sufficient proof of professional competence if they are based on an examination passed by the applicant or on three years' practical experience.
2. With regard to natural persons and undertakings authorized, before 1 January 1975, under national regulations in a Member State to engage in the occupation of goods haulage operator or passenger transport operator in national and/or international road transport and in so far as the undertakings concerned are companies or firms within the meaning of Article 58 of the Treaty, Member States shall accept as sufficient proof of professional competence certificates stating that the activity concerned has actually been carried on in a Member State for a period of three years. This activity must not have ceased more than five years before the date of submission of the certificate.
In the case of an undertaking, the certificate stating that the activity has actually been carried on shall be issued in respect of one of the natural persons actually in charge of the transport activities of the undertaking.
Article 6
Member States shall, within the time limit laid down in Article 7, designate the authorities and bodies competent to issue the documents referred to in Articles 3 and 4 and the certificate referred to in Article 5 (2). They shall immediately inform the other Member States and the Commission thereof.
Article 7
1. Member States shall bring into force the measures necessary to comply with this Directive before 1 January 1979 and shall immediately inform the Commission thereof.
2. Member States shall forward to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.
Article 8
This Directive is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 12 December 1977. | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
1,
0
] |
Council Directive
of 25 July 1983
on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to certain lactoproteins (caseins and caseinates) intended for human consumption
(83/417/EEC)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Article 100 thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission [1],
Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament [2],
Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee [3],
Whereas the laws, regulations and administrative provisions in force in some Member States define the composition and manufacturing characteristics of caseins and caseinates intended for human consumption, together with the conditions with which these products must comply in order that certain designations may be used in their regard or that their use in the preparation of other foodstuffs may be authorized; whereas such provisions do not exist at present in other Member States;
Whereas this situation is such as to hinder the free movement of caseins and caseinates intended for human consumption and to create conditions of unfair competition between users; whereas it therefore has a direct effect on the establishment and functioning of the common market;
Whereas it is therefore necessary to determine, at Community level, the rules which must be observed as regards the composition and labelling of these products;
Whereas at present edible caseins and caseinates are not generally sold to the ultimate consumer; whereas, however, should such a sale occur, Council Directive 79/112/EEC of 18 December 1978 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs for sale to the ultimate customer [4] will also apply;
Whereas, on the other hand, with a view to facilitating trade it is advisable to adopt, at Community level, rules for labelling applicable to edible caseins and caseinates intended for use within the trade;
Whereas the preliminary programme of the European Economic Community for a consumer protection and information policy [5] provides for Community action in fields which are of special importance for the protection of the consumer's health and safety, notably in that of foodstuffs;
Whereas the process of defining the sampling procedures and methods of analysis necessary for testing the composition and other properties of the products in question constitutes a technical implementing measure the adoption of which should be entrusted to the Commission in order to simplify and speed up the procedure;
Whereas, in all the cases for which the Commission is empowered by the Council to implement the rules applicable to foodstuffs for human consumption, a procedure should be provided for instituting close cooperation between the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee for Foodstuffs set up pursuant to Decision 69/414/EEC [6],
HAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:
Article 1
1. This Directive concerns lactoproteins, as defined in the Annexes, which are intended for human consumption and mixtures thereof.
2. For the purposes of this Directive:
- "caseins" means the principal protein constituent of milk, washed and dried, insoluble in water and obtained from skimmed milk by precipitation:
- by the addition of acid, or
- by microbial acidification, or
- by using rennet, or
- by using other milk-coagulating enzymes,
without prejudice to the possibility of prior use of ion exchange processes and concentration processes,
- "caseinates" means products obtained by drying caseins treated with neutralizing agents,
- "skimmed milk" means the milk of one or more cows to which nothing has been added and of which only the fat content has been reduced.
Article 2
The Member States shall take all the necessary steps to ensure that:
- the products defined in the Annexes may be marketed only if they conform to the definitions and rules laid down in this Directive and the Annexes thereto, and
- products which do not satisfy the criteria laid down in the Annexes are named and labelled in such a way that the buyer is not misled as to their nature, quality or use.
Article 3
The names referred to in the Annexes shall be reserved for the products defined and must be used commercially to designate those products.
Article 4
1. Without prejudice to Directive 79/112/EEC and without prejudice to the provisions to be adopted by the Community concerning the labelling of foodstuffs not intended for the ultimate consumer, the only mandatory particulars to be marked on the packages, containers or labels of the products defined in the Annexes, particulars which must be clearly visible, easily legible and in indelible characters, shall be as follows:
(a) the name reserved for these products in accordance with Article 3 with, in the case of caseinates, an indication of the cation or cations;
(b) in the case of products marketed as mixtures,
- the words "mixture of …" followed by the names of the different products which make up the mixture, in decreasing order of weight,
- an indication of the cation or cations in the case of caseinate or caseinates,
- the protein content in the case of mixtures containing caseinates;
(c) the net quantity expressed in the following units of mass: kilograms or grams. Until the end of the transitional period during which use of the imperial units of measurement contained in Chapter D of the Annex to Council Directive 71/354/EEC of 18 October 1971 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to units of measurement [7], as last amended by Directive 76/770/EEC [8], is authorized in the Community, Ireland and the United Kingdom may permit the quantity to be expressed only in imperial units of measurement calculated on the basis of the following conversion rates:
- 1 ml = 0,0352 fluid ounces,
- 1 l = 1,760 pints or 0,220 gallons,
- 1 g = 0,0353 ounces (avoirdupois),
- 1 kg = 2,205 pounds;
(d) the name or business name and the address of the manufacturer or packager or of a seller established within the Community;
however, in the case of their national production, Member States may maintain in force national provisions requiring details of the manufacturing or packaging establishment to be mentioned;
(e) in the case of products imported from third countries, the name of the country of origin;
(f) the date of manufacture or some marking by which the batch can be identified.
2. Member States shall prohibit the marketing of edible caseins and caseinates in their territory if the particulars referred to in paragraphs 1 (a), (b), (e) and (f) do not appear in a language easily understood by the purchaser, unless the latter is given such information by other means; this provision shall not preclude the appearance of the said particulars in several languages.
The particulars specified in paragraph 1 (b), third indent, (c), (d) and (e), need appear only in an accompanying document. For transport in bulk, this derogation may be extended to (b), second indent, and (f).
Article 5
Without prejudice to Community provisions to be adopted in the field of health and hygiene in connection with the basic materials referred to in Annexes I and II, such products must be subjected to heat treatment which will render the phosphatase negative.
Article 6
1. Member States shall take all the necessary steps to ensure that trade in products referred to in Article 1 which comply with the definitions and rules laid down in this Directive and the Annexes thereto cannot be impeded by the application of non-harmonized national provisions governing the composition, manufacturing specifications, packaging or labelling of these products or of foodstuffs in general.
2. Paragraph 1 shall not apply to non-harmonized provisions which are justified on the grounds of:
- protection of public health,
- prevention of fraud unless such provisions are liable to impede the application of the definitions and rules laid down by this Directive,
- protection of industrial and commercial property, indications of source, registered designation of origin and prevention of unfair competition.
Article 7
1. Where, as a result of new information or of a reassessment of existing information made since the Directive was adopted, a Member State finds there is detailed evidence that the use in the products defined in Annexes I and II hereto of one of the substances referred to therein or the maximum quantity of such substance that may be used constitutes a danger to human health, even though it complies with the provisions of this Directive, that Member State may temporarily suspend or restrict application of the provisions in question in its territory. It shall immediately inform the other Member States and the Commission thereof and give reasons for its decision.
2. The Commission shall examine as soon as possible the reasons given by the Member State concerned and shall consult the Member States within the Standing Committee for Foodstuffs; it shall then deliver its opinion forthwith and take the appropriate measures.
3. If the Commission considers that amendments to the Directive are necessary in order to remedy the difficulties referred to in paragraph 1 and to protect human health, it shall initiate the procedure provided for in Article 10 for the purpose of adopting such amendments. In that case, the Member State which has adopted safeguard measures may maintain them until the amendments enter into force.
Article 8
The Council, acting on a proposal from the Commission, shall adopt where necessary purity criteria for the technological adjuvants referred to in the Annexes.
Article 9
The following shall be determined in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 10:
(a) the methods of analysis necessary for checking the purity criteria referred to in Article 8;
(b) the sampling procedures and methods of analysis necessary for checking the composition and manufacturing specifications at the time of manufacture of the products defined in the Annexes.
Article 10
1. Where the procedure laid down in this Article is invoked, the matter shall be referred to the Standing Committee for Foodstuffs set up by Decision 69/414/EEC, hereinafter referred to as "the Committee", by its chairman, either on his own initiative or at the request of a representative of a Member State.
2. The Commission shall submit to the Committee a draft of the measures to be adopted. The Committee shall give its opinion on the said draft within such time as the chairman of the Committee may determine in the light of the urgency of the matter in question. The Committee shall decide by a majority of at least 45 votes, the votes of the Member States being weighted in accordance with Article 148 (2) of the Treaty. The chairman shall not take part in the vote.
3. (a) The Commission shall adopt the measures contemplated where they are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee.
(b) Where the measures contemplated are not in accordance with the opinion of the Committee, or where no such opinion has been issued, the Commission shall forthwith submit to the Council a proposal on the measures to be taken. The Council shall act by a qualified majority.
(c) If, on expiry of a period of three months from the date on which the matter was referred to the Council, the latter has not acted, the proposed measures shall be adopted by the Commission.
Article 11
This Directive shall not apply to products referred to in Article 1 intended for export to third countries.
Article 12
Member States shall make such amendments to their laws as may be necessary to comply with this Directive and shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof; the laws thus amended shall be applied in such a way as to:
- permit trade in products complying with this Directive not later than two years after its notification [9],
- prohibit trade in products not complying with this Directive three years after its notification.
Article 13
This Directive is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 25 July 1983. | [
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 201/2009
of 16 March 2009
amending Regulation (EC) No 318/2007 laying down animal health conditions for imports of certain birds into the Community and the quarantine conditions thereof
(Text with EEA relevance)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Directive 91/496/EEC of 15 July 1991 laying down the principles governing the organisation of veterinary checks on animals entering the Community from third countries and amending Directives 89/662/EEC, 90/425/EEC and 90/675/EEC (1), and in particular the second subparagraph of Article 10(3) and the first subparagraph of Article 10(4) thereof,
Having regard to Council Directive 92/65/EEC of 13 July 1992 laying down animal health requirements governing trade in and imports into the Community of animals, semen, ova and embryos not subject to animal health requirements laid down in specific Community rules referred to in Annex A(I) to Directive 90/425/EEC (2), and in particular the fourth indent of Article 18(1),
Whereas:
(1)
Commission Regulation (EC) No 318/2007 (3) lays down the animal health conditions for imports of certain birds other than poultry into the Community and the quarantine conditions applicable to such birds after import.
(2)
Annex V to that Regulation sets out a list of quarantine facilities and centres approved by the competent authorities of the Member States for import of certain birds other than poultry.
(3)
The Netherlands, Portugal and the United Kingdom have reviewed their approved quarantine facilities and centres and have sent an updated list of those quarantine facilities and centres to the Commission. The list of approved quarantine facilities and centres set out in Annex V to Regulation (EC) No 318/2007 should therefore be amended accordingly.
(4)
Regulation (EC) No 318/2007 should therefore be amended accordingly.
(5)
The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Annex V to Regulation (EC) No 318/2007 is replaced by the text in the Annex to this Regulation.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following 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, 16 March 2009. | [
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COUNCIL REGULATION (EC, EURATOM) No 89/2007
of 30 January 2007
amending Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2728/94 establishing a Guarantee Fund for external actions
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 308 thereof,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 203 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 Court of Auditors (2),
Whereas:
(1)
The efficiency of the use made of budgetary means reserved for the Guarantee Fund established by Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2728/94 (3) should be improved and the administrative work related to the budgetary management of the Guarantee Fund reduced.
(2)
The transparency and programming of budgetary transactions in relation to the provisioning of the Guarantee Fund should be enhanced.
(3)
The Interinstitutional Agreement between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (4) adopted on 17 May 2006 sets the multiannual financial framework of the European Union for the period 2007 to 2013. Pursuant to the Interinstitutional Agreement, the funding of the Guarantee Fund is provided for as an obligatory expenditure from the general budget of the European Union for that period.
(4)
The main function of the Guarantee Fund, namely to shield the general budget of the European Union against shocks due to defaults on loans or guaranteed loans covered by the Fund, should be maintained.
(5)
The Guarantee Fund covers defaults under loans issued by the European Investment Bank (hereinafter the EIB) for which the Community provides a guarantee under the EIB's external mandate. In addition, in line with the EIB's external mandate as taking effect from 1 February 2007, the Fund should also cover defaults under loan guarantees issued by the EIB for which the Community provides a guarantee.
(6)
Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2728/94 should therefore be amended accordingly.
(7)
The Treaties provide for no powers, other than those in Article 308 of the EC Treaty and Article 203 of the Euratom Treaty, for the adoption of this Regulation,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2728/94 is hereby amended as follows:
1.
in Article 1, the first subparagraph shall be replaced by the following:
‘A Guarantee Fund, hereinafter referred to as the “Fund”, shall be established, the resources of which shall be used to repay the Community's creditors in the event of default by the beneficiary of a loan granted or guaranteed by the Community or of a loan guarantee issued by the European Investment Bank for which the Community provides a guarantee.’;
2.
in Article 2, the first indent shall be replaced by the following:
‘-
one annual payment from the general budget of the European Union pursuant to Articles 4 and 5,’;
3.
in Article 3, the third subparagraph shall be replaced by the following:
‘On the basis of the year-end “n-1” difference between the target amount and the value of the Fund's net assets, calculated at the beginning of the year “n”, any surplus shall be paid in one transaction to a special heading in the statement of revenue in the general budget of the European Union of the year “n+1”.’;
4.
Article 4 shall be replaced by the following:
‘Article 4
Based on the year-end “n-1” difference between the target amount and the value of the Fund's net assets, calculated at the beginning of the year “n”, the required provisioning amount shall be paid into the Fund in one transaction in the year “n+1” from the general budget of the European Union.’;
5.
Article 5 shall be replaced by the following:
‘Article 5
1. If, as a result of one or more defaults, the activation of guarantees during year “n-1” exceeds EUR 100 million, the amount exceeding EUR 100 million shall be paid back into the Fund in annual tranches starting in year “n+1” and continuing over the following years until full repayment (smoothing mechanism). The size of the annual tranche is the lesser of the following:
-
EUR 100 million, or
-
the remaining amount due in accordance with the smoothing mechanism.
Any amount resulting from the activation of guarantees in years preceding year “n-1”, that has not yet been repaid in full due to the smoothing mechanism, shall be paid back before the smoothing mechanism for defaults occurring in year “n-1” or subsequent years can take effect. Such remaining amounts shall continue to be deducted from the maximum annual amount to be recovered from the general budget of the European Union under the smoothing mechanism until such time as the full amount has been paid back into the Fund.
2. The calculations based on the smoothing mechanism shall be made separately from the calculations referred to in the third subparagraph of Article 3 and in Article 4. Nevertheless, they shall together result in one annual transfer. The amounts to be paid from the general budget of the European Union under the smoothing mechanism shall be treated as net assets of the Fund for the calculation pursuant to Articles 3 and 4.
3. If, as a result of the activation of guarantees following one or more major defaults, resources in the Fund fall below 80 % of the target amount, the Commission shall inform the budgetary authority thereof.
4. If, as a result of the activation of guarantees following one or more major defaults, resources in the Fund fall below 70 % of the target amount, the Commission shall submit a report on exceptional measures that may be required to replenish the Fund.’;
6.
the Annex shall be deleted.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
It shall apply from 1 January 2007.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 30 January 2007. | [
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1194/2003
of 3 July 2003
concerning tenders notified in response to the invitation to tender for the export of rye issued in Regulation (EC) No 935/2003
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),
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), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1324/2002(5), and in particular Article 7 thereof,
Whereas:
(1) An invitation to tender for the refund for the export of rye to certain third countries was opened pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 935/2003(6).
(2) Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 allows the Commission to decide, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 23 of Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 and on the basis of the tenders notified, to make no award.
(3) On the basis of the criteria laid down in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 a maximum refund should not be fixed.
(4) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
No action shall be taken on the tenders notified from 27 June to 3 July 2003 in response to the invitation to tender for the refund for the export of rye issued in Regulation (EC) No 935/2003.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 4 July 2003.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 3 July 2003. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION of 23 October 1996 on a common technical regulation for the general attachment requirements for public pan-European cellular digital land-based mobile communications, Phase II (Text with EEA relevance) (96/630/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Directive 91/263/EEC of 29 April 1991 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States concerning telecommunications terminal equipment, including the mutual recognition of their conformity (1), as amended by Directive 93/68/EEC (2), and in particular Article 6 (2) thereof,
Whereas the Commission has adopted the measure identifying the type of terminal equipment for which a common technical regulation is required, as well as the associated scope statement;
Whereas the relevant standardization body has prepared the harmonized standards implementing the essential requirements applicable;
Whereas the corresponding harmonized standards or parts thereof implementing the essential requirements which are to be transformed into common technical regulations should be adopted;
Whereas the applicable parts of the harmonized standard regarding test cases require a prior validation process; whereas the status of validated test cases should be published in the Official Journal of the European Communities;
Whereas it should be possible for notified bodies to continue to approve terminal equipment according to the requirements of Commission Decision 94/11/EC (3) for a transitional period of two years, and for such equipment to continue to be placed on the market and put into service after that period;
Whereas Decision 94/11/EC should be repealed at the end of the transitional period;
Whereas this Decision should be reviewed in order to ensure coherence between the notified bodies in the assessment of conformity with the harmonized standards applicable;
Whereas the common technical regulation provided for in this Decision is in accordance with the opinion of ACTE,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
1. This Decision shall apply to terminal equipment, including an active accessory if it modifies the terminal equipment performance in any manner affecting conformance to essential requirements, intended to be connected to the public pan-European cellular digital land-based mobile telecommunications network in accordance with the provisions of Article 2 (2).
2. This Decision establishes a common technical regulation covering the general attachment requirements for terminal equipment for the pan-European cellular digital land-based mobile telecommunications network comprising constant envelope modulation and operating in the 900 MHz band with a channel separation of 200 kHz and carrying traffic channels according to the TDMA principle.
Article 2
1. The common technical regulation shall include the applicable parts of the harmonized standard having been prepared by the relevant standardization body implementing the essential requirements referred to in Article 4 (c) to (f) of Directive 91/263/EEC. The reference to this standard and the applicable parts thereof are set out in Annexes I and II.
2. Terminal equipment falling within this Decision shall comply with the common technical regulation referred to in paragraph 1, shall meet the essential requirements referred to in Article 4 (a) and (b) of Council Directive 91/263/EEC, and shall meet the requirements of any other applicable Directives, in particular Council Directives 73/23/EEC (4) and 89/336/EEC (5).
Article 3
Notified bodies designated for carrying out the procedures referred to in Article 9 of Council Directive 91/263/EEC shall, as regards terminal equipment for Phase II covered by Article 1 (1) of this Decision, use or ensure the use of the harmonized standard referred to in Annexes I and II by 24 October 1996.
Article 4
Terminal equipment may continue to be approved by notified bodies according to the requirements of Decision 94/11/EC for two years from 24 October 1996, and to be placed on the market and put into service after that period.
Article 5
This Decision shall be reviewed at the latest six months after its adoption.
Article 6
Decision 94/11/EC is repealed with effect from 24 October 1998.
Article 7
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 23 October 1996. | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Decision
of 27 March 2003
concerning protective measures in relation to avian influenza in the Netherlands
(notified under document number C(2003) 1102)
(Only the Dutch text is authentic)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2003/214/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 2002/33/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council(2), and in particular Article 10 thereof,
Having regard to Council Directive 2002/99/EC of 16 December 2002 laying down the animal health rules governing the production, processing, distribution and introduction of products of animal origin for human consumption(3), and in particular Article 4(1) and (3) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Since 28 February 2003 the Netherlands have declared several outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza.
(2) The infection with avian influenza subtype H7N7 has affected several poultry flocks in an area called "Gelderse Vallei".
(3) Avian influenza is a highly contagious poultry disease that can pose a serious threat for the poultry industry.
(4) In view of the high mortality and the rapid spread of the infection the Netherlands took immediate action as provided for by Council Directive 92/40/EEC(4) of 19 May 1992 introducing Community measures for the control of avian influenza, as amended by the Act of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden, before the disease was officially confirmed.
(5) Council Directive 92/40/EEC sets out the minimum control measures to be applied in the event of an outbreak of avian influenza. The Member State may take more stringent action in the field covered by this Directive if deemed necessary and proportionate to contain the disease, taking into account the particular epidemiological, animal husbandry, commercial and social conditions prevailing.
(6) Furthermore, all movements of live poultry and hatching eggs within the Netherlands and their dispatch to other Member States was prohibited.
(7) The same prohibitions should apply to exports to third countries in order to protect their health status and to prevent the risk of re-entry of such consignments in another Member State.
(8) For the sake of clarity and transparency the Commission has taken Decision 2003/153/EC(5) of 3 March 2003 concerning protection measures in relation to strong suspicion of avian influenza in the Netherlands, as amended by Decision 2003/156/EC(6), after consultation with the Dutch authorities, thereby reinforcing the measures taken by the Netherlands and granting certain specific derogations for movements of slaughter poultry and day-old chicks within the Netherlands.
(9) By Commission Decisions 2003/156/EC, 2003/172/EC(7), 2003/186/EC(8) and 2003/191/EC(9) the measures provided for in Decision 2003/153/EC were prolonged in view of the evolution of the disease and amended as necessary.
(10) The currently available epidemiological information and the first results of the surveillance programme, carried out nation-wide in the Netherlands, suggest that the occurrence of the highly pathogenic avian influenza virus appears to be restricted in the "Gelderse Vallei".
(11) In the light of the evolution of the disease, it is appropriate to further prolong the measures adopted under Decision 2003/191/EC. However, a derogation should also be provided for the dispatch of day-old chicks from the Netherlands to other Member States under certain conditions, unless they are originating from hatcheries or holdings within the established surveillance zones. For this purpose, additional certification requirements should be provided for.
(12) Furthermore, movements of rearing turkeys within the Netherlands but outside the restricted zones, and movements of hatching eggs within the restricted zones, should be authorised under official control.
(13) Fresh poultrymeat destined for intra-Community trade has to be marked with a health mark in accordance with the health mark foreseen in Chapter XII of Annex I of Directive 71/118/EEC(10), as last amended by Council Directive 97/79/EC(11). In order to allow the marketing on the Dutch market of fresh poultrymeat obtained from poultry originating from the established surveillance zones special provisions for its health marking shall be laid down.
(14) Having evaluated the situation in close cooperation with the Dutch authorities in order to protect the Community poultry population and to avoid the spread of the infection outside the protection zone it is appropriate to preventively empty the poultry holdings situated in two areas particularly at risk.
(15) The other Member States have already adjusted the measures they apply to trade, and they are sufficiently informed by the Commission, and in particular in the context of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health on the appropriate period for their implementation.
(16) 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. Without prejudice to the measures taken by the Netherlands within the framework of Council Directive 92/40/EEC applied to the surveillance zones, the Dutch veterinary authorities shall ensure that no live poultry and hatching eggs are dispatched from the Netherlands to other Member States and to third countries.
2. By derogation from paragraph 1 the Netherlands may dispatch day old chicks, which have been hatched in a hatchery situated outside the surveillance zones and at least 25 km away from any suspected or infected hatchery or holding. The hatching eggs must originate from a holding which at the day of collection of the eggs and on the day of the hatch is situated outside the established surveillance zones and at least 25 km away from any suspected or infected hatchery or holding. The flocks from which the day-old chicks derive of must have been subjected to a serological survey with negative results. The hatching eggs must be hatched in incubators or hatchers separately from hatching eggs not complying with this paragraph.
The animal health certificates accompanying consignments of day-old chicks from the Netherlands as specified above to other Member States shall include the words:
"The animal heath conditions of this consignment are in accordance with Decision 2003/214/EC."
The competent authority shall only allow the dispatch of day-old chicks as provided for under this paragraph following 48 hours advance notification to the central and local veterinary authorities of destination and shall dispatch the notification.
3. Without prejudice to the measures taken by the Netherlands within the framework of Council Directive 92/40/EEC within the surveillance zones, the Dutch veterinary authorities shall ensure that no live poultry and hatching eggs are transported within the Netherlands.
4. By way of derogation from paragraph 3 the competent veterinary authority, taking all appropriate bio-security measures to avoid the spread of avian influenza, may authorise the transport from areas situated outside the surveillance zones of:
(a) poultry for immediate slaughter, including spent laying hens, to a slaughterhouse that has been designated by the competent veterinary authority;
(b) day-old chicks and ready-to-lay pullets to a holding under official control;
(c) hatching eggs to a hatchery under official control;
(d) turkeys from a rearing facility to a fattening holding under official control;
(e) day-old chicks for dispatch to other Member States and third countries in accordance with paragraph 2.
5. By way of derogation from paragraph 3 the competent veterinary authority, taking all appropriate bio-security measures to avoid the spread of avian influenza, may authorise transport of live poultry and hatching eggs not prohibited by Council Directive 92/40/EEC and in particular in respect to movements of day-old chicks in accordance with the provisions of Article 9(4)(a), (b) and (c), which shall be transported to holdings within the Netherlands under official control.
Article 2
Fresh poultrymeat obtained from slaughter poultry originating from the established surveillance zones:
(a) shall be marked with a round format mark in accordance with the further requirements of the competent authorities;
(b) shall not be dispatched to other Member States or third countries;
(c) must be obtained, cut, stored and transported separately from other fresh poultrymeat destined for intra-Community trade and for exports to third countries and must be used in such a way as to avoid it being introduced into meat products or meat preparations intended for intra-Community trade or for export to third countries, unless it has undergone the treatment specified in table 1(a), (b) or (c) of Annex III to Directive 2002/99/EC.
Article 3
Without prejudice to the measures already taken in the framework of Directive 92/40/EEC, the Netherlands shall as soon as possible preventively empty the poultry holdings situated in the zones described in the Annex.
The precautionary measures referred to in the first subparagraph shall be taken without prejudice to Council Decision 90/424/EEC(12) on expenditure in the veterinary field as last amended by Decision 2001/572/EC(13).
Article 4
This Decision shall apply from 28 March 2003 until 24.00 on 10 April 2003.
Article 5
The Netherlands shall amend the measures which they apply to trade so as to bring them into compliance with this Decision and they shall give immediate appropriate publicity to the measures adopted. They shall immediately inform the Commission thereof.
Article 6
This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
Done at Brussels, 27 March 2003. | [
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 3500/93 of 20 December 1993 amending Regulation (EEC) No 3846/87 establishing an agricultural product nomenclature for export refunds
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2771/75 of 29 October 1975 on the common organization of the market in eggs (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1574/93 (2), and in particular Article 9 (3) thereof,
Whereas the wording of the subheadings of CN code 0408 that fall within the scope of Regulation (EEC) No 2771/75 have been amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1574/93 and are accordingly listed in Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2551/93 of 10 August 1993 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (3);
Whereas Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3846/87 (4), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 3198/93 (5), establishes an agricultural product nomenclature for export refunds on the basis of the combined nomenclature; whereas the former nomenclature should be brought into line with the abovementioned amendment;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Eggs and Poultrymeat,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
In the Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 3846/87 the data relating to CN code 0408 in sector 9 are hereby replaced by the Annex to this Regulation.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 January 1994.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 20 December 1993. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 1660/92 of 26 June 1992 fixing for the 1992/93 marketing year the reference prices for apples
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 1156/92 (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 fixed annually before the beginning of the marketing year;
Whereas because of the importance of apple-growing in the Community it is necessary to fix a reference price for apples;
Whereas apples harvested during a given crop year are marketed from July of one year to June of the following year; whereas reference prices should therefore be fixed for the period from 1 July up to and including 30 June of the following year;
Whereas to take seasonal variations into account, the year should be divided into several periods and a reference price fixed for each of these periods;
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 producer prices are the average of the prices recorded during the three years prior to the date of fixing the reference price, for a home-grown product with defined commercial characteristics, on the representative market or markets situated in the production areas where prices are lowest, for the products or varieties which represent a considerable proportion of production marketed throughout the year or for part of it and which satisfy 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 must 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 1992/1993 marketing year, the reference prices for apples (CN codes 0808 10 91, 0808 10 93 and 0808 10 99), expressed in ecus per 100 kilograms net, shall be as follows for packed class I fruit, all sizes:
July: 46,25
August: 41,11
September: 43,98
October: 43,78
November: 44,61
December: 45,95
January: 48,62
February: 50,44
March: 52,73
April: 54,00
May: 56,31
June: 57,08.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 July 1992. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 26 June 1992. | [
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
*****
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 2289/87
of 30 July 1987
providing for transitional measures to be adopted for import and export licences, advance fixing certificates, STM certificates and STM import licences as a result of the entry into force of the Combined Nomenclature
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2727/75 of 29 October 1975 on the common organization of the market in cereals (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1900/87 (2), and in particular Articles 12 (2), 15 (5), and 16 (6) thereof, and the corresponding provisions in the other Regulations on the common organization of the markets in agricultural products,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 569/86 of 25 February 1986 laying down general rules for the application of the supplementary mechanism applicable to trade (STM) (3), as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 2297/86 (4), and in particular Article 7 thereof,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3792/85 of 20 December 1985 laying down the arrangements applying to trade in agricultural products between Spain and Portugal (5), and in particular Article 13 thereof,
Whereas the Community is a signatory to the International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System, hereinafter referred to as the 'Harmonized System', which is intended to replace the Convention of 15 December 1950 on a Nomenclature for the classification of goods in customs tariffs;
Whereas, from 1 January 1988, a Combined Goods Nomenclature based on the Harmonized System will be established to meet the requirements of both the Common Customs Tariff and the Nomenclature of Goods for the External Trade Statistics of the Community and Statistics of Trade between Member States;
Whereas, from 1 January 1988, the nomenclature used for import and export licences, advance fixing certificates, STM certificates and STM import licences will be the Combined Nomenclature, subject to special provisions;
Whereas, in order to ensure a harmonious transition, provision should be made for these documents to indicate as soon as possible the Combined Nomenclature code where the last day of validity of such documents falls after 31 December 1987;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinions of all the Management Committees concerned,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
1. Import and export licences and advance fixing certificates the last day of validity of which falls after 31 December 1987 shall indicated,
- in section 20 (a) of import licences or advance fixing certificates,
- in section 18 (a) of export licences or advance fixing certificates,
the code(s) or parts of code of the Combined Nomenclature preceeded, where appropriate, by 'ex', corresponding to the subheading of the Common Customs Tariff for which they were requested.
Those details shall be given subject to subsequent amendments to the provisional Nomenclature.
The details from the Combined Nomenclature shall be preceded by one of the following:
- Sin perjuicio de lo dispuesto en el párrafo segundo del apartado 1 del artículo 1 del Reglamento (CEE) no 2289/87
- Forbeholdt artikel 1, stk. 1, andet afsnit, i forordning (EOEF) nr. 2289/87
- Vorbehaltlich Artikel 1 Absatz 1 zweiter Unterabsatz der Verordnung (EWG) Nr. 2289/87
- Epifýlaxi toy árthro 1 parágrafos 1 déftero edáfio toy kanonismoý (EOK) arith. 2289/87
- Subject to the second subparagraph of Article 1 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2289/87
- Selon l'article 1er paragraphe 1 deuxième alinéa du règlement (CEE) no 2289/87
- Fatto salvo il disposto dell'articolo 1, paragrafo 1, secondo comma del regolamento (CEE) n. 2289/87
- Onder voorbehoud van artikel 1, lid 1, tweede alinea, van Verordening (EEG) nr. 2289/87
- Em conformidade com o segundo paragrafo do nº 1 do artigo 1º do Regulamento (CEE) no 2289/87.
2. Paragraph 1 shall also apply where particular rules provide that for certain products the licence or certificates are to be requested for several subheadings of the Common Customs Tariff or for part of the subheading of the Common Customs Tariff.
Article 2
Article 1 shall apply mutatis mutandis to STM certificates and STM import licences.
Article 3
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
Articles 1 and 2 shall apply in respect of import and export licences, advance fixing certificates, STM certificates and STM import licences to be issued no later than 1 October 1987.
This Regulation shall apply up to 31 December 1987, in respect of certificates and licences that were not issued in accordance with Articles 1 and 2.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 30 July 1987. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COUNCIL DECISION of 18 October 1982 on the list of establishments in the People's Republic of Bulgaria approved for the purposes of exporting fresh meat to the Community (82/735/EEC)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Directive 72/462/EEC of 12 December 1972 on health and veterinary inspection problems upon importation of bovine animals and swine and fresh meat from third countries (1), and in particular Articles 4 (1) and 18 (1) (a) and (b) thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,
Whereas establishments in third countries cannot be authorized to export fresh meat to the Community unless they satisfy the general and special conditions laid down in Directive 72/462/EEC;
Whereas Bulgaria has forwarded, in accordance with Article 4 (3) of Directive 72/462/EEC, a list of the establishments authorized to export fresh meat to the Community;
Whereas Community on-the-spot visits have shown that the hygiene standards of many of these establishments are sufficient and they may therefore be entered on a first list, drawn up according to Article 4 (1) of the said Directive, of establishments from which importation of fresh meat may be authorized;
Whereas the case of the other establishments proposed by Bulgaria has to be re-examined on the basis of additional information regarding their hygiene standards and their ability to adapt quickly to Community rules;
Whereas, in the meantime and so as to avoid any abrupt interruption of existing trade flows, these establishments may be authorized temporarily to continue their exports of fresh meat to those Member States prepared to accept them;
Whereas it will therefore be necessary to re-examine and, if necessary, amend this Decision;
Whereas it should be recalled that imports of fresh meat are also subject to other Community veterinary rules, particularly as regards health protection requirements, including the special provisions for Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom;
Whereas the conditions for the importation of fresh meat from establishments appearing in the Annex remain subject to veterinary provisions laid down and to the general provisions of the Treaty ; whereas, in particular, the importation from third countries and the re-exportation to other Member States of certain categories of meat, such as cuts weighing less than 3 kg, or meat containing residues of certain substances, which are not yet covered by harmonized Community rules, remain subject to the health legislation of the importing Member State;
Whereas, in the absence of any favourable opinion from the Standing Veterinary Committee, the Commission is unable to adopt the measures it had envisaged on this matter under the procedure provided for in Article 29 of Directive 72/462/EEC,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
1. The establishments in Bulgaria listed in the Annex are hereby approved for the purposes of exporting fresh meat into the Community.
2. Imports of fresh meat from the establishments referred to in paragraph 1 shall remain subject to the Community veterinary provisions laid down, in particular those concerning health protection requirements. (1) OJ No L 302, 31.12.1972, p. 28.
Article 2
1. Member States shall prohibit imports of fresh meat coming from establishments other than those listed in the Annex.
2. The prohibition referred to in paragraph 1 shall, however, apply only from 1 August 1983 to establishments which are not listed in the Annex but which have been approved and officially proposed by the Bulgarian authorities as of 1 September 1981 pursuant to Article 4 (3) of Directive 72/462/EEC, unless a decision is taken to the contrary, in accordance with Article 4 (1) of the said Directive, before 1 August 1983.
The Commission shall forward the list of these establishments to the Member States.
Article 3
This Decision shall apply from 1 January 1983.
Article 4
This Decision shall be reviewed and if necessary amended before 1 March 1983.
Article 5
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Luxembourg, 18 October 1982. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION
of 12 July 1983
laying down the methods of cooperation between the Eurpean Economic Community and the International Commission on Civil Status
(83/473/EEC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Article 229 thereof,
Whereas the European Communities have established appropriate relations with numerous international organizations; whereas the corresponding Agreements, concluded by the Commission, concern working relations between the European Communities and the international organizations and establish a system of cooperation designed to ensure their smooth functioning;
Whereas the European Economic Community and the International Commission on Civil Status have common interests in numerous areas of the approximation of laws, notably in the sectors of family law and the law on the civil status and legal capacity of individuals;
Whereas it is advisable to lay down the methods of cooperation between the two organizations,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Sole Article
The Agreement on methods of cooperation resulting from the exchange of letters between the European Economic Community and the International Commission on Civil Status is hereby approved.
Done at Brussels, 12 July 1983. | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Decision
of 13 October 2003
amending Decision 97/232/EC as regards the loss by Greenland of its status as being officially brucellosis free
(notified under document number C(2003) 3575)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2003/736/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Directive 72/462/EEC(1) of 12 December 1972 on health and veterinary inspection problems upon importation of bovine, ovine and caprine animals and swine, fresh meat and meat products from third countries, as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 807/2003(2), and in particular Article 3(1) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Council Directive 91/68/EEC(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 806/2003(4), lays down the animal health conditions governing intra-Community trade in ovine and caprine animals.
(2) Commission Decision 97/232/EC(5), as last amended by Decision 2003/111/EC(6), draws up lists of third countries from which Member States authorise imports of sheep and goats.
(3) Greenland was recognised as being in compliance with the requirements laid down in point II of Chapter 1 of Annex A to Directive 91/68/EEC and hence was recognised as a third country that had satisfied the criteria for official brucellosis-free status.
(4) Greenland has informed the Commission of its intention not to carry out random sampling for Brucellosis melitensis in ovine and caprine animals.
(5) Greenland therefore no longer complies with the requirements set out in point II(2) of Chapter 1 of Annex A to Directive 91/68/EEC concerning random testing. Hence Greenland no longer fulfils the requirements for being recognised as being officially brucellosis free.
(6) Decision 97/232/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.
(7) The measures provided for in this decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
Part 5 of the Annex to Decision 97/232/EC is replaced by the text in the Annex to this Decision.
Article 2
This Decision shall apply from 5 November 2003.
Article 3
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 13 October 2003. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1831/2002
of 14 October 2002
fixing Community producer and import prices for carnations and roses with a view to the application of the arrangements governing imports of certain floricultural products originating in Cyprus, Israel, Jordan, Morocco and the West Bank and the Gaza Strip
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 4088/87 of 21 December 1987 fixing conditions for the application of preferential customs duties on imports of certain flowers originating in Cyprus, Israel, Jordan, Morocco and the West Bank and the Gaza Strip(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1300/97(2), and in particular Article 5(2)(a) thereof,
Whereas:
Pursuant to Article 2(2) and Article 3 of abovementioned Regulation (EEC) No 4088/87, Community import and producer prices are fixed each fortnight for uniflorous (bloom) carnations, multiflorous (spray) carnations, large-flowered roses and small-flowered roses and apply for two-weekly periods. Pursuant to Article 1b of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 700/88 of 17 March 1988 laying down detailed rules for the application of the arrangements for the import into the Community of certain floricultural products originating in Cyprus, Israel, Jordan, Morocco and the West Bank and the Gaza Strip(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2062/97(4), those prices are determined for fortnightly periods on the basis of weighted prices provided by the Member States. Those prices should be fixed immediately so the customs duties applicable can be determined. To that end, provision should be made for this Regulation to enter into force immediately,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The Community producer and import prices for uniflorous (bloom) carnations, multiflorous (spray) carnations, large-flowered roses and small-flowered roses as referred to in Article 1b of Regulation (EEC) No 700/88 for a fortnightly period shall be as set out in the Annex.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 15 October 2002.
It shall apply from 16 to 29 October 2002.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 14 October 2002. | [
0,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2017/97 of 15 October 1997 amending Regulation (EC) No 1237/95 laying down detailed rules for the application of the stabilizer to the yields used for the calculation of the compensatory payments referred to in Regulation (EEC) No 1765/92
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1765/92 of 30 June 1992 establishing a support system for producers of certain arable crops (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1422/97 (2), and in particular Article 12 thereof,
Whereas, in order to prevent complicated regionalization plans resulting in actual yields which significantly exceed historical yields, Regulation (EEC) No 1765/92 provides for the reduction of compensatory payments during the following marketing year in proportion to the overrun of the average historical yield resulting from the 1993 regionalization plans or, in the case of Austria, Finland and Sweden, the plan implemented in 1995;
Whereas Commission Regulation (EC) No 1237/95 (3), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 769/96 (4), lays down the procedure to be used for determining such overruns and lays down, inter alia, the historical reference yields;
Whereas, following a request from Germany to be permitted to apply a national base area with a view to the possible application of Article 2 (7) of Regulation (EEC) No 1765/92, an average historical yield should also be set for that Member State; whereas Regulation (EC) No 1237/95 should therefore be amended;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Joint Management Committee for Cereals, Oils and Fats and Dried Fodder,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
In the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1237/95, against 'Germany`, a yield of '5,66 t/ha` is hereby inserted accompanied by the following footnote: 'Where Article 2 (7) of Regulation (EEC) No 1765/92 is applied.`
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
It shall apply from the 1997/98 marketing year.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 15 October 1997. | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Subsets and Splits