utterance
stringlengths 594
850k
| label
sequencelengths 11
11
|
|---|---|
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 410/2006
of 9 March 2006
amending Regulation (EC) No 1291/2000 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of import and export licences and advance fixing certificates for agricultural products
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products (1), and in particular Article 26(3) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
Article 1(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 174/1999 of 26 January 1999 laying down special detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 as regards export licences and export refunds in the case of milk and milk products (2), provides that exports from the Community of products for which an export refund is requested shall be subject to the presentation of an export licence.
(2)
However, the second subparagraph of Article 1(1) of Regulation (EC) No 174/1999 further lays down that an export licence must also be presented for the products referred to in category II of Annex I thereto, where no refund is applied for, except in the cases referred to in the first and fourth indents of Article 5(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1291/2000 (3).
(3)
Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1291/2000 provides that a licence is not to be required and may not be produced for the purposes of exports with export refunds relating inter alia to small quantities not exceeding those set out in Annex III to that Regulation.
(4)
It is appropriate, where exports without refunds of skimmed-milk powder, as referred to in category II of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 174/1999, relating to those small quantities, to exempt exporters from the obligation of an export licence.
(5)
Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1291/2000 should therefore be amended accordingly.
(6)
The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Milk and Milk Products,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
In Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1291/2000, at the end of product sector D, the following text is added:
Export licence without refund (Article 1(1) second subparagraph of Regulation (EC) No 174/1999)
‘0402 10
150 kg’
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 9 March 2006. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION of 10 June 1992 concerning animal health conditions and veterinary certification for the importation of bovine semen from Hungary (92/386/EEC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Directive 88/407/EEC of 14 June 1988 laying down the animal health requirements applicable to intra-Community trade in, and imports of, deep-frozen semen of domestic animals of the bovine species(1) , as last amended by Directive 90/425/EEC(2) , and in particular Articles 10 and 11 thereof,
Whereas Hungary appears in the list, established by Commission Decision 90/14/EEC(3) , of third countries from which Member States authorize importation of semen of domestic animals of the bovine species;
Whereas it appears that the animal health situation in Hungary is good and controlled by well-structured and organized veterinary services as regards diseases transmissible through semen;
Whereas the competent veterinary authorities of Hungary have confirmed that Hungary has for at least 12 months been free from rinderpest, foot-and-mouth disease, contagious bovine pleuro-pneumonia and bluetongue and that no vaccinations have been carried out against any of those diseases during that time;
Whereas the competent veterinary authorities of Hungary have undertaken to notify the Commission of the European Communities and the Member States by telex or telefax, within 24 hours, of the confirmation of the occurrence of any of the abovementioned diseases or of any change in vaccination policy concerning any of them or, within an appropriate period, of any proposed change in the Hungarian import rules concerning domestic animals or the semen or embryos thereof;
Whereas the competent veterinary authorities of Hungary have provided animal health guarantees in respect of bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis which are equivalent to those applicable within the Community;
Whereas the competent veterinary authorities of Hungary have undertaken to supervise officially the issue of certificates arising from this Decision and to ensure that all relevant certificates, derogations and laboratory findings on which certification may have been based remain on official file for at least 12 months following the dispatch of the semen to which they refer;
Whereas the competent veterinary authorities of Hungary have undertaken to approve officially semen collection centres for the export of bovine semen to the European Economic Community as required by Article 9 of Directive 88/407/EEC;
Whereas animal health conditions and veterinary certification must be adapted according to the animal health situation of the third country concerned;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
1. A Member State which does not practice vaccination against foot-and-mouth disease shall authorize the entry onto its territory of semen collected from bulls in an approved centre in which there are no bulls which have been vaccinated against that disease or from bulls in an approved centre in which all the bulls have been vaccinated in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 of Annex C to Directive 88/407/EEC but, in the latter case, may require that up to 10 % of each collection of such semen, with a minimum of five straws, be submitted, with negative result, to a virus isolation test for foot-and-mouth disease virus in a laboratory nominated by the importing Member State.
2. Member States shall authorize the importation from Hungary of bovine semen which conforms to the conditions set out in the certificate in Annex I A and, where relevant, the certificate in Annex I B to this Decision.
Article 2
This Decision shall come into effect 14 days after its notification to the Member States.
Article 3
This Decision shall be reviewed in the light of any relevant amendment to Council Directive 88/407/EEC.
Article 4
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 10 June 1992. | [
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
*****
COMMISSION DECISION
of 19 January 1988
amending Decision 87/492/EEC recognizing certain parts of the territory of the Netherlands as being officially swine fever free
(Only the Dutch text is authentic)
(88/153/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 of 11 November 1980 laying down conditions designed to render and keep the territory of the Community free from classical swine fever (1), as last amended by Directive 87/487/EEC (2), and in particular Article 7 (2) thereof,
Having regard to Commission Decision 82/194/EEC of 12 March 1982 approving the plan for accelerated eradication of classical swine fever presented by the Netherlands (3),
Whereas, following a favourable development in the disease situation, the Commission adopted Decision 87/492/EEC (4), recognizing certain parts of the territory of the Netherlands as officially swine fever free;
Whereas certain other regions now also fulfil the conditions as laid down in Article 7 of Directive 80/1095/EEC and, consequently, may also be recognized as officially swine fever free;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
The following parts of the teritory of the Netherlands are added to the Annex To Decision 87/492/EEC:
- all the parts of the provinces Noord-Holland, Zuid-Holland, Utrecht, Gelderland en Overijssel south of a line connecting Katwijk, Leiden, Leimuiden, Hilversum, Huizen, Harderwijk, Apeldoorn, Deventer, Holten, Almelo and the German border,
- the provinces of Zeeland and Noord-Brabant.
Article 2
This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
Done at Brussels, 19 January 1988. | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2194/2002
of 10 December 2002
determining the world market price for unginned cotton
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Protocol 4 on cotton, annexed to the Act of Accession of Greece, as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1050/2001(1),
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1051/2001 of 22 May 2001 on production aid for cotton(2), and in particular Article 4 thereof,
Whereas:
(1) In accordance with Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1051/2001, a world market price for unginned cotton is to be determined periodically from the price for ginned cotton recorded on the world market and by reference to the historical relationship between the price recorded for ginned cotton and that calculated for unginned cotton. That historical relationship has been established in Article 2(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1591/2001 of 2 August 2001(3), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1486/2002(4). Where the world market price cannot be determined in this way, it is to be based on the most recent price determined.
(2) In accordance with Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1051/2001, the world market price for unginned cotton is to be determined in respect of a product of specific characteristics and by reference to the most favourable offers and quotations on the world market among those considered representative of the real market trend. To that end, an average is to be calculated of offers and quotations recorded on one or more European exchanges for a product delivered cif to a port in the Community and coming from the various supplier countries considered the most representative in terms of international trade. However, there is provision for adjusting the criteria for determining the world market price for ginned cotton to reflect differences justified by the quality of the product delivered and the offers and quotations concerned. Those adjustments are specified in Article 3(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1591/2001.
(3) The application of the above criteria gives the world market price for unginned cotton determined hereinafter,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The world price for unginned cotton as referred to in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1051/2001 is hereby determined as equalling EUR 25,618/100 kg.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 11 December 2002.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 10 December 2002. | [
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Decision
of 4 October 2001
fixing aid for private storage of carcasses and half-carcasses of lamb in Great Britain concerning the invitations to tender issued under Regulation (EC) No 1641/2001
(notified under document number C(2001) 2780)
(Only the English text is authentic)
(2001/717/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2467/98 of 3 November 1998 on the common organisation of the market in sheepmeat and goatmeat(1), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1669/2000(2),
Having regard to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3446/90 of 27 November 1990 laying down detailed rules for granting private storage aid for sheepmeat and goatmeat(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 3533/93(4), and in particular Article 12(1)(f) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3447/90 of 28 November 1990 on special conditions for the granting of private storage aid for sheepmeat and goatmeat(5), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 40/96(6), supplements the provisions of Regulation (EEC) No 3446/90 and lays down in particular detailed rules governing invitations to tender.
(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1641/2001(7), opens two invitations to tender for the fixing of aid for private storage of carcasses and half-carcasses of lamb in Great Britain.
(3) In accordance with Article 12(1)(f) of Regulation (EEC) No 3446/90, a maximum amount of aid for private storage should be fixed on the basis of tenders received or no award made in respect of the invitations to tender.
(4) The tenders received lead the Commission to fix a maximum amount of aid. Tenders not exceeding this amount should be accepted. The intervention agencies are authorised to conclude private storage contracts for private storage.
(5) The operators affected by this Decision should be allowed to make use of it as soon as possible.
(6) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sheep and Goats,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
The aid referred to in Article 12(1)(f) of Regulation (EEC) No 3446/90 for the second invitation to tender opened by Regulation (EC) No 1641/2001 shall be EUR 1190 per tonne.
Article 2
This Decision is addressed to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Done at Brussels, 4 October 2001. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 1156/91 of 3 May 1991 re-establishing the levying of customs duties on products of category 159 (order No 42.1590), originating in China, to which the preferential tariff arrangements set out in Council Regulation (EEC) No 3832/90 apply
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3832/90 of 20 December 1990 applying generalized tariff preferences for 1991 in respect of textile products originating in developing countries (1), and in particular Article 12 thereof,
Whereas Article 10 of Regulation (EEC) No 3832/90 provides that preferential tariff treatment shall be accorded, for each category of products subjected in Annexes I and II thereto to individual ceilings, within the limits of the quantities specified in column 8 of Annex I and column 7 of Annex II, in respect of certain or each of the countries or territories of origin referred to in column 5 of the same Annexes;
Whereas Article 11 of the abovementioned Regulation provides that the levying of customs duties may be re-established at any time in respect of imports of the products in question once the relevant individual ceilings have been reached the Community level;
Whereas, in respect of products of category 159 (order No 42.1590), originating in China, the relevant ceiling amounts to 39 tonnes;
Whereas on 12 February 1991 imports of the products in question into the Community, originating in China, 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 China,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
As from 7 May 1991 the levying of customs duties, suspended pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 3832/90, shall be re-established in respect of the following products, imported into the Community and originating in China:
Order No Category
(unit) CN code Description 42.1590 159 6204 49 10 6206 10 00 Dresses, blouses and shirt-blouses of silk or silk waste 6214 10 00 Shawls, scarves, mufflers, mantillas, veils and the like: - Of silk or silk waste 6215 10 00 Ties, bow ties and cravats: - Of silk or silk waste
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, 3 May 1991. | [
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 1920/91 of 27 June 1991 re-establishing the levying of customs duties on products falling within CN code 2905 14 90, originating in Poland, to which the preferential tariff arrangements set out in Council Regulation (EEC) No 3831/90 apply
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3831/90 of 20 December 1990 applying generalized tariff preferences for 1991 in respect of certain industrial products originating in developing countries (1), and in particular Article 9 thereof,
Whereas, pursuant to Articles 1 and 6 of Regulation (EEC) No 3831/90, suspension of customs duties shall be accorded to each of the countries or territories listed in Annex III other than those listed in column 4 of Annex I within the framework of the preferential tariff ceilings fixed in column 6 of Annex I;
Whereas, as provided for in Article 7 of that Regulation, as soon as the individual ceilings in question are reached at Community level, the levying of customs duties on imports of the products in question originating in each of the countries and territories concerned may at any time be re-established;
Whereas, in the case of products falling within CN code 2905 14 90, originating in Poland, the individual ceiling was fixed at ECU 772 000; whereas, on 4 April 1991, imports of these products into the Community originating in Poland reached the ceiling in question after being charged thereagainst; whereas, it is appropriate to re-establish the levying of customs duties in respect of the products in question against Poland,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
As from 5 July 1991, the levying of customs duties, suspended pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 3831/90, shall be re-established on imports into the Community of the following products originating in Poland:
Order No CN code Description 10.0135 2905 14 90 Acyclic alcohols and their halogenated sulphonated, nitrated or nitrosated derivatives Saturated monohydric alcohols Other butanols Other
Article 2 This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 27 June 1991. | [
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1894/98 of 3 September 1998 amending Regulation (EEC) No 3046/92 with regard to the simplification of the statement of net mass
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3330/91 on the statistics relating to the trading of goods between Member States (1), as last amended by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3046/92 (2), and in particular Article 23 (3) and Article 30 thereof,
Whereas the quantity of goods is a reliable and stable item of information which is necessary for comparisons of international trade;
Whereas the quantity units are used for checking the reliability of the data collected and for calculating indices;
Whereas, pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 3046/92, of the quantity units, net mass, in kilograms, is the main indicator and should in principle be mentioned for every type of goods but is not the most appropriate unit of measurement for certain products; whereas the party responsible for providing information should therefore be exempted from indicating net mass in such cases;
Whereas, Regulation (EC) No 3046/92, as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 2385/96 (3), already contained an initial list of products for which the parties responsible for providing information are not required to specify the net mass; whereas, insofar as possible, other goods should be added to this list;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are consonant with the opinion of the Committee on statistics relating to the trading of goods between Member States,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Annex IV to Regulation No 3046/92 is replaced by the Annex to this Regulation.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
It shall apply from 1 January 1999.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 3 September 1998. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2907/2000
of 28 December 2000
opening tariff quotas for the year 2001 for imports into the European Community of products originating in the Czech Republic, Slovak Republic, Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 3448/93 of 6 December 1993 laying down the trade arrangements applicable to certain goods resulting from the processing of agricultural products(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2580/2000(2) and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,
Having regard to Council Decision 98/707/EC of 22 October 1998 relating to the conclusion of a Protocol for the adaptation of the trade aspects of the Europe Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Czech Republic, of the other part, to take into account the accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden to the European Union and the results of the agricultural negotiations of the Uruguay Round, including the improvements of the existing preferential regime(3), and in particular Articles 2 and 6 of that Protocol,
Having regard to Council Decision 98/638/EC of 5 October 1998 relating to the conclusion of a Protocol for the adaptation of the trade aspects of the Europe Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Slovak Republic, of the other part, to take into account the accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden to the European Union and the results of the agricultural negotiations of the Uruguay Round, including the improvements of the existing preferential regime(4), and in particular Articles 2 and 6 of that Protocol,
Having regard to Council Decision 98/626/EC of 5 October 1998 relating to the conclusion of a Protocol for the adaptation of the trade aspects of the Europe Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and Romania, of the other part, to take into account the accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden to the European Union and the results of the agricultural negotiations of the Uruguay Round, including the improvements of the existing preferential regime(5), and in particular Articles 2 and 5 of that Protocol,
Having regard to Council Decision 1999/67/EC of 22 October 1998 relating to the conclusion of a Protocol for the adaptation of the trade aspects of the Europe Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Hungary, of the other part, to take into account the accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden to the European Union and the results of the agricultural negotiations of the Uruguay Round, including the improvements of the existing preferential regime(6), and in particular Articles 2 and 5 of that Protocol,
Having regard to Council Decision 1999/278/EC of 9 March 1999 relating to the conclusion of a Protocol for the adaptation of the trade aspects of the Europe Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and Bulgaria, of the other part, to take into account the accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden to the European Union and the results of the agricultural negotiations of the Uruguay Round, including the improvements of the existing preferential regime(7), and in particular Articles 2 and 5 of that Protocol,
Whereas:
(1) Protocol 3 on trade in processed agricultural products, as amended by the Protocol adjusting the Europe Agreement with the Czech Republic, provides for the granting of annual tariff quotas for imports of products originating in the Czech Republic.
(2) Protocol 3 on trade in processed agricultural products, as amended by the Protocol adjusting the Europe Agreement with the Slovak Republic, provides for the granting of annual tariff quotas for imports of products originating in the Slovak Republic.
(3) Protocol 3 on trade in processed agricultural products, as amended by the Protocol adjusting the Europe Agreement with Romania, provides for the granting of annual tariff quotas for imports of products originating in Romania.
(4) Protocol 3 on trade in processed agricultural products, as amended by the Protocol adjusting the Europe Agreement with the Republic of Hungary, provides for the granting of annual tariff quotas for imports of products originating in Hungary.
(5) Protocol 3 on trade in processed agricultural products, as amended by the Protocol adjusting the Europe Agreement with Bulgaria, provides for the granting of annual tariff quotas for imports of products originating in Bulgaria.
(6) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code(8), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2787/2000(9), consolidated the arrangements for managing the tariff quotas to be used in chronological order of the dates of acceptance of the declarations for release for free circulation.
(7) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for horizontal questions concerning trade in processed agricultural products not listed in Annex I,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The annual quotas for products originating in the Czech Republic, Slovak Republic, Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria, set out in Annexes I, II, III and IV respectively to this Regulation, are hereby opened from 1 January 2001 to 31 December 2001 under the conditions set out in the said Annexes.
Article 2
The Community tariff quotas referred to in Article 1 shall be managed by the Commission in accordance with the provisions of Articles 308a to 308c of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93.
Article 3
This Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
It shall apply with effect from 5 January 2001.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 28 December 2000. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
++++
( 1 ) OJ No L 42 , 23 . 2 . 1970 , p . 1 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 375 , 31 . 12 . 1980 , p . 34 .
( 3 ) OJ No L 76 , 6 . 4 . 1970 , p . 23 and OJ No L 65 , 15 . 3 . 1979 , p . 42 .
( 4 ) OJ No L 128 , 26 . 5 . 1979 , p . 22 .
( 5 ) OJ No L 266 , 2 . 10 . 1974 , p . 4 .
COMMISSION DIRECTIVE
of 13 April 1981
amending Directive 79/490/EEC adapting to technical progress Council Directive 70/221/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to liquid fuel tanks and rear underrun protection of motor vehicles and their trailers
( 81/333/EEC )
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community ,
Having regard to Council Directive 70/156/EEC of 6 February 1970 on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating to the type-approval of motor vehicles and their trailers ( 1 ) , as last amended by Directive 80/1267/EEC ( 2 ) , and in particular Article 13 thereof ,
Having regard to Council Directive 70/221/EEC of 20 March 1970 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to liquid fuel tanks and rear underrun protection of motor vehicles and their trailers ( 3 ) , as last amended by Directive 79/490/EEC ( 4 ) , and in particular Article 3 thereof ,
Whereas , experience has shown that the current wording of item II.5.2 of the Annex to Directive 79/490/EEC relating to the rear underrun protection of vehicles in categories M1 , M2 , M3 , N1 , O1 and O2 is rather vague in respect of the width over which the requirement must be satisfied ; whereas this may lead to different requirements by different standardization services with the risk of contradictions with Council Directive 74/483/EEC ( 5 ) relating to external projections of vehicles in category M1 , and also of technical barriers to trade ,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE :
Article 1
Directive 79/490/EEC is hereby amended as follows :
The text of item II.5.2 of the Annex shall be replaced by the following text :
" II.5.2 . Any vehicle in one of the categories M1 , M2 , M3 , N1 , O1 , or O2 ( categories under the international classification set out in note ( b ) of Annex I to Council Directive 70/156/EEC ) will be deemed to satisfy the condition set out in item II.5.1 :
_ if it satisfies the conditions set out in item II.5.3 , or
_ if the ground clearance of the rear part of the unladen vehicle does not exceed 55 cm over a width which is not shorter than that of the rear axle by more than 10 cm on either side ( excluding any tyre bulging close to the ground ) .
Where there is more than one rear axle , the width to be considered is that of the widest .
This requirement must be satisfied at least on a line at a distance of not more than 45 cm from the rear extremity of the vehicle . "
Article 2 Before 1 October 1981 , Member States shall bring into force the provisions necessary to comply with this Directive , and shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof .
Article 3
This Directive is addressed to the Member States .
Done at Brussels , 13 April 1981 . | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1312/97 of 8 July 1997 amending Regulation (EC) No 3582/93 on detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2073/92 on promoting consumption in the Community and expanding the markets for milk and milk products
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2073/92 of 30 June 1992 on promoting consumption in the Community and expanding the markets for milk and milk products (1), and in particular Article 4 thereof,
Whereas Article 4 (4) (b) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 3582/93 of 21 December 1993 on detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2073/92 on promoting consumption in the Community and expanding the markets for milk and milk products (2), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 750/97 (3), provides that applications for funding under the Regulation shall be valid only where they are accompanied by a written undertaking to commission an assessment study, at the applicant's expense, if this is requested by the Commission or by the competent body;
Whereas, in the light of experience, and to ensure a uniform approach with promotion measures for other agricultural products, these provisions should be modified; whereas evaluation studies should be carried out on all contracts for promotion measures; whereas the assessment studies should be considered a part of the measures in the programme and, as a consequence, should be financed under the same conditions as other planned measures; whereas the assessment study should be executed by an independent body selected by the competent authority after prior approval by the Commission;
Whereas, as a result of the latest enlargement of the European Community, the Annex comprising the list of competent bodies pursuant to Article 4 (2) must be amended;
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 (EC) No 3582/93 is hereby amended as follows:
1. Article 4 (4) (b) is replaced by the following:
'(b) to forward to the competent authority and to the Commission the results of an assessment study which shall be executed by an independent body selected by the competent authority after prior approval by the Commission; the assessment study shall be financed under the same conditions as other planned measures;`
2. the Annex is replaced by the Annex hereto.
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, 8 July 1997. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 11/2003
of 3 January 2003
fixing the maximum export refund for white sugar for the 20th partial invitation to tender issued within the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1331/2002
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector(1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 680/2002(2), and in particular Article 27(5) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1331/2002 of 23 July 2002 on a standing invitation to tender to determine levies and/or refunds on exports of white sugar(3), for the 2002/2003 marketing year, requires partial invitations to tender to be issued for the export of this sugar.
(2) Pursuant to Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1331/2002 a maximum export refund shall be fixed, as the case may be, account being taken in particular of the state and foreseeable development of the Community and world markets in sugar, for the partial invitation to tender in question.
(3) Following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the 20th partial invitation to tender, the provisions set out in Article 1 should be adopted.
(4) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sugar,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
For the 20th partial invitation to tender for white sugar issued pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1331/2002 the maximum amount of the export refund is fixed at 47,426 EUR/100 kg.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 4 January 2003.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 3 January 2003. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1262/96 of 1 July 1996 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1059/83 on storage contracts for table wine, grape must, concentrated grape must and rectified concentrated grape must
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 of 16 March 1987 on the common organization of the market in wine (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1544/95 (2), and in particular Article 32 (5) thereof,
Whereas Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1059/83 of 29 April 1983 on storage contracts for table wine, grape must, concentrated grape must and rectified concentrated grape must (3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2537/95 (4), lays down detailed rules of application for the conclusion of storage contracts; whereas Article 5 (1) thereof provides, in the case of table wine only, for the conclusion of a maximum of two contracts for wines from a single winery; whereas the same conditions should be laid down for all products that may be covered by a storage contract;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Wine,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Article 5 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1059/83 is hereby replaced by the following:
'1. For each of the products referred to in Article 12 (c), (d) and (e) and for table wines from a single winery which are of the same type or in close economic relationship with each other and for which a common amount of aid is fixed, producers shall not conclude more than (two) long-term contracts.`
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
It shall apply from 1 September 1996.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 1 July 1996. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
*****
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 970/90
of 18 April 1990
laying down detailed rules for the application in the beef and veal sector of Council Regulation (EEC) No 715/90 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 or in the overseas countries and territories and amending Regulation (EEC) No 2377/80
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 715/90 of 5 March 1990 on the arrangements applicable to agricultural products and certain goods resulting from the processing of agricultural products originating in the ACP States or in the overseas countries and territories (1), and in particular Article 27 thereof,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1676/85 on the value of the unit of account and the conversion rates to be applied for the purposes of the common agricultural policy (2), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1636/87 (3), and in particular Article 3 thereof,
Whereas Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 715/90 lays down that the duties on imports of beef and veal originating in the African, Caribbean and Pacific States are to be reduced;
Whereas the amounts of import duties depend upon the level of the levy applicable and that levy may be adjusted by monetary compensatory amounts; whereas, having regard to the trend in the currencies of the individual Member States, the amount of the reduction should be calculated separately for each Member State taking account of the monetary compensatory amount applicable to imports into the Member State concerned;
Whereas it appears useful to outline the manner in which the amount actually to be levied on imports is calculated;
Whereas the amount by which the import duties are reduced is fixed quarterly;
Whereas the amount representing import duties is that applicable on the day of acceptance of the declaration of release for free circulation; whereas these duties are reduced by the reduction applicable on that date;
Whereas Regulation (EEC) No 2377/80 (4), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 252/90 (5), lays down special detailed rules for the application of the system of import and export licences in the beef and veal sector; whereas the special detailed rules for licences issued under Regulation (EEC) No 715/90 which replaces Council Regulation (EEC) No 486/85 (6) should be adapted;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Beef and Veal,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
1. Import licences shall be issued for beef and veal products originating in Botswana, Kenya, Madagascar, Swaziland and Zimbabwe under the conditions laid down in this Regulation and within the limits of the quantities, expressed in tonnes of boned meat, fixed in Regulation (EEC) No 715/90.
2. For the purposes of this Regulation, 100 kilograms of boned meat shall be equivalent to 130 kilograms of unboned meat.
Article 2
Importation under the arrangements for import duty reduction may take place only if the origin of the products concerned is certified by the competent authorities of the exporting countries in accordance with the rules of origin applicable to the products in question pursuant to Protocol 1 to the fourth ACP-EEC Convention signed at Lomé on 15 December 1989.
Article 3
1. The amount provided for in Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 715/90 for each product intended for importation into a Member State shall be equal to 90 % of the amount of the levy, adjusted as appropriate by the monetary compensatory amount valid for imports into that Member State during the week preceding that in which the quarter for which the reduction is calculated begins.
The reduction shall be fixed for each Member State in its national currency.
2. The reduction shall be reducted from the levy valid on the day on which the entry of the goods for free circulation is accepted in the Member State concerned, adjusted as appropriate by the monetary coefficient shown
in Annex II to the relevant Commission Regulation fixing the monetary compensatory amounts and by the monetary compensatory amount valid in the Member State concerned on the same date.
3. The amount by which the import duties shall be reduced shall be that applicable on the date on which the entry of the goods for release for free circulation is accepted.
4. The application of this Regulation may in no case result in the graning of an amount.
Article 4
Regulation (EEC) No 2377/80 is hereby amended as follows:
1. Article 13 (1) is replaced by the following:
'1. Applications for import licences for products to be imported duty free purusant to Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 715/90 and qualifying, as appropriate, for either a reduction of import duties other than customs duties in accordance with Article 3 of the said Regulation or exemption from levies in accordance with Article 24 of the said Regulation and the licences themselves shall contain:
(a) the heading 'notes' and section 24 respectively one of the following:
- Producto ACP/PTU - Reglamento (CEE) no 715/90,
- AVS/OLT-varer - forordning (EOEF) nr. 715/90,
- AKP/UELG-Erzeugnis - Verordnung (EWG) Nr. 715/90,
- Proïón AKE/YXE - kanonismós (EOK) arith. 715/90,
- ACP/OCT-product - Regulation (EEC) No 715/90,
- Produit ACP/PTOM - règlement (CEE) no 715/90,
- Prodotto ACP/PTOM - regolamento (CEE) n. 715/90,
- ACS/LGO-produkt - Verordening (EEG) nr. 715/90.
(b) in Section 8, the name of the State, country or territory in which the product is to originate.
2. Point 1 of Section I of Annex I is replaced by the following:
'1. ACP/OCT products
(Under Regulation (EEC) No 715/90)
(expressed in tonnes of boned meat)
1.2.3,7 // // // // CN code // // From // // // // 1.2.3.4.5.6.7 // // // Madagascar // Botswana // Swaziland // Kenya // Zimbabwe // // Code // 370 // 391 // 393 // 346 // 382 // // // // // // // // 0201 0206 10 95 // 110 // // // // // // // // // // // // // 0202 0206 29 91 // 120' // // // // // // // // // // // //
Article 5
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 552/85 (1) is hereby repealed.
Article 6
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
It shall apply from 1 March 1990
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 18 April 1990. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
*****
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 1943/85
of 12 July 1985
amending Regulation (EEC) No 95/69 as regards certain marketing standards for eggs
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN
COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2772/75 of 29 October 1975 on marketing standards for eggs (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3341/84 (2), and in particular Articles 18 (1) and 21 thereof,
Whereas provisions for the implementation of marketing standards for hen eggs in shell were laid down in Commission Regulation (EEC) No 95/69 (3), as last amended by the Act of Accession of Greece; whereas those provisions should be supplemented in accordance with the recent amendment to Regulation (EEC) No 2772/75;
Whereas Article 18 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2772/75 requires that additional provisions be laid down concerning the conditions under which the recommended sell-by date may be indicated on small packs; whereas it seems appropriate to relate that date to the quality criteria for eggs;
Whereas Article 21 (c) of Regulation (EEC) No 2772/75 provides that indications concerning the type of farming and the origin of eggs may be used only in accordance with rules determined at Community level;
Whereas, in view of current commercial practice, it seems unnecessary to provide for specific indications for the eggs of laying hens kept in batteries; whereas, however, provision should be made for a limited number of indications for the eggs of hens not raised in batteries so as to avoid confusion amongst consumers as regards the principal non-battery production system; whereas detailed rules should be laid down for ensuring the correct use of such indications and for monitoring such use;
Whereas the indications concerning the origin of eggs should refer to the region of production; whereas packing centres which make use of these indications should be obliged to keep detailed records of purchases and sales of eggs by origin in order to enable effective monitoring to be carried out;
Whereas, in order to ensure uniform application of the provisions of Article 21 (c) of Regulation (EEC) No 2772/75, provision should be made for the continuous exchange of information between Member States and the Commission concerning monitoring;
Whereas 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
Regulation (EEC) No 95/69 is hereby amended as follows:
1. After Article 9, the following Articles are inserted:
'Article 10
The recommended sell-by date mentioned in Article 18 (1) (e) of Regulation (EEC) No 2772/75 is an indication of the last date eggs should be offered for sale to the consumer, after which there remains a reasonable storage period in the home. It shall be fixed in such a way that grade A eggs will retain the characteristics described in Article 7 of that Regulation until the end of that storage period when properly stored. The indication must be worded in such a way that the meaning of this date is clear.
Article 11
1. Small packs containing grade A eggs may carry one of the following terms, as appropriate, to indicate the type of farming as referred to in Article 21 (c) of Regulation (EEC) No 2772/75:
(a) "AEg fra fritgaaende hoens",
"Eier aus Freilandhaltung",
"Avgá orníthon apó ektrofí se eléfthero chóro vóskisis",
"Free range eggs",
"OEufs de poules élevées en plein air - système extensif",
"Uova di allevamento all'aperto - sistema estensivo",
"Eieren van hennen met vrije uitloop - extensief systeem";
(b) "AEg fra fritgaaende hoens - intensivt system",
"Eier aus intensiver Auslaufhaltung",
"Avgá orníthon apó ektrofí se periorisméno chóro vóskisis",
"Semi-intensive eggs",
"OEufs de poules élevées en plein air",
"Uova di allevamento all'aperto",
"Eieren van hennen met vrije uitloop";
(c) "Skrabeaeg",
"Eier aus Bodenhaltung",
"Avgá orníthon apó ektrofí edáfoys",
"Deep litter eggs",
"OEufs de poules élevées au sol",
"Uova di galline allevate al suolo",
"Scharreleieren";
(d) "AEg fra volierehoensehold",
"Eier aus Volierenhaltung",
"Avgá orníthon apó ektrofí se thálamo me klimakotó skarotó dápedo",
"Perchery eggs (Barn eggs)",
"OEufs de poules élevées en volière",
"Uova di galline allevate in voliera",
"Eieren van in volières gehouden hennen".
The terms given in (a), (b), (c) and (d) may be used only for eggs produced in poultry enterprises meeting the criteria set out in the Annex.
2. Packing centres authorized to use the terms referred to in paragraph 1 (a), (b), (c) and (d) shall be subject to special registration in accordance with Article 2. They shall keep a separate record, by type of farming:
- of the names and addresses of the producers of such eggs, who shall be registered following an inspection by the competent authority of the Member State,
- at the request of this authority the number of laying hens kept by each producer.
The said producers shall subsequently be inspected regularly. They shall keep current records of the number of laying hens by type of poultry system, showing also the number of eggs produced and delivered and the names of the purchasers.
3. Each Member State shall provide the other Member State and the Commission with a list of the packing centres in its territory thus registered, showing their names and addresses and the code number allotted to each centre. Any alteration to that list shall be communicated to the other Member States and to the Commission at the beginning of each quarter of the calendar year.
4. Eggs as referred to in paragraph 1 (a), (b), (c) and (d) shall be delivered to packing centres in containers bearing one of the terms mentioned in paragraph 1 (a), (b), (c) or (d) in one or more Community languages. Deliveries shall be identified by name and address of producer, type, number or weight of eggs and date of delivery, and up-to-date records thereof shall be kept at the packing centre.
5. Eggs as referred to in paragraph 1 (a), (b), (c) or (d) shall be graded and packed only on days indicated at least one working day in advance to the competent authority of the Member State. During storage, grading and packing they shall be clearly separated from any other eggs.
6. Packing centres as referred to in paragraph 2 shall keep separate records of sales of small packs marked in accordance with paragraph 1 (a), (b), (c) or (d), including name and address of buyer, number of packs, number and/or weight of eggs sold by grade of weight and date of delivery. Instead of keeping records, they may however, keep files of invoices or delivery notes marked as indicated in 1 (a), (b), (c) or (d).
7. Large packs containing small packs marked in accordance with paragraph 1 (a), (b), (c) or (d) shall bear one of the following indications:
"FREE RANGE EGGS"
"SEMI-INTENSIVE EGGS"
"DEEP LITTER EGGS"
"PERCHERY EGGS (BARN EGGS)".
8. The forms of wording referred to in paragraphs 1 and 7 shall be affixed at least in the language or languages of the Member State in which retailing or any other use takes place.
9. These provisions shall apply without prejudice to national technical measures going beyond the minimum requirements given in the Annex, which are applicable only to producers of the Member State concerned, provided that they are compatible with Community law and are in conformity with the common marketing standards for eggs.
10. The national measures referred to in paragraph 8 shall be communicated to the Commission in accordance with Article 30 of Regulation (EEC) No 2772/75. 11. At any time and at the request of the Commission, Member States shall provide all the information necessary for assessing the compatibility of the measures referred to in this Article with Community law and their conformity with the common marketing standards for eggs.
Article 12
1. In order to indicate the origin of eggs on small packs in accordance with Article 21 (c) of Regulation (EEC) No 2772/75, terms may be used which refer to the Member State and/or to an administrative or other region, defined by the competent authority of the Member State in which the eggs were produced.
2. Packing centres which make use of the terms referred to in paragraph 1 shall keep a detailed record of deliveries by origin, showing name and address of the producer, number or weight of eggs and date of delivery. The producer shall keep current records of the number of laying hens, showing also the number of eggs produced and delivered.
3. Packing centres as referred to in paragraph 2 shall keep separate records of sales of small packs marked with the terms referred to in paragraph 1, including name and address of buyer, number of packs, number or weight of eggs sold and date of delivery.
Instead of keeping records, they may however keep files of invoices or delivery notes marked as indicated in paragraph 1.
4. Large packs containing small packs marked with the terms referred to in paragraph 1 shall bear the same terms.
Article 13
1. Each Member State shall report to the other Member States and to the Commission:
- the monitoring methods applied for the implementation of this Regulation,
- annually, before 1 April, the average number of laying hens present (1), the number or weight of eggs delivered as recorded in accordance with Article 11 (2) and (4) as well as the number or weight of eggs sold, as recorded in accordance with Article 11 (6), in the previous calendar year.
2. The checks carried out in the Member States shall be discussed, on a regular basis, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 18 of Regulation (EEC) No 2771/75.
(1) Average number of laying hens present =
number of hens placed × laying weeks
52.'
2. Articles 10 to 16 are renumbered 14 to 20.
3. The Annex to this Regulation is added.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 12 July 1985. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0
] |
REGULATION (EEC) No 1275/75 OF THE COUNCIL of 20 May 1975 deleting certain products from the Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 2603/69 establishing common rules for exports
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community;
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2603/69 (1) of 20 December 1969 establishing common rules for exports, and in particular Article 10 thereof;
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission;
Whereas exports of certain products included in the Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 2603/69 have been liberalized by the Member State which up to now has been alone in maintaining quantitative restrictions and it is now possible to apply the principle of freedom of export to those products at Community level,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The products covered by the undermentioned tariff headings are hereby deleted from the Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 2603/69:
06.01
07.05
09.01
12.03
21.02
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, 20 May 1975. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COUNCIL DECISION
of 13 March 1997
concerning the conclusion of the Agreement on customs cooperation in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Community and the Kingdom of Norway
(97/269/EC)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 113 thereof, in conjunction with the first sentence of Article 228 (2) and the first subparagraph of Article 228 (3),
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,
Whereas the national arrangements on customs cooperation concluded between the Kingdom of Norway and the Republic of Finland, on the one hand, and between the Kingdom of Norway and the Kingdom of Sweden, on the other hand, should, for the matters falling within the Community's jurisdiction, be replaced by a Community system;
Whereas the frontier cooperation agreements help to facilitate trade and the efficient allocation of resources over a limited number of frontier posts situated in outermost regions, in particular for the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden; whereas such regions have a number of peculiarities relating to their geography (extremely harsh climatic conditions, extremely long borders, long internal distances, great difficulty in gaining access to certain areas) and to their very low density of population and traffic and these peculiarities are new in the Community context and require special attention if the regions and economic operators concerned are not to be penalized;
Whereas on 25 October 1996 the Council authorized the Commission to negotiate, on behalf of the Community, an agreeement on customs cooperation in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Community and the Kingdom of Norway;
Whereas the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden should assume full responsibility, including financial liability, towards the Community for all acts performed or to be performed on their behalf by the Norwegian customs authorities;
Whereas the Finnish and Swedish customs authorities respectively should conclude with the Norwegian customs authorities an administrative arrangement for the implementation of the Agreement; whereas such arrangements should be notified to the Commission; whereas the Finnish and Swedish customs authorities should be accountable to the Commission for the implementation of the Agreement;
Whereas the Agreement on customs cooperation in the form of an Exchange of Letters negotiated between the European Community and the Kingdom of Norway should be approved,
HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Article 1
The Agreement on customs cooperation in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Community and the Kingdom of Norway is hereby approved on behalf of the Community.
The text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.
Article 2
The Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden shall assume full responsibility, including financial liability, towards the Community for all acts performed or to be performed on their behalf by the Norwegian customs authorities.
Article 3
1. The Finnish and the Swedish customs authorities respectively shall conclude with the Norwegian customs authorities an administrative arrangement for the implementation of the Agreement. These arrangements shall be notified to the Commission of the European Communties.
2. The Finnish and the Swedish customs authorities respectively shall be accountable to the Commission for the implementation of the Agreement. To this end, they shall present a yearly report to the Commission, unless special circumstances were to require additional reports.
Article 4
The Community shall be represented on the Joint Committee set up under Article 7 of the Agreement by the Commission assisted by the representatives of the Member States.
Article 5
The President of the Council is hereby authorized to designate the persons empowered to sign the Agreement in order to bind the Community and to give the notification provided for in Article 11 of the Agreement (1).
Article 6
This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Communties.
Done at Brussels, 13 March 1997. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION
of 17 May 2005
amending Decision 2004/233/EC as regards the list of laboratories authorised to check the effectiveness of vaccination against rabies in certain domestic carnivores
(notified under document number C(2005) 1439)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2005/392/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Decision 2000/258/EC of 20 March 2000 designating a specific institute responsible for establishing the criteria necessary for standardising the serological tests to monitor the effectiveness of rabies vaccines (1), and in particular Article 3 thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
Decision 2000/258/EC designated the laboratory of the Agence française de sécurité sanitaire des aliments de Nancy (the AFSSA Laboratory, Nancy, France) as the institute responsible for establishing the criteria necessary for standardising the serological tests to monitor the effectiveness of rabies vaccines. That Decision also provides for the AFSSA Laboratory of Nancy to send to the Commission the list of Community laboratories to be authorised to carry out those serological tests. Accordingly, the AFSSA Laboratory of Nancy operates the established proficiency testing procedure to appraise laboratories for authorisation to perform the serological tests.
(2)
Commission Decision 2004/233/EC of 4 March 2004 authorising laboratories to check the effectiveness of vaccination against rabies in certain domestic carnivores (2), established a list of approved laboratories in the Member States on the grounds of the results of the proficiency tests communicated by the AFSSA Laboratory of Nancy.
(3)
Five laboratories, respectively in the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Hungary had been approved by the AFSSA Laboratory of Nancy, in compliance with Decision 2000/258/EC.
(4)
Accordingly, it is appropriate to add those five laboratories to the list of approved laboratories in the Member States as established in the Annex to Decision 2004/233/EC.
(5)
Decision 2004/233/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.
(6)
The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
Annex I to Decision 2004/233/EC is replaced by the the Annex to this Decision.
Article 2
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 17 May 2005. | [
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) N° 3990/87
of 23 December 1987
amending Regulation (EEC) N° 1418/76 on the common organization of the market in rice
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) N° 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), as amended by Regulation (EEC) N° 3985/87 (2), and in particular Article 15 thereof,
Whereas Council Regulation (EEC) N° 2658/87 establishes, with effect from 1 January 1988, a combined goods nomenclature based on the Harmonized System which will meet the requirements both of the Common Customs Tariff and the nomenclature of goods for the external trade statistics of the Community;
Whereas, as a consequence, it is necessary to express the descriptions of goods and tariff heading numbers which appear in Council Regulation (EEC) N° 1418/76 (3), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) N° 3877/87 (4), according to the terms of the combined nomenclature; whereas these adaptations do not call for any amendment of substance,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Regulation (EEC) N° 1418/76 is modified as follows:
1.
Article 1 (1) is replaced by the following:
'1. The common organization of the market in rice shall comprise a price and trading system and cover the following products:
TABLE
2.
Article 11 a paragraphs (2), (3) and (4) are replaced by the following:
'2. By way of derogation from Article 11 (1) (a), (b), (c), (d) and (i), no levy shall be charged on imports of products falling within subheadings 1006 10 91, 1006 10 99, 1006 20 and 1006 40 00 in the French overseas department of Réunion.
3. By way of derogation from Article 11 (1) (e), (f), (g) and (h), the levy to be charged on imports of products falling within subheading 1006 30 in the French overseas department of Réunion shall be equal to be amount for the protection of the industry referred to in Article 14 (3).
4. For consignments to the French overseas department of Réunion of products falling within heading N° 1006 excluding subheading 1006 10 10 which come from Member States and are in one of the situations referred to in Article 9 (2) of the Treaty, a subsidy shall be granted, on application by the party concerned, equal to the levy in force for the product concerned.
However, this subsidy shall:
- in respect of products falling within subheadings 1006 30 11 and 1006 30 19 be equal to the levy applicable to products falling within subheading 1006 20,
- in respect of products falling within subheadings 1006 30 91 and 1006 30 99, be reduced by the amount for the protection of the industry referred to in Article 14 (3)'.
3.
Annex B shall be replaced by the Annex to this Regulation.
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, 23 December 1987. | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION of 11 November 1992 concerning a draft order of the Brussels region providing for aid to promote economic growth and scientific research (Only the French and Dutch texts are authentic)
(93/134/EEC)THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 93 (2) thereof,
Having given the parties concerned notice to submit their comments, in accordance with Article 93,
Whereas:
I By note dated 26 July 1991 from its Permanent Representation, the Belgian Government notified the Commission, in accordance with the provisions of Article 93 (3) of the EEC Treaty, of a draft order of the Brussels region providing for aid to promote economic growth and scientific research.
Additional information was requested from the Belgian authorities by letter dated 8 August 1991. The Belgian authorities' reply was received by the Commission on 27 September 1991.
By letter dated 9 December 1991, the Commission informed the Belgian Government that it had decided to initiate the procedure provided for in Article 93 (2) of the EEC Treaty in respect of the aid and requested the Belgian Government to submit its comments.
Interested third parties were informed of the Commission's decision through publication of a notice in the Official Journal of the European Communities on 29 January 1992 (1). No comments were received from interested third parties.
The aid provided for in the draft order in respect of which the abovementioned procedure war initiated may be described as follows:
- aid for industrial and craft-based undertakings in the form of capital grants or interest subsidies, possibly coupled with a guarantee by the region and the State and amounting to:
- 20 % of the investment where the sole object of the investment is the rational use of energy, water or raw materials, environmental protection or the specific adjustment of the undertaking to its particular location or its relocation in an urban environment,
- 8 % of any investment carried out by an undertaking situated in a 'less-favoured urban district';
- aid of the same type, without any maximum rate, for the purposes of sectoral aid or for technological or other facilities which are of particular importance for the Brussels region;
- aid of up to 50 % of the cost of economic, technical and financial studies relating to the abovementioned investments (80 % with a maximum of Bfrs 5 million);
- R & D aid, in the form of grants for basic research, amounting to 50 % of the cost of the project (60 % in the case of small and medium businesses - SMBs - and research involving a considerable business risk or being of particular interest at European level), and in the form of an advance involving conditional or unconditional repayment, amounting to 40 % (50 %) of the project in the case of applied research or accompanying measures;
- progress contracts concluded with undertakings for the carrying-out of multiannual programmes including any technological, industrial and development operation and comprising aid of up to 15 % of the investment, though this ceiling may be exceeded in the case of European industrial programmes that are the subject of national or international agreements.
II The aid provided for under the draft order is caught by the provisions of Article 92 (1) of the EEC Treaty. Both the acceptance (or rejection) of applications and the determination of the amount and the terms of the aid are assessed and decided on in each individual case by the competent Brussels authorities. The aid will thus be granted by the State through State resources. It should be borne in mind that all aid granted by regional or local bodies of Member States, whatever their status and description, is covered by the provisions of Article 92 (1) of the EEC Treaty (Judgment of the Court of Justice of 14 October 1987 in Case 248/84, Germany v. Commission (2). By relieving certain undertakings of some of their costs, such aid gives such undertakings financial advantages and improves their competitive position. Since the production of such undertakings may be in competition with that of undertakings in other Member States, such aid is liable to distort intra-Community trade.
The Article 93 (2) procedure was initiated because some of the aid was ineligible for any of the derogations from the prohibition of aid provided for in Article 92 (2) and (3) of the EEC Treaty. This was the case with the following aid:
- the aid for sectoral purposes or for technological or other facilities having particular importance for the Brussels region, and aid provided for under 'progress contracts'. Such aid, being general and non-specific in nature, did not have any features that would allow it to be exempted under Article 92 (2) and (3), but did, on the contrary, have negative repercussions at Community level, in that it would have thwarted the effects of regional development policies and would have attracted 'footloose investment' at the expense of other Member States,
- the aid provided for in respect of investments carried out by undertakings situated in less-favoured urban districts. Such aid did not qualify for a derogation as regional aid, since the Brussels region is not eligible for regional aid and since, because it related to any investment whatsoever and regardless of the size of the undertaking, the aid was general in nature and therefore incompatible with the EEC Treaty,
- the aid for the specific adjustment of undertakings to the urban environment. By making it easier for them to remain in the Brussels region, such aid would have had the effect of counteracting the attraction of regional aid schemes and could not therefore be in the Community interest,
- as regards the aid provided for in respect of R & D, the aid for applied research and accompanying measures did not comply with the maximum rates laid down by the Community framework for State aid for R & D.
III As part of the procedure, an exploratory meeting took place on 11 February 1992 between the Commission and the relevant Brussels authorities. It was followed by an exchange of notes, dated 9 April 1992 from the Belgian authorities and 1 June 1992 from the Commission. By letter dated 23 June 1992 from its Permanent Representation, the Belgian Government sent the Commission an amended draft order of the Brussels region accompanied by comments on the articles and an explanatory memorandum on the amendments made to the original draft. The amendments take account in particular of the provisions of the new framework on aid to SMBs as regards the definition and intensity of the aid authorized for investment and for economic, technical and financial studies.
Examination of the amended draft has led to the findings set out below regarding the various measures that had led to the initiation of Article 93 (2) proceedings.
The provision allowing aid to be granted for sectoral, technological or other purposes has been amended, and Article 7 of the new draft restricts the scope for such aid to cases 'of sectoral aid decided by the Commission of the European Communities, or else of a technological research or development programme of the European Community'.
The 'progress contracts' have been replaced by the concept of specific contracts and, according to the explanations of the relevant provision, Article 14, their use is intended solely to enable the Brussels region to participate in European programmes such as the Airbus programme.
The aid for investment by undertakings in less-favoured urban districts will in future be confined to SMBs as defined in the framework on aid for SMBs, and its amount will be limited to 7,5 % of the cost of investment.
The aid for the specific adjustment of undertakings to the urban environment or their relocation in an urban environment has been withdrawn.
The chapter relating to R & D aid has been deleted from the draft order.
IV As a result of the substantial amendments to the draft order of the Brussels region, application of the provisions that gave rise to the initiation of proceedings will be restricted to the granting of aid that may be deemed compatible with the common market either because what is involved is the counterpart of Community aid or because the aid fulfils the conditions laid down by the Community frameworks on national aid.
Thus, with regard to the aid relating to less-favoured urban districts, the fact of restricting eligibility for the aid to SMBs as defined in the framework on aid for SMBs and of limiting its amount to 7,5 % of the cost of the investment concerned, as provided for in the framework, makes the aid compatible with the EEC Treaty.
The same is true with regard to the provisions of Article 7 of the draft order, provided that the restriction of the granting of aid to cases involving Community aid or national aid covered by a Community framework is set out clearly in Article 7. The Commission's Decision is consequently coupled with the requirement that Article 7 be thus amended.
The same also applies with regard to the provisions of Article 14 relating to 'specific contracts', provided that the wording of Article 14 stipulates explicitly that the award of such contracts will relate solely to participation in important projects of common European interest within the meaning of Article 92 (3) (b) of the EEC Treaty that are recognized as such by the Commission of the European Communities. This requirement is also a condition of the Commission's Decision to approve the draft order.
It may accordingly be concluded that the aid thus restricted is eligible for the derogation provided for in Article 92 (3) (c) of the EEC Treaty.
Application of the aid provided for in the draft order is of course also subject to the rules and guidelines of Community law relating to State aid, including certain sectors of activity in industry and agriculture and certain industrial agricultural holdings, and those relating to the combining of different types of aid,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
The aid provided for in the draft order of the Brussels region, as notified to the Commission by note dated 23 June 1992, may be regarded as compatible with the common market within the meaning of Article 92 (3) (c) of the EEC Treaty provided that the conditions stipulated in the following Articles are met.
Article 2
The granting of aid within the framework of sectoral or technological programmes, as provided for in Article 7 of the draft, shall be restricted solely to cases of national financing that supplements aid from Community funds, or of aid falling within the limits laid down in a Community framework on national aid.
The Belgian Government shall take the measures necessary to amend Article 7 of the draft order in such a way that the abovementioned restrictions are explicitly laid down.
Article 3
The granting of aid within the framework of specific contracts, as provided for in Article 14 of the draft order, shall concern exclusively the participation of the recipient undertakings in one or more important projects of common European interest previously authorized by the Commission pursuant to Article 92 (3) (b).
The Belgian Government shall take the necessary measures to amend Article 14 of the draft order in such a way that the abovementioned restriction is explicitly laid down.
Article 4
The Belgian Government shall communicate to the Commission within a period of two months of the date of notification of this Decision the text of the draft order of the Brussels region, amended in line with the requirements of this Decision.
Article 5
This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Belgium.
Done at Brussels, 11 November 1992. | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1
] |
DECISION OF THE COUNCIL AND THE COMMISSION
of 25 February 1991
on the conclusion of the Fourth ACP-EEC Convention
(91/400/ECSC, EEC)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Article 238 thereof,
Having regard to the assent of the European Parliament (1),
Whereas the Fourth ACP-EEC Convention, signed in Lomé on 15 December 1989, should be approved,
HAVE DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Article 1
The Fourth ACP-EEC Convention, the Protocols and declarations annexed thereto and the declarations attached to the Final Act are hereby approved on behalf of the European Coal and Steel Community and the European Economic Community.
The texts of the Convention, the Protocols and declarations annexed thereto and the Final Act are attached to this Decision.
Article 2
The President of the Council shall, as regards the European Coal and Steel Community and the European Economic Community, deposit the act of notification provided for in Article 360 of the Convention.
Done at Brussels, 25 February 1991. | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION
of 16 August 2005
amending Annex XI to Council Directive 2003/85/EC with regard to national laboratories in certain Member States
(notified under document number C(2005) 3121)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2005/615/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Directive 2003/85/EC of 29 September 2003 on Community measures for the control of foot-and-mouth disease repealing Directive 85/511/EEC and Decisions 89/531/EEC and 91/665/EEC and amending Directive 92/46/EEC (1), and in particular Article 67(2) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
For security reasons it is important to maintain the list of national laboratories authorised to handle live foot-and-mouth disease virus updated.
(2)
The competent authorities of Denmark, Germany and Poland have officially informed the Commission on changes relating to their national reference laboratory for foot-and-mouth disease.
(3)
The competent authorities of Slovakia officially informed the Commission of arrangements they have made in accordance with Article 68(2) of the Directive.
(4)
For clarity it appears appropriate to list the Member States in the order of the ISO country code.
(5)
It is necessary to adapt the list of national laboratories authorised to handle live foot-and-mouth disease virus and to amend Part A of Annex XI to Directive 2003/85/EC accordingly.
(6)
The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
The list of National laboratories authorised to handle live foot-and-mouth disease virus in Part A of Annex XI to Directive 2003/85/EC is replaced by the text in the Annex to this Decision.
Article 2
The Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 16 August 2005. | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1478/96 of 26 July 1996 amending Regulation (EEC) No 584/92 laying down detailed rules for the application to milk and milk products of the arrangements provided for in the Europe Agreements between the Community and the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Hungary, the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 3491/93 of 13 December 1993 on certain procedures for applying the Europe Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Hungary, of the other part (1), and in particular Article 1 thereof,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 3492/93 of 13 December 1993 on certain procedures for applying the Europe Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Poland, of the other part (2), and in particular Article 1 thereof,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 3296/94 of 19 December 1994 on certain procedures for applying the Europe Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Czech Republic, of the other part (3), and in particular Article 1 thereof,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 3297/94 of 19 December 1994 on certain procedures for applying the Europe Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Slovak Republic, of the other part (4), and in particular Article 1 thereof,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 3066/95 of 22 December 1995 establishing certain concessions in the form of Community tariff quotas for certain agricultural products and providing for an autonomous and transitional adjustment to certain agricultural concessions provided for in the Europe Agreements so as to take account of the Agreement on Agriculture concluded as part of the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations (5), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1194/96 (6), and in particular Article 8 thereof,
Whereas Commission Regulation (EEC) No 584/92 (7), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1228/96 (8), lays down detailed rules for the application to milk and milk products of the arrangements provided for in the above Agreements; whereas that Regulation was amended to take account of the extension of the measures for milk products provided for by Regulation (EC) No 3066/95;
Whereas, from 1 July 1996, the quantities of the products referred to in Annex I to Regulation (EEC) No 584/92 relate to a period of six months instead of one year; whereas the staggering of those quantities over the six-month period in question should be clarified and, as a result, Article 2 of that Regulation amended;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Milk and Milk Products,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The following paragraph is hereby added to Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 584/92:
'However, for the period from 1 July 1996 to 31 December 1996 the quantities referred to in Annex I shall be staggered over the year as follows:
- 50 % in the period 1 July to 30 September 1996,
- 50 % in the period 1 October to 31 December 1996.`
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
It shall apply with effect from 1 July 1996.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 26 July 1996. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 2169/81 of 27 July 1981 laying down the general rules for the system of aid for cotton
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to the 1979 Act of Accession, and in particular paragraph 9 of Protocol 4 on cotton, hereinafter referred to as "the Protocol",
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,
Whereas, pursuant to paragraph 9 of the Protocol, it is necessary to lay down the rules of procedure and of sound management for its application, the general rules of the system of production aid, the criteria for determining the world market price and the rules concerning the financing of the measures envisaged;
Whereas, in order to facilitate implementation of the production aid system and its sound management, a procedure should be provided for establishing close cooperation between the Member States and the Commission within a Management Committee ; whereas it is appropriate that the Management Committee for Flax and Hemp, provided for in Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70 (1), as last amended by the 1979 Act of Accession, should perform this function;
Whereas in order to facilitate the management and control of the aid system, the aid should be granted to cotton ginning undertakings ; whereas, so that producers may benefit from the system, the grant of aid should be made subject to the condition that they have obtained a price not less than a minimum purchase price to be determined, which should be close to the guide price fixed in accordance with paragraph 8 of the Protocol, or that the aid will be passed on to them;
Whereas, in accordance with paragraph 3 of the Protocol, if Community production exceeds a quantity fixed in advance, the aid is to be multiplied by a coefficient to be determined ; whereas the amount of the aid to be granted cannot therefore be known until after the quantity produced has been ascertained ; whereas, to reduce the disadvantages for those concerned of any delay in payment of the aid, provision should be made for the advance payment of a proportion of it;
Whereas, pursuant to the third subparagraph of paragraph 3 of the Protocol, the amount of aid is to be based on the difference between a guide price fixed for unginned cotton and the world market price ; whereas, since there is no international trade in unginned cotton, and there are therefore no offers of quotations, provision should be made to enable a world market price for this product to be determined ; whereas this price may be determined by taking the value of the products obtained by ginning, and deducting the cost of ginning;
Whereas the value of the products obtained should be determined on the basis, first, of a yield in fibre and in seed to be determined and, secondly, of the world market price for those products ; whereas the world market price should be determined on the basis of the most favourable purchasing possibilities on that market;
Whereas the offers and quotations taken into consideration should be those made on the world market and the major international exchanges respectively, whereas, however, offers which cannot be considered representative of the real market trend should be ignored;
Whereas, if there are no representative offers or quotations for cotton seed, the world market price for cotton seed should be determined by taking the value of the products resulting from the processing of this seed ; whereas, where the offers or quotations for cotton seed on the world market might prejudice the sale of the Community production of cotton seed, the world market price should be determined by taking the value of the average quantities of oil and oil-cake derived from the processing of cotton seed, less the processing costs;
Whereas, for the aid system to operate correctly, the world market price must be recorded for a Community frontier crossing point ; whereas, in fixing this point, account should be taken of the extent to which it is representative for imports of cotton seed ; whereas, therefore, the port of Piraeus should be chosen ; whereas the offers and quotations adopted will have to be adjusted if they relate to a different frontier crossing point;
Whereas such adjustments should also be made to the offers and quotations adopted, in order to compensate for any variation from the presentation and quality taken as a basis for fixing the guide price;
Whereas the producer Member States should be required to set up the control arrangements necessary to ensure that the aid system operates correctly; (1) OJ No L 146, 4.7.1970, p. 1.
Whereas, in order that the Community expenditure relating to the measure in question may be subjected to appropriate financial and monetary rules and procedures, Council Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 of 21 April 1970 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3509/80 (2), as well as the Regulations relating to the value of the unit of account and the exchange rates to be applied in connection with the common agricultural policy, should be applied in this sector by analogy in view of the specifically agricultural nature of cotton;
Whereas the transition from the system in force in the Member States to the system set up by this Regulation must be as smooth as possible ; whereas it seems necessary to provide for transitional measures,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
For the purposes of this Regulation: (a) "unginned cotton" means the fruit of the cotton plant (Gossypium) which has reached maturity and has been harvested, and which contains pod waste, leaves and earthy matter;
(b) "ginned cotton" means the cotton fibres (other than linters and waste), neither carded nor combed, from which the seeds and most of the pod waste, leaves and earthy matter have been removed.
Article 2
The guide price for a specified quality of unginned cotton shall remain applicable throughout a given marketing year ; the marketing year shall run from 1 August to 31 July.
Article 3
1. The computed world market price for unginned cotton shall be determined periodically on the basis of the world market prices recorded for ginned cotton and cotton seed, taking into account the estimated yield of the Community harvest in cotton seed and in ginned cotton and also the net cost of ginning.
2. If the world market price for unginned cotton cannot be determined in accordance with paragraph 1, this price shall be established on the basis of the most recent price determined.
Article 4
1. The world market prices for ginned cotton and cotton seed shall be determined in the light of the offers on the world market and the prices quoted on the major international exchanges.
2. The world market prices shall be determined on the basis of the most favourable offers and quotations recorded, excluding offers and quotations which cannot be regarded as representative of the real market trend.
3. As regards ginned cotton, the world market price shall be determined for a product delivered to Piraeus, of grade 5 as defined in Greece and having fibres 28 mm long.
As regards cotton seed, the world market price shall be determined for a product delivered in bulk to Piraeus of sound and fair merchantable quality, containing 2 % impurities and, in a random sample of seeds, 12 % moisture and 17 % oil.
Where the offers and quotations recorded do not satisfy the requirements referred to in the preceding subparagraphs, the necessary adjustments shall be made.
4. If there are no suitable offers or quotations for determining the world market price for cotton seed, this price shall be established on the basis of the value of the products obtained from the processing of those seeds, less the cost of crushing.
5. Where the world market price for cotton seed cannot be determined in accordance with the preceding paragraphs, this price shall be established on the basis of the most recent price determined, adjusted as appropriate to take account of trends in the prices of competing products.
Article 5
1. Without prejudice to Article 7 (2), when the world market price determined in accordance with Article 3 is below the guide price, aid equal to the difference between these two prices shall be granted for unginned cotton harvested in the Community.
2. Without prejudice to Article 8 (1), the amount of aid to be paid shall be the amount applicable on the day when the application for aid is made. Applications for aid in respect of a given marketing year shall be submitted prior to a date to be determined for the marketing year in question.
3. Without prejudice to Article 8 (1), entitlement to the aid shall be acquired at the time when the cotton is ginned. (1) OJ No L 94, 28.4.1970, p. 13. (2) OJ No L 367, 31.12.1980, p. 87.
The aid may, however, be paid in advance when the unginned cotton enters the cotton ginning undertaking, provided that an adequate guarantee is provided.
4. The aid shall be paid by the producer Member States on whose territory ginning takes place.
5. The aid shall be paid for the quantity of unginned cotton which enters the cotton ginning undertaking. In order to determine this quantity the cotton shall be weighed and samples taken when it enters the cotton ginning undertaking. The quantity eligible for aid shall be calculated on the basis of the weight, the latter being adjusted for any difference between the percentages of moisture content and of impurities recorded and the percentages in relation to which the guide price is fixed.
Article 6
Aid shall be granted only to cotton ginning undertakings which apply for it and which: 1. have submitted either: (a) a contract stipulating payment to the producer of a price at least equal to the minimum price referred to in Article 9 and containing a clause specifying that in the event of application of Article 7 (2) the agreed price will be reduced by the amount by which the aid is reduced following application of that Article;
(b) where the undertaking gins cotton on behalf of an individual producer or a producer who is a member of that undertaking, a statement giving details of the conditions on which the ginning is carried out and how the aid is passed on to producers;
2. keep stock accounts, with a view to enabling entitlement to the aid to be checked, which satisfy requirements to be laid down;
3. provide the other supporting documents needed for checking entitlement to the aid;
4. furnish proof that the cotton delivered under the contract or under the statement referred to in point 1 (b) has been the subject of the declaration of area sown referred to in Article 8 (1).
Article 7
1. As early as possible and in any event not later than the end of the third month following the final date for lodging aid applications, the quantity actually produced in each marketing year shall be determined according to the procedure referred to in Article 11 (1), account being taken, in particular, of the quantities in respect of which aid has been requested.
2. If the quantity actually produced exceeds the quantity in respect of which aid is granted in full, the amount of aid to be paid shall be determined using the following formula: PIC FILE= "T
where:
A1 = amount of aid applicable on the day when the application was made,
PM = quantity fixed by the Council in respect of the marketing year,
PE = actual Community production,
A2 = aid to be paid.
Article 8
1. Before the beginning of each marketing year, the percentage of aid paid by Member States pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 5 (3) shall be laid down in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 11 (1) taking into account crop estimates, until such time as the quantity actually produced is determined.
In order to draw up these estimates, a system for the declaration of area sown shall be established.
2. Any aid outstanding shall be paid after the quantity actually produced has been determined.
Article 9
1. The Council, acting by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission, shall each year fix a minimum price for unginned cotton at the same time as the guide price.
2. The minimum price shall be fixed for the quality to which the guide price relates, and shall apply at the farm gate. This price shall be fixed at a level enabling producers to sell at a price as close as possible to the guide price, account being taken of: - market fluctuations,
- the cost of transporting the unginned cotton from the production areas to the ginning areas.
3. The minimum price shall be adjusted in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 11 (1), account being taken of any difference in quality in relation to the standard quality.
Article 10
The producer Member States shall set up a system of controls to: - ascertain the quantity of unginned Community cotton which has entered each cotton ginning undertaking,
- ascertain the quantity of unginned Community cotton which has been ginned,
- ensure that the minimum price is complied with.
Article 11
1. Detailed rules for the application of this Regulation shall be determined in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 12 of Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70.
2. If it proves necessary to introduce transitional measures in order to facilitate the transition from the previous system to the system set up by this Regulation, such measures shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure provided for in paragraph 1. They shall apply until the end of the 1981/82 marketing year at the latest.
Article 12
The provisions of the Regulations relating to the value of the unit of account and the exchange rates to be applied in connection with the common agricultural policy, and those of Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 shall apply by analogy to the matters dealt with in this Regulation.
Article 13
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 August 1981.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 27 July 1981. | [
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION
of 26 June 2006
on the allocation to the United Kingdom of additional fishing days within ICES division VIIe
(notified under document number C(2006) 2438)
(Only the English text is authentic)
(2006/461/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 51/2006 of 22 December 2005 fixing for 2006 the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of stocks, applicable in Community waters and for Community vessels in waters where catch limitations are required (1), and in particular point 9 of Annex IIC,
Whereas:
(1)
Point 7 of Annex IIC to Regulation (EC) No 51/2006 specifies the maximum number of days (216) on which Community vessels of length overall equal to or greater than 10 meters carrying on board beam trawls of mesh size equal to or greater than 80 mm or static nets with mesh size less than 220 mm may be present within ICES division VIIe from 1 February 2006 to 31 January 2007.
(2)
Point 9 of that Annex enables the Commission to allocate an additional number of fishing days on which a vessel may be present within that area when carrying on board such beam trawls or static nets, on the basis of permanent cessations of fishing activities that have taken place since 1 of January 2004.
(3)
The United Kingdom has submitted data demonstrating a reduction in 2006 of 5 % in the fleet capacity of vessels present in the area and carrying on board beam trawls of mesh size equal to or greater than 80 mm.
(4)
In view of the data submitted, 12 additional days at sea should be allocated to United Kingdom for the period between 1 February 2006 and 31 January 2007 for vessels carrying on board such beam trawls.
(5)
The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
The maximum number of days a fishing vessel flying the flag of the United Kingdom and carrying on board beam trawls of mesh size equal to or greater than 80 mm may be present in ICES division VIIe, as laid down in table I of Annex IIC to Regulation (EC) No 51/2006, shall be amended to 228 days per year.
Article 2
This Decision is addressed to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Done at Brussels, 26 June 2006. | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 499/2007
of 7 May 2007
establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 of 21 December 1994 on detailed rules for the application of the import arrangements for fruit and vegetables (1), and in particular Article 4(1) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations, the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products and periods stipulated in the Annex thereto.
(2)
In compliance with the above criteria, the standard import values must be fixed at the levels set out in the Annex to this Regulation,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The standard import values referred to in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 shall be fixed as indicated in the Annex hereto.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 8 May 2007.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 7 May 2007. | [
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION
of 18 January 2000
amending Decision 96/627/EC implementing Article 2 of Council Directive 77/311/EEC on the driver-perceived noise level of wheeled agricultural or forestry tractors
(notified under document number C(1999) 3546)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2000/63/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Directive 77/311/EEC of 29 March 1977 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the driver-perceived noise level of wheeled agricultural or forestry tractors(1), as last amended by Directive 97/54/EC(2) of the European Parliament and of the Council, and in particular Article 2 thereof,
Whereas:
(1) It has proved technically impossible in the case of virtually all tractors without cabs to meet the expiry date for the transitional period laid down by Commission Decision 96/627/EC(3). It is necessary in those circumstances to postpone the end of the transitional period laid down by that Decision for those vehicles.
(2) The mesures provided for in this Decision are in conformity with the opinion delivered by the Committee on the Adaptation to Technical Progress of the Directives on the removal of technical barriers to trade in agricultural or forestry tractors,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
Article 1 of Decision 96/627/EC is replaced by the following:
"Article 1
The transitional period referred to in Article 2(2) of Directive 77/311/EEC shall expire on:
- 1 October 2001 for all new types of tractor,
- 1 October 2003 for all new tractors."
Article 2
Member States shall adopt the provisions necessary to comply with this Decision by 30 September 2001 at the latest. They shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof.
Article 3
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 18 January 2000. | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
1,
0
] |
*****
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 3303/87
of 3 November 1987
re-establishing the levying of customs duties applicable to third countries on certain products originating in Yugoslavia
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to the Cooperation Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (1), and in particular Protocol 1 thereto,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 4054/86 of 22 December 1986 establishing ceilings and Community supervision for imports of certain goods originating in Yugoslavia (1987) (2), and in particular Article 1 thereof,
Whereas Article 1 of the abovementioned Protocol provides that the products listed below, imported under reduced duty rates according to Article 18 of the Cooperation Agreement are subject to the annual ceiling indicated below, above which the customs duties applicable to third countries may be re-established:
(tonnes)
1.2.3.4 // // // // // Order No // CCT heading No // Description // Ceiling // // // // // 04.0080 // 78.01 // Unwrought lead (including argentiferous lead), lead waste and scrap: // 1 418 // // // A. Unwrought: // // // // II. Other // // // // //
Whereas imports into the Community of those products, originating in Yugoslavia, have reached that ceiling; whereas the situation on the Community market requires that customs duties applicable to third countries on the products in question be re-established,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
From 7 November to 31 December 1987, the levying of customs duties applicable to third countries shall be re-established on imports into the Community of the following products:
1.2.3.4 // // // // // Order No // CCT heading No // Description // Origin // // // // // 04.0080 // 78.01 // Unwrought lead (including argentiferous lead), lead waste and scrap: // Yugoslavia // // // A. Unwrought: // // // // II. Other // // // // 1986, p. 35.
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, 3 November 1987. | [
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1215/2009
of 30 November 2009
introducing exceptional trade measures for countries and territories participating in or linked to the European Union’s Stabilisation and Association process
(codified version)
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)
Council Regulation (EC) No 2007/2000 of 18 September 2000 introducing exceptional trade measures for countries and territories participating in or linked to the European Union’s Stabilisation and Association process, amending Regulation (EC) No 2820/98, and repealing Regulations (EC) No 1763/1999 and (EC) No 6/2000 (1), has been substantially amended several times (2). In the interests of clarity and rationality the said Regulation should be codified.
(2)
At its meeting in Lisbon on 23 and 24 March 2000, the European Council concluded that Stabilisation and Association Agreements with Western Balkan countries should be preceded by asymmetrical trade liberalisation.
(3)
A continued Community market opening to imports from the Western Balkan countries is expected to contribute to the process of political and economic stabilisation in the region while not creating negative effects for the Community.
(4)
It is, therefore, appropriate further to improve the Community’s autonomous trade preferences by removing all remaining tariff ceilings for industrial products and by further improving access to the Community market for agricultural and fishery products, including processed products.
(5)
These measures are proposed as part of the EU Stabilisation and Association process, in a response to the specific situation in the Western Balkans. They will not constitute a precedent for Community trade policy with other third countries.
(6)
In accordance with the EU Stabilisation and Association process, based on the earlier Regional Approach and the Council Conclusions of 29 April 1997, the development of bilateral relations between the European Union and the Western Balkan countries is subject to certain conditions. The granting of autonomous trade preferences is linked to respect for fundamental principles of democracy and human rights and to the readiness of the countries concerned to develop economic relations between themselves. The granting of improved autonomous trade preferences in favour of countries participating in the EU Stabilisation and Association process should be linked to their readiness to engage in effective economic reforms and in regional cooperation, in particular through the establishment of free trade areas in accordance with relevant GATT/WTO standards. In addition, entitlement to benefit from autonomous trade preferences is conditional on the involvement of the beneficiaries in effective administrative cooperation with the Community in order to prevent any risk of fraud.
(7)
Trade preferences can only be granted to countries or territories possessing a customs administration.
(8)
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and Kosovo, as defined by the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 (1999) subject to international civil administration by the United Nations Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) (hereinafter referred to as Kosovo), fulfil these conditions, and similar trade preferences should be granted to all of them in order to avoid discrimination within the region.
(9)
The trade measures provided for in this Regulation should take into account that Serbia and Kosovo each constitute a separate customs territory.
(10)
The Community has concluded an agreement on trade in textile products with Serbia (3).
(11)
Albania, Croatia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Montenegro should remain beneficiaries of this Regulation only in so far as this Regulation provides for concessions which are more favourable than the concessions existing under the contractual regimes between the Community and those countries.
(12)
For the purposes of certification of origin and administrative cooperation procedures, the relevant provisions of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (4) should be applied.
(13)
For the sake of rationalisation and simplification, it is appropriate to provide that the Commission may, after consulting the Customs Code Committee and without prejudice to the specific procedures provided for in this Regulation, make any necessary changes and technical amendments necessary to this Regulation.
(14)
The measures necessary for the implementation of this Regulation should be adopted in accordance with Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission (5).
(15)
The import arrangements provided for by this Regulation should be renewed on the basis of the conditions established by the Council and in the light of the experience gained in granting these arrangements under this Regulation. It is appropriate to limit the duration of the arrangements to 31 December 2010,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Preferential arrangements
1. Subject to the special provisions laid down in Article 3, products originating in Bosnia and Herzegovina or in the customs territories of Serbia or Kosovo, other than those of headings 0102, 0201, 0202, 0301, 0302, 0303, 0304, 0305, 1604, 1701, 1702 and 2204 of the Combined Nomenclature, shall be admitted for import into the Community without quantitative restrictions or measures having equivalent effect and with exemption from customs duties and charges having equivalent effect.
2. Imports of sugar products under headings 1701 and 1702 of the Combined Nomenclature originating in Bosnia and Herzegovina or in the customs territories of Serbia or Kosovo shall benefit from concessions provided for in Article 3.
3. Products originating in Albania, in Croatia, in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia or in Montenegro shall continue to benefit from the provisions of this Regulation where so indicated or from any measures provided for in this Regulation which are more favourable than the trade concessions provided for in the framework of bilateral agreements between the Community and these countries.
Article 2
Conditions for entitlement to the preferential arrangements
1. Entitlement to benefit from the preferential arrangements introduced by Article 1 shall be subject to the following:
(a)
compliance with the definition of ‘originating products’ provided for in Part I, Title IV, Chapter 2, Section 1, Subsection 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93;
(b)
the abstention of the countries and territories referred to in Article 1 from introducing new duties or charges having equivalent effect and new quantitative restrictions or measures having equivalent effect in respect of imports originating in the Community or from increasing existing levels of duties or charges or from introducing any other restrictions from 30 September 2000; and
(c)
the involvement of beneficiaries in effective administrative cooperation with the Community in order to prevent any risk of fraud.
2. Without prejudice to the conditions provided for in paragraph 1, entitlement to benefit from the preferential arrangements introduced by Article 1 shall be subject to the readiness of the beneficiary countries to engage in effective economic reforms and in regional cooperation with other countries concerned by the European Union’s Stabilisation and Association process, in particular through the establishment of free trade areas in conformity with Article XXIV of the GATT 1994 and other relevant WTO provisions.
In the event of non-compliance in that respect, the Council may take the appropriate measures by a qualified majority vote, on the basis of a Commission proposal.
Article 3
Agricultural products - tariff quotas
1. For certain fishery products and for wine, as listed in Annex I, originating in the countries and territories referred to in Article 1, the customs duties applicable to imports into the Community shall be suspended during the periods, at the levels, within the limits of the Community tariff quotas and under the conditions indicated for each product and origin set out in that Annex.
2. The customs duties applicable to imports into the Community of ‘baby-beef’ products defined in Annex II and originating in the countries and territories referred to in Article 1(1) shall be 20 % of the ad valorem duty and 20 % of the specific duty as laid down in the Common Customs Tariff, within the limit of an annual tariff quota of 11 475 tonnes expressed in carcass weight.
The volume of the annual tariff quota of 11 475 tonnes shall be distributed among the beneficiary countries and territories as follows:
(a)
1 500 tonnes (carcass weight) for ‘baby-beef’ products originating in Bosnia and Herzegovina;
(b)
9 175 tonnes (carcass weight) for ‘baby-beef’ products originating in the customs territories of Serbia or Kosovo.
Imports into the Community of ‘baby-beef’ products defined in Annex II and originating in Albania shall not benefit from a tariff concession.
Any request for import within these quotas shall be accompanied by an authenticity certificate issued by the competent authorities of the exporting country and attesting that the goods originate in the country or territory concerned and correspond to the definition in Annex II to this Regulation. This certificate shall be drawn up by the Commission in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 195(2) of 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) (6).
3. Imports of sugar products under headings 1701 and 1702 of the Combined Nomenclature originating in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the customs territories of Serbia or Kosovo shall be subject to the following annual duty-free tariff quotas:
(a)
12 000 tonnes (net weight) for sugar products originating in Bosnia and Herzegovina;
(b)
180 000 tonnes (net weight) for sugar products originating in the customs territories of Serbia or Kosovo.
4. Notwithstanding other provisions of this Regulation, and in particular Article 10, given the particular sensitivity of the agricultural and fishery markets, where imports of agricultural and fishery products cause serious disturbance to the Community markets and their regulatory mechanisms, the Commission may take the appropriate measures in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 8(2).
Article 4
Implementation of tariff quotas for ‘baby beef’ and sugar
The detailed rules for implementing the tariff quota for ‘baby-beef’ products shall be determined by the Commission in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 195(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.
The detailed rules for implementing the tariff quota for sugar products under heading Nos 1701 and 1702 of the Combined Nomenclature shall be determined by the Commission in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 195(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.
Article 5
Administration of tariff quotas
The tariff quotas referred to in Article 3(1) of this Regulation shall be administered by the Commission in accordance with Articles 308a, 308b and 308c of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93.
Communication for that purpose between the Member States and the Commission shall be effected, as far as possible, by telematic link.
Article 6
Access to tariff quotas
Each Member State shall ensure that importers have equal and uninterrupted access to the tariff quotas for as long as the balance of the relevant quota volume so permits.
Article 7
Conferment of powers
The Commission shall, in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 8(2), adopt the provisions necessary for the application of this Regulation, other than those provided for in Article 4, in particular:
(a)
amendments and technical adjustments necessary following amendments to the Combined Nomenclature codes and to the TARIC subdivisions;
(b)
necessary adjustments following the conclusion of other agreements between the Community and the countries and territories referred to in Article 1.
Article 8
Committee
1. The Commission shall be assisted by the Customs Code Committee established by Article 247a of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (7) (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Committee’).
2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Articles 4 and 7 of Decision 1999/468/EC shall apply.
The period referred to in Article 4(3) of Decision 1999/468/EC shall be set at one month.
Article 9
Cooperation
Member States and the Commission shall cooperate closely to ensure that this Regulation, and in particular the provisions set out in Article 10(1), are complied with.
Article 10
Temporary suspension
1. Where the Commission finds that there is sufficient evidence of fraud or failure to provide administrative cooperation as required for the verification of evidence of origin, or that there is a massive increase of exports into the Community above the level of normal production and export capacity or a failure of compliance with the provisions of Article 2(1) by countries and territories referred to in Article 1, it may take measures to suspend in whole or in part the arrangements provided for in this Regulation for a period of three months, provided that it has first:
(a)
informed the Committee;
(b)
called on the Member States to take such precautionary measures as are necessary in order to safeguard the Community’s financial interests and/or to secure compliance by the beneficiary countries and territories with Article 2(1);
(c)
published a notice in the Official Journal of the European Union stating that there are grounds for reasonable doubts about the application of the preferential arrangements and/or compliance with Article 2(1) by the beneficiary country or territory concerned which may call into question its right to continue enjoying the benefits granted by this Regulation.
2. A Member State may refer the Commission decision to the Council within 10 days. The Council, acting by a qualified majority, may take a different decision within 30 days.
3. On conclusion of the period of suspension, the Commission shall decide either to terminate the provisional suspension measure following consultation of the Committee or to extend the suspension measure in accordance with paragraph 1.
Article 11
Repeal
Regulation (EC) No 2007/2000 is repealed.
References to the repealed Regulation shall be construed as references to this Regulation and shall be read in accordance with the correlation table in Annex IV.
Article 12
Entry into force and application
This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
It shall apply until 31 December 2010.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 30 November 2009. | [
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1287/2001
of 28 June 2001
on the issuing of system B export licences for 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 2190/96 of 14 November 1996 on detailed rules for implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 as regards export refunds on fruit and vegetables(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 298/2000(2), and in particular Article 5(6) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 862/2001(3) fixed the indicative quantities laid down for the issue of export licences other than those requested in the context of food aid.
(2) In the light of information now available to the Commission, the indicative quantities have been exceeded in the case of lemons and apples.
(3) Those overruns are without prejudice to compliance with the limits resulting from the agreements concluded in accordance with Article 300 of the Treaty. The rate of refund for all products covered by licences applied for under system B from 14 May to 13 June 2001 should be the indicative rate,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The percentages for the issuing of system B export licences, as referred to in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 2190/96, and applied for between 14 May and 13 June 2001, by which the quantities applied for and the rates of refund applicable must be multiplied, are as fixed in the Annex hereto.
The above subparagraph does not apply to licences applied for in connection with food-aid operations as provided for in Article 10(4) of the Agreement on Agriculture concluded during the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 29 June 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 DECISION of 29 November 1996 amending Decisions 93/24/EEC and 93/244/EEC and concerning additional guarantees relating to Aujeszky's disease for pigs destined to Sweden (Text with EEA relevance) (96/725/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Directive 64/432/EEC (1) of 26 June 1964, on animal health problems affecting intra-Community trade in bovine animals and swine, as last amended by Directive 95/25/EC (2), and in particular Article 9 (3) and Article 10 (2) thereof,
Whereas Sweden considers that its territory is free from Aujeszky's disease and has submitted supporting documentation to the Commission as provided for in Article 10 of Directive 64/432/EEC;
Whereas an eradication programme was undertaken in these regions for Aujeszky's disease;
Whereas Commission Decision 93/244/EEC (3) as last amended by Decision 96/590/EC (4) lays down additional guarantees relating to Aujeszky's disease for pigs destined to certain parts of the territory of the Community where an eradication programme has been approved and lists those regions in Annex I;
Whereas the programme is regarded to have been successful in eradicating this disease from Sweden; whereas it is therefore appropriate to remove these regions from the list of regions in Annex I of Decision 93/244/EEC;
Whereas the authorities of Sweden apply for national movement of pigs rules at least equivalent to those provided by the present decision;
Whereas these additional guarantees must not be requested from Member States or regions of Member States which are themselves regarded as free from Aujeszky's disease;
Whereas Commission Decision 93/24/EEC (5), as last amended by Decision 96/590/EC, lays down additional guarantees relating to Aujeszky's disease for pigs destined to Member States or regions free of the disease and lists those regions in Annex I;
Whereas these parts of Sweden which are free of the disease should be added to Annex I of Decision 93/24/EEC;
Whereas the measures provided for in this decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
1. In Annex I of Decision 93/244/EEC, the words 'Sweden: all regions` are deleted.
2. The following is added to Annex I of Decision 93/24/EEC:
'Sweden: all regions`.
Article 2
This Decision shall apply from 1 December 1996.
Article 3
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 29 November 1996. | [
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
*****
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 2896/88
of 20 September 1988
re-establishing the levying of customs duties on track suits of knitted or crocheted fabric, products of category 73 (order No 40.0730), originating in Thailand and the Philippines, to which the preferential tariff arrangements set out in Council Regulation (EEC) No 3783/87 apply
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3783/87 of 3 December 1987 concerning the administration of the generalized tariff preferences applicable for 1988 to textile products originating in developing countries (1), and in particular Article 4 thereof,
Whereas Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 3783/87 provides that preferential tariff treatment shall be accorded, for each category of products subjected in Annexes I and II to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3782/87 (2) to individual ceilings, within the limits of the quantities specified in column 7 of Annex I or II thereto, in respect of certain or each of the countries or territories of origin referred to in column 5 of the same Annexes; whereas Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 3783/87 provides that the levying of customs duties may be re-established at any time in respect of imports of the products in question once the relevant individual ceilings have been reached at Community level;
Whereas, in respect of track suits of knitted or crocheted fabric, products of category 73 (order No 40.0730), the relevant ceiling amounts to 114 000 and 97 000 pieces respectively;
Whereas on 13 September 1988 imports of the products in question into the Community, originating in Thailand and the Philippines, countries 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 Thailand and the Philippines,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
As from 24 September 1988, the levying of customs duties, suspended pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 3782/87, shall be re-established in respect of the following products, imported into the Community and originating in Thailand and the Philippines:
1.2.3.4 // // // // // Order No // Category // CN code // Description // // // // // // // // // 40.0730 // 73 (1 000 pieces) // 6112 11 00 6112 12 00 6112 19 00 // Track suits of knitted or crocheted fabric, of wool, of cotton or of man-made textile fibres // // // //
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, 20 September 1988. | [
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 200/91 of 28 January 1991 on the supply of refined rape seed 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 1930/90 (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 number of decisions on the allocation of food aid, the Commission has allocated to certain countries and beneficiary organizations 3 507 tonnes of refined rape seed 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
Refined rape seed oil shall be mobilized in the Community as Community food aid for supply to the recipients listed in the Annexes, in accordance with Regulation (EEC) No 2200/87 and under the conditions set out in the Annexes. Supplies shall be awarded by the tendering procedure.
The successful tenderer is deemed to have noted and accepted all the general and specific conditions applicable. Any other condition or reservation included in his tender is deemed unwritten. Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 28 January 1991. | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION of 27 February 1990 concerning the conclusion on behalf of the European Atomic Energy Community of the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on trade and commercial and economic cooperation (90/117/Euratom)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular the second paragraph of Article 101 thereof,
Whereas the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on trade
and commercial and economic cooperation was signed on 18 December 1989;
Whereas by Decision of 26 February 1990 the Council approved the said Agreement for the purposes of conclusion by the Commission on behalf of the European Atomic Energy Community;
Whereas the said Agreement should be concluded on behalf of the European Atomic Energy Community,
HAD DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Article 1
The Agreement (1) between the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on trade and commercial and economic cooperation is hereby concluded on behalf of the European Atomic Energy Community.
Article 2
The President of the Commission shall give the notification provided for in Article 25 of the Agreement on behalf of the European Atomic Energy Community.
Done at Brussels, 27 February 1990. | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 678/1999 of 26 March 1999 laying down detailed rules governing the grant of private storage aid for Pecorino Romano cheese
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 of 27 June 1968 on the common organisation of the market in milk products (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1587/96 (2), and in particular Articles 9(3) and 28 thereof,
Whereas Council Regulation (EEC) No 508/71 of 8 March 1971 laying down general rules on private storage aid for long-keeping cheeses (3) permits the granting of private storage aid for sheep's milk cheeses requiring at least six months for maturing where a serious market imbalance could be eliminated or reduced by seasonal storage;
Whereas the seasonal nature of Pecorino Romano cheese production results in the building up of stocks which are difficult to sell and which risk causing a lowering of prices; whereas seasonal storage should therefore be introduced for the quantities to improve the situation and allow producers time to find outlets for their cheese;
Whereas the detailed rules of this measure should determine the maximum quantity to benefit from it as well as the duration of the contracts in relation to the real requirements of the market and the keeping qualities of the cheeses in question; whereas it is necessary to specify the terms of the storage contract so as to enable the identification of the cheese and to maintain checks on the stock in respect of which aid is granted; whereas the aid should be fixed taking into account storage costs and the foreseeable trend of market prices;
Whereas Article 1(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1756/93 of 30 June 1993 fixing the operative events for the agricultural conversion rate applicable to milk and milk products (4), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 569/1999 (5), fixes the conversion rate to be applied in the framework of private storage aid schemes in the milk products sector;
Whereas experience shows that provisions on checks should be laid down, particularly as regards the documents to be submitted and checks to be made on the spot; whereas therefore, it should be provided that Member States require the costs of checks be fully or partly borne by the contractor;
Whereas it is appropriate to guarantee the continuation of the storage operations in question;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Milk and Milk Products,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Aid shall be granted in respect of the private storage of 15 000 tonnes of Pecorino Romano cheese manufactured in the Community and satisfying the requirements of Articles 2 and 3.
Article 2
1. The intervention agency shall conclude storage contracts only when the following conditions are met:
(a) the quantity of cheese to which the contract relates is not less than 2 tonnes;
(b) the cheese was manufactured at least 90 days before the date specified in the contract as being the date of commencement of storage, and after 1 October 1998;
(c) the cheese has undergone tests which show that it meets the condition laid down in (b) and that it is of first quality;
(d) the storer undertakes:
- not, during the term of the contract, to alter the composition of the batch which is the subject of the contract without authorisation from the intervention agency. If the condition concerning the minimum quantity fixed for each batch continues to be met, the intervention agency may authorise an alteration which is limited to the removal or replacement of cheeses which are found to have deteriorated to such an extent that they can no longer be stored.
In the event of release from store of certain quantities:
(i) if the aforesaid quantities are replaced with the authorisation of the intervention agency, the contract is deemed not to have undergone any alteration;
(ii) if the aforesaid quantities are not replaced, the contract is deemed to have been concluded ab initio for the quantity permanently retained.
Any supervisory costs arising from an alteration shall be met by the storer,
- to keep stock accounts and to inform the intervention agency each week of the quantity of cheese put into storage during the previous week and of any planned withdrawals.
2. The storage contract shall be concluded:
(a) in writing, stating the date when storage covered by the contract begins; this may not be earlier than the day following that on which the operations connected with putting the batch of cheese covered by the contract into storage were completed;
(b) after completion of the operations connected with putting the batch of cheese covered by the contract into storage and at the latest 40 days after the date on which the storage covered by the contract begins.
Article 3
1. Aid shall be granted only for cheese put into storage during the period 15 April to 31 December 1999.
2. No aid shall be granted in respect of storage under contract for less than 60 days.
3. The aid payable may not exceed an amount corresponding to 180 days storage under contract terminating before 31 March 2000. By way of derogation from the first indent of Article 2(1)(d), when the period of 60 days specified in paragraph 2 has elapsed, the storer may remove all or part of the batch under contract. The minimum quantity that may be removed shall be 500 kilograms. The Member States may, however, increase this quantity to 2 tonnes.
The date of the start of operations to remove cheese covered by the contract shall not be included in the period of storage under contract.
Article 4
1. The aid shall be as follows:
(a) EUR 100 per tonne for the fixed costs;
(b) EUR 0,35 per tonne per day of storage under contract for the warehousing costs;
(c) EUR 0,52 per tonne per day of storage under contract for the financial costs.
2. Aid shall be paid not later than 90 days from the last day of storage under contract.
Article 5
1. The Member States shall ensure that the conditions granting entitlement to payment of the aid are fulfilled.
2. The contractor shall make available to the national authorities responsible for verifying execution of the measure any documentation permitting in particular the following particulars of products placed in private storage to be verified:
(a) ownership at the time of entry into storage;
(b) the origin and date of manufacture of the cheeses;
(c) the date of entry into storage;
(d) presence in the store;
(e) the date of removal from storage.
3. The contractor or, where applicable, the operator of the store shall keep stock accounts available at the store, covering:
(a) identification, by contract number, of the products placed in private storage;
(b) the dates of entry into and removal from storage;
(c) the number of cheeses and their weight shown for each lot;
(d) the location of the products in the store.
4. Products stored must be easily identifiable and must be identified individually by contract. A special mark shall be affixed to cheese covered by contract.
5. Without prejudice to Article 2(1)(d), on entry into storage, the competent bodies shall conduct checks in particular to ensure that products stored are eligible, for the aid and to prevent any possibility of substitution of products during storage under contract.
6. The national authorities responsible for controls shall undertake:
(a) an unannounced check to see that the products are present in the store. The sample concerned must be representative and must correspond to at least 10 % of the overall quantity under contract for a private storage aid measure. Such checks must include, in addition to an examination of the accounts referred to in paragraph 3, a physical check of the weight and type of product and their identification. Such physical checks must relate to at least 5 % of the quantity subject to the unannounced check;
(b) a check to see that the products are present at the end of the storage period under contract.
7. Checks conducted pursuant to paragraphs 5 and 6 must be the subject of a report stating:
- the date of the check,
- its duration,
- the operations conducted.
The report on checks must be signed by the official responsible and countersigned by the contractor or, where applicable, by the store operator.
8. In the case of irregularities affecting at least 5 % of the quantities of products subject to the checks the latter shall be extended to a larger sample to be determined by the competent body.
The Member States shall notify such cases to the Commission within four weeks.
9. The Member States may provide that the costs of checks will be borne partly or fully by the contractor.
Article 6
Member States shall communicate to the Commission before 15 December 1999.
(a) the quantity of cheese for which storage contracts have been concluded;
(b) any quantities in respect of which the authorisation referred to in Article 2(1)(d) has been given.
Article 7
This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
It shall apply from 15 April 1999.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 26 March 1999. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
*****
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 3398/84
of 3 December 1984
derogating from Regulation (EEC) No 2213/83 as regards the quality standards for onions
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 1332/84 (2), and in particular the second subparagraph of Article 2 (2) thereof,
Whereas the quality standards for onions are laid down in Annex I to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2213/83 (3);
Whereas difficulties have arisen over the interpretation of certain quality specifications; whereas the development of harvesting and packaging methods makes it impossible to observe completely the standards concerning the integrity of the outer skins protecting the bulb as they have been laid down; whereas the quality standards should take this into account; whereas, moreover, sufficient experience should be gained before the standards are amended permanently; whereas temporary derogations from the quality standards for onions should be allowed at this point without the quality of the product being thereby affected;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Fruit and Vegetables,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The following derogations from Title II 'Provisions concerning quality' of Annex I to Regulation (EEC) No 2213/83 shall apply:
1. Under A 'Minimum requirements', the first indent is replaced by:
'intact',
2. Under B 'Classification':
(a) in (i) 'Class I', the last paragraph is replaced by the following:
'The following are, however, permitted:
- light staining which does not affect the last dried skin protecting the flesh, provided it does not cover more than one-fifth of the surface of the bulb;
- small cracks in the outer skins and the absence of part of the outer skins provided that the flesh is protected'.
(b) in (ii) 'Class II', the second sentence of the last paragraph is replaced by the following:
'The following, however, are permitted:
- staining which does not affect the last dried skin protecting the flesh provided it does not cover more than half the surface of the bulb,
- cracks in the outer skins and the absence of a part of the outer skins from not more than one-third of the surface of the bulb, provided the flesh remains intact.'
(c) in (iii) 'Class III', the following indent is added:
'- staining which does not affect the last dried skin protecting the flesh.
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 until 30 June 1985.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 3 December 1984. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 126/2007
of 12 February 2007
establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 of 21 December 1994 on detailed rules for the application of the import arrangements for fruit and vegetables (1), and in particular Article 4(1) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations, the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products and periods stipulated in the Annex thereto.
(2)
In compliance with the above criteria, the standard import values must be fixed at the levels set out in the Annex to this Regulation,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The standard import values referred to in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 shall be fixed as indicated in the Annex hereto.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 13 February 2007.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 12 February 2007. | [
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Decision
of 27 November 2002
on the aid scheme implemented by Germany: "Thuringia working capital programme"
(notified under document number C(2003) 4359)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(Only the German text is authentic)
(2003/469/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 Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty,
Whereas:
1. PROCEDURE
(1) The Land of Thuringia's rules governing its working capital programme (hereinafter referred to as "the rules"), adopted on 20 July 1993, entered into force in 1993(1). The Thuringian Land authorities took the view that the rules complied with the de minimis provisions introduced in the Community's 1992 Guidelines on State aid for small and medium-sized enterprises(2) (hereinafter referred to as "the SME Guidelines") and so did not notify them under Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty.
(2) Following a press article on the loan programme, under which firms without sufficient bank security apparently obtained loans on favourable conditions in order to finance inventories, the Commission asked Germany, by letter DG IV/D3761 of 2 May 1994, for information to enable it to assess the compatibility of the rules with the common market. By letter dated 31 May 1994, Germany provided the following information: the Thuringia working capital programme of 20 July 1993 applied to small and medium-sized enterprises (as defined in the Community's 1992 SME Guidelines) in a sound economic position which, because of their small size, lack of bank security and the general situation on the capital market, would have had difficulty in obtaining outside resources. Aid for firms in difficulty was not possible, but such firms could apply for aid under other approved programmes. The rules were moreover designed as a de minimis programme in line with the de minimis provisions of the Community's 1992 SME Guidelines.
(3) Germany agreed with the assessment by the Thuringian authorities that the rules were not subject to the notification requirement under Article 88(3).
(4) In response to a request for information dated 29 May 1995, Germany sent the Commission, by letter of 27 June 1995, a copy of the rules governing the working capital programme.
(5) In the course of the proceedings in case C 85/98 (ex NN 106/98 - Incorrect application of the de minimis rules under the Thuringia consolidation programme of 20 July 1993), Germany confirmed by letter dated 8 June 1998 that the rules at issue in these proceedings had expired on 16 January 1996. By letter dated 7 December 1998, Germany provided information on the implementation of the rules and on the recipient firms from which the Commission concluded that firms in sensitive sectors (products in Annex I to the EC Treaty) had received aid. The information also showed that firms in difficulty which had that same year or the previous year been assisted under approved programmes for firms in difficulty had received loans under the rules. This supposition was confirmed by a letter sent by Germany on 29 January 1999 from which it was also apparent that some of the beneficiaries under the rules had also received aid under the consolidation programme of 20 July 1993, whose incorrect application was the subject of proceedings in case C 85/98.
(6) By letter dated 18 May 1999 (ref. SG(99) D/3539), the Commission informed Germany that it had decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty in respect of the aid scheme.
(7) The Commission decision to initiate the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Communities(3). The Commission called on interested parties to submit their comments on the scheme but did not receive any comments from interested parties.
Germany's comments were sent by letters dated 24 June and 19 August 1999.
(8) Germany submitted its final comments by letter on 26 November 2001.
2. DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURE
2.1. Title and legal basis
(9) The aid is granted by the public-sector Thüringer Aufbaubank (Thuringia Reconstruction Bank), acting on behalf of the Thuringia Ministry for Economic Affairs and Transport on the basis of Sections 23, 44 and 44a of the Land Budget Order, in accordance with the rules on the Thuringia working capital programme.
2.2. Recipients
(10) The rules are directed at small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) defined according to the "turnover" and "employees" criteria, but not the "independence" criterion, set out in the SME Guidelines, as well as at start-ups, management buy-outs, management buy-ins and privatisations, with priority given to consolidation projects. The eligibility of the foodstuffs industry, which can cover both the activities specified in Annex I to the EC Treaty and other activities, is explicitly mentioned in point 3 ("Aid recipients") of the rules. The other sensitive sectors (steel, shipbuilding, synthetic fibres, the motor industry, agriculture, fisheries, transport and the coal industry) are not explicitly excluded. In exceptional cases (by decision of the relevant minister), aid may also be granted to firms which exceed the turnover and employee thresholds laid down in the SME Guidelines.
2.3. Duration
(11) The rules governing the Thuringia working capital programme entered into force on 20 July 1993 for an unlimited period and were replaced on 16 January 1996 by the Thuringia loan programme for small and medium-sized enterprises.
2.4. Objective
(12) The rules are aimed at firms which neither have sufficient bank security nor are in a position to pay the high interest rates charged on short-term loans. The objective is to make available to such firms soft loans for the financing of working capital. Point 1 of the rules ("Objective") stipulates that support is to be provided to small and medium-sized enterprises to set up business or to safeguard their activities, in particular in order to avert risks to their operation or existing jobs.
(13) The aid is granted by the public-sector Thüringer Aufbaubank in the form of soft loans which are paid via the firm's main bank at the latter's primary risk. The main bank may receive a guarantee (release from liability) of 60 % of the amount of the loan, with no fee being provided for in the rules. The Thüringer Aufbaubank and the main bank receive a single processing fee of 0,1 % of the amount of the loan.
(14) Rescheduling at the expense of the Thüringer Aufbaubank is ruled out.
(15) The loans are granted at an interest rate of between 5 % and 8 % for a renewable period of three years. The relevant Land minister can approve other implementing provisions.
2.5. Intensity
(16) Point 5 of the rules ("Nature, scope and amount of the payment") refers expressly to the programme's de minimis nature and to the de minimis provisions of the 1992 Community SME Guidelines.
(17) Under the rules, the aid element of the soft loan is calculated on the basis of the difference between the effective interest rate and the applicable reference rate. No direct ceiling is laid down in respect of the loan, but the amount of aid that a firm can receive for the same purpose within a period of 36 months (i.e. the aid element resulting from the soft loan) may not exceed the de minimis thresholds laid down in the de minimis provisions of the 1992 SME Guidelines(4). The aid element linked to the guarantee was not taken into account.
(18) According to the documents submitted by Germany during the preliminary proceedings, 460 loans amounting to a total of DEM 202 million were granted and disbursed between 1993 and 1996; some 20 of them went to the foodstuffs industry. In at least two cases, firms which had that year or the previous year received aid under approved schemes for firms in difficulty received such loans (Thuro Back Südthüringer Backwaren and Bergner & Weiser GmbH).
2.6. Cumulation
(19) The rules do not contain any provisions on cumulation.
2.7. Grounds for initiating the procedure
(20) The Commission initiated the procedure in respect of the scheme's application to firms operating in the sensitive sectors and to firms in difficulty. It raised no objections to the scheme's application to viable firms outside the sensitive sectors.
(21) The Commission's grounds were as follows.
(22) Since the sensitive sectors were not excluded from the scheme, this constituted incorrect application of the de minimis provisions of the 1992 Community Guidelines. According to point 3.2 of those Guidelines, they do not apply to aid for firms in the sectors subject to special rules. Since the rules were applied to one of these sectors, they must be regarded as non-notified aid.
(23) Given the specific characteristics of the sensitive sectors, the measures concerned constituted State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty and Article 61 of the EEA Agreement. The aid made it possible for firms which could not easily access the capital market to obtain loans in order to finance their working capital on favourable terms and safeguard or even extend their activities. In the Commission's view, therefore, the measures were liable to affect competition.
(24) In so far as loans were granted to economically viable firms in the sensitive sectors, the Commission had doubts about the working capital programme's compatibility with the relevant provisions on regional aid.
(25) The loans for economically viable firms in the sensitive sectors constituted operating aid, which the Commission had to assess in the light of the regional aid provisions applicable. In particular, in accordance with the Commission's established practice, such aid had to meet the following criteria:
(a) it had to be limited in time and degressive;
(b) it had to be granted only in regions covered by Article 87(3)(a) of the EC Treaty;
(c) the sensitive sectors had to be excluded.
(26) In its decision initiating the procedure, the Commission concluded that the scheme was not degressive and did not exclude the sensitive sectors.
(27) The information from Germany showed that in at least two cases the rules were applied to firms in difficulty as defined in the 1994 Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty(5) (hereinafter referred to as the "1994 Guidelines"). The wording of the rules did not exclude firms in difficulty from its scope. The Commission therefore took the view that the scheme also applied in part to firms in difficulty.
(28) The soft loans backed by a guarantee from the Thüringer Aufbaubank and granted to firms in difficulty could have exceeded the de minimis threshold. The aid element associated with the guarantee and the special difficulties of the recipient firms should have been taken into account in the calculation of the de minimis threshold. The aid element of the guarantee must reflect the specific risk attached to a firm in difficulty and can be as high as the full amount of the loan secured.
(29) The application of the rules to firms in difficulty thus took insufficient account of the de minimis provisions. It was only where the amount from the loan and other aid taken into account under the provisions on cumulation did not exceed the de minimis threshold that this was not the case. In the form in which it was applied, however, the Thuringia working capital programme had to be regarded as a non-notified aid scheme.
(30) The loans made financial resources available to the firms, allowing them to avoid being forced out of the market. If a firm had been forced out of the market, either existing overcapacities would have been reduced or the market shares made available would have been acquired by competitors, which could in either case have improved their profitability. The rules did not exclude the granting of loans to firms engaged in intra-Community trade. It therefore had to be assumed that the working capital loans concerned by the proceedings were liable to affect trade between Member States.
(31) The working capital loans provided to firms in difficulty by the Thüringer Aufbaubank thus constituted State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty and Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement and had to be assessed on the basis of the relevant guidelines.
(32) In as much as the rules were concerned with the rescue of firms in difficulty, the relevant provisions made it a condition for the compatibility of rescue aid with the common market that it be granted in the form of either a State loan on market terms or a guarantee for a private loan. This condition was not met in the case in point since the loans in question were soft loans. The provisions also required individual notification of aid to large firms and firms operating in sensitive sectors. However, the scheme under examination did not rule out aid to large firms and was applied in a sensitive sector.
(33) In as much as the rules were concerned with the restructuring of firms in difficulty, it must be noted that the relevant provisions (as most recently confirmed by the 1999 Community Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty(6) require the following main conditions for compatibility:
(a) submission and implementation of a restructuring plan capable of restoring the long-term viability of the firm;
(b) limitation of the aid to the strict minimum required to achieve this goal;
(c) a significant contribution from the recipient firm and its shareholders;
(d) compliance with the special rules governing the sensitive sectors, requiring in principle the notification of individual cases;
(e) individual notification of aid to large firms;
(f) restructuring aid to be granted only once except in unforeseen circumstances for which the firm is not responsible.
(34) The rules under examination do not provide for individual notification of aid to large firms or prohibit the repeated grant of restructuring aid.
3. COMMENTS FROM GERMANY
(35) In its comments, Germany put the total number of loans granted under the working capital programme at 365, amounting to a total of EUR 81,6 million. It explained the difference between this figure and the figure given in the decision initiating proceedings by the fact that the latter also included working capital loans under the 1996 Thuringia loan programme. The 1996 programme is the subject of proceedings in case C 87/98 (ex NN 137/98).
(36) The information in the decision initiating proceedings regarding Thuro Back Südthüringer Backwaren GmbH and Bergner & Weiser GmbH was incorrect, according to Germany, since neither of these firms had received a working capital loan under the Thuringia working capital programme.
(37) Germany took the view that the Thuringia working capital programme did not apply to firms in difficulty. While it did not explicitly exclude them and while three out of a total of 365 loans granted did go to firms in difficulty, the scheme was not open to firms in difficulty, nor was it intended to be. The Thuringia working capital programme had to be seen in an overall context together with the Thuringia consolidation programme (case C 85/98, ex NN 106/98). While the scope of the consolidation programme explicitly covered firms in difficulty, this was not the case with the Thuringia working capital programme.
(38) Furthermore, the high level of own risk which the firms' main banks were facing, meant that the banks had to check the creditworthiness of the borrower and to limit the credit risk.
(39) According to the information from Germany, calculation of the de minimis amount was based solely on the aid element contained in the interest-rate subsidy, calculated on the basis of the difference between the effective interest rate for the final borrower and the reference interest rate. The aid element contained in the guarantee had not been taken into account in implementing the working capital programme because, it was argued, the German authorities were not aware in the period from 1993 to early 1996 that the aid element associated with the guarantee should be taken into account. This changed only with the Commission's letter of 11 November 1998 (ref. D/54570).
(40) As far as the sensitive sectors are concerned, Germany argued that aid to firms in sensitive sectors was excluded by the reference contained in point 5 of the rules governing the Thuringia working capital programme. Point 5 explicitly states that "the loans [...] are granted in accordance with the Community Guidelines on State aid for small and medium-sized enterprises (OJ C 213, 19.8.1992, p. 2)". As a result of this reference, the provisions concerning sensitive sectors had been directly applicable and the granting of aid for these sectors strictly ruled out.
(41) According to the information provided by Germany, no loans were granted to firms in the sensitive sectors referred to in point 1.6 of the 1992 Community Guidelines on State aid for SMEs.
(42) Moreover, in Germany's view, it was only since 1998 that the special aid rules under the 1996 Guidelines for State aid in connection with investments in the processing and marketing of agricultural products(7) had been applicable pursuant to Commission Decision 1999/183/EC of 20 May 1998 concerning State aid for the processing and marketing of German agricultural products which might be granted on the basis of existing regional aid schemes(8). For the period from 1993 to 1996, therefore, it considered that no special State aid rules applied.
(43) Of the 365 working capital loans committed, only five had been granted to firms in the food and tobacco sector.
(44) The application of the rules to non-SMEs in exceptional cases was, in Germany's view, in line with the requirements set out in the de minimis rule contained in the 1992 SME Guidelines.
(45) Germany sent the Commission a table listing the working capital loans granted in the period from 1993 to 1995. The list shows that, of the 365 loans granted, firms in difficulty were involved in three cases. The table also showed that loans were granted in agriculture (a sensitive sector) in only five instances, although a letter from Germany dated 29 January 1999 showed that a total of some 20 loans were granted to firms in the foodstuffs industry.
(46) It is not clear from the documents sent by Germany what criteria were used to define the sensitive sector of agriculture or a firm in difficulty.
4. ASSESSMENT OF THE MEASURE
4.1. Existence of State aid
(47) Although any financial payment to a firm alters the conditions of competition to some extent, not all aid has a perceptible impact on trade and competition between Member States. Against this background, the notification requirement under Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty does not apply to aid that does not exceed an absolute maximum amount and, as de minimis aid, does not fall within the scope of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
(48) A definition of what the Commission understood by de minimis aid was first set out in the 1992 SME Guidelines.(9) The scope of the de minimis provisions is defined at point 3.2 of the Guidelines as payments of ECU 50000 to any one firm in respect of a given broad type of expenditure (e.g. investment and training) over a three-year period. Therefore, one-off payments of aid of up to ECU 50000 in respect of a given type of expenditure and schemes under which the amount of aid that a given firm may receive in respect of a given type of expenditure over a three-year period was limited to that figure were no longer considered notifiable under Article 88(3) (formerly Article 93(3)) of the EC Treaty. However, there had to be an express condition in the grant decision or scheme that any further aid which the same firm might receive in respect of the same type of expenditure from other sources or under other schemes did not take the total aid received over the ECU 50000 limit. It was made clear in point 3.2 that the de minimis facility was not available in sensitive sectors (steel, shipbuilding, synthetic fibres, the motor industry, agriculture, fisheries, transport and the coal industry).
(49) The 1996 Commission notice on the de minimis rule for State aid(10) amended the de minimis provisions of the 1992 SME Guidelines. The ceiling for aid covered by the de minimis provisions was set at ECU 100000 over a three-year period beginning when the first de minimis aid was granted. This ceiling applied to all types of public assistance considered to be de minimis aid and did not affect the possibility of the recipient obtaining other aid under schemes approved by the Commission.
(50) The provisions did not apply to the industries covered by the ECSC Treaty, to shipbuilding, to transport or to aid towards expenditure in connection with agriculture or fisheries.
(51) Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to de minimis aid(11) extended the scope of the de minimis provisions, albeit still to the exclusion of aid granted to the transport sector and to activities linked to the production, processing or marketing of products listed in Annex I to the EC Treaty. Similarly, the Regulation does not apply to aid for export-related activities, i.e. aid directly linked to the quantities exported, to the establishment and operation of a distribution network or to other current expenditure linked to an export activity. Lastly, aid contingent upon the use of domestic over imported goods is also excluded from the scope of the Regulation.
(52) Article 2 of the Regulation stipulates that the total de minimis aid granted to any one enterprise must not exceed EUR 100000 over any period of three years. This ceiling applies irrespective of the form of the aid or the objective pursued.
(53) Since Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 entered into force only on 2 February 2001, whereas the rules under examination applied from 20 July 1993 to 16 January 1996, the question arises whether the Commission, for the purposes of this Decision, can apply the Regulation retroactively to financial assistance paid before it entered into force or whether the de minimis provisions in the 1992 SME Guidelines in force in the relevant period should be taken into account (consecutio legis).
(54) Commission Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 does not indicate whether it is applicable to the assessment of aid granted before its entry into force. However, its wording does not rule out its application to previous cases, which in any event are subject to the control mechanism under Article 3. The Commission has reached the conclusion that, given the absence of any other express provision, Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 should apply to de minimis aid granted before its entry into force. For one thing, the Regulation, in so far as it exempts a particular category of measure from the notification requirement, is a procedural regulation and should thus apply immediately to all pending proceedings. For another, the immediate application of the Regulation is in line with the underlying objectives of procedural simplification and decentralisation. Only in respect of aid not caught by the Regulation and thus not eligible for exemption on this basis will the Commission take account of the provisions that were in force when the aid was granted. Since the Regulation is, in principle, more generous than its de minimis predecessors and since the latter apply in any event to cases where the aid concerned is not exempt under the Regulation, the general legal principles of legitimate expectation and legal certainty are suitably accounted for. From an economic standpoint, the Commission takes the view that a financial measure which cannot be classed as aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty under Regulation (EC) No 69/2001, in force today in an integrated market, cannot in the past have given rise to any aid in a less integrated market. It will therefore base its further assessment of the financial measures on Regulation (EC) No 69/2001, which does not rule out the possibility of the provisions in force at the time the measures were implemented being applied, provided that the measures concerned are not exempt under Regulation (EC) No 69/2001.
(55) The proceedings initiated thus cover both the rules at issue and the cases of application which do not fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 or the other relevant de minimis provisions and the cases which do fall within the scope of the Regulation or of the other relevant de minimis provisions and in which cumulation with other aid has led to the de minimis ceiling being exceeded.
(56) Aid for activities relating to the manufacture, processing or marketing of the goods listed in Annex I to the EC Treaty are excluded from the scope of Regulation (EC) No 69/2001.
(57) The Commission therefore takes the view that all the working capital loans granted to the foodstuffs industry fall outside the scope of Regulation (EC) 69/2001 or of the previous de minimis provisions in so far as they were granted for the manufacture of the goods listed in Annex I to the EC Treaty and must thus be classed in the sensitive sector of agriculture.
(58) Germany's argument that the special aid rules contained in the 1996 Community Guidelines for State aid in connection with investments in the processing and marketing of agricultural products were applicable only as from 1998 is immaterial here since the special rules did not affect the scope of the de minimis provisions(12).
(59) In the Commission's view, the residual scope of Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 or other relevant de minimis provisions might be exceeded because failure to take account of the aid element contained in the guarantee might mean that, in granting working capital loans, the ceilings laid down in Article 2 of the Regulation or in other, previously applicable de minimis provisions might be exceeded. The rules do not offer any assurance that the de minimis ceiling is complied with in every instance. There is in particular no guarantee that it was complied with where the rules were applied to firms in difficulty, involving as they do a high risk of default.
(60) In the Commission's view, the beneficiaries under the rules at least included firms in difficulty.
(61) For the purpose of differentiating between firms in difficulty and viable firms, the Commission included an explanation of what is meant by a firm in difficulty in point 2.1 of the 1994 Community Guidelines(13). This definition essentially confirmed the Commission's decision-making practice of the preceding years, as described in its Eighth Report on Competition Policy published in 1979 (points 227 to 229)(14).
(62) The definition of a firm in difficulty, which the Commission will use here, is given in the 1994 Guidelines as a firm which is "unable to recover through its own resources or by raising the funds it needs from shareholders or borrowing. The typical symptoms are deteriorating profitability or increasing size of losses, diminishing turnover, growing inventories, excess capacity, declining cash flow, increasing debt, rising interest charges and low net asset value. In acute cases the company may already have become insolvent or gone into liquidation."
(63) According to point 3 ("Aid recipients") of the rules, they are directed at start-ups, management buy-outs and management buy-ins and privatisations, with priority given to applications related to consolidation measures. The Commission takes the view that the inclusion of firms in need of consolidation indicates that those in need of recovery within the meaning of the definition of firms in difficulty could receive subsidised working capital loans.
(64) Germany argues that the Thuringia working capital programme should be viewed in an overall context together with the Thuringia consolidation programme. While the scope of the consolidation programme explicitly covered firms in difficulty, this was not the case with the Thuringia working capital programme. In determining the substance of the rules, the wording should not be viewed in isolation, but the consolidation programme should be included in the assessment and the scope of the working capital programme determined by viewing both schemes as a whole. The Thuringia working capital programme therefore did not apply to firms in difficulty.
(65) This argument is not convincing as evidence that the working capital programme was not applied to firms in difficulty. According to their wording, the specific purpose of the rules was to assist firms to set up business or to safeguard their activities, in particular in order to avert risks to their operation or existing jobs. Moreover, applications related to consolidation measures were to be given priority.
(66) Germany also argues that the main bank's own risk was an incentive to it to check the creditworthiness of the borrower.
(67) Although the likelihood of the recipient actually being a firm in difficulty may perhaps have been reduced by the risk which the main bank still faced, the granting of aid to firms in difficulty was by no means ruled out by the wording of the rules. The Commission also takes the view that it could be advantageous for the main bank, in particular in the case of firms in difficulty, to participate in granting loans under the rules since the granting of a working capital loan improves the overall liquidity of the recipient firm and reduces the risk of default on loans previously granted by the main bank. It may in fact make economic sense for a bank to reduce a high risk of default in respect of existing loans by acting in such a way as to ensure that new funds are made available to the firm for its restructuring. This is particularly true where the associated risk is partly assumed by the State.
(68) After all, the individual lists sent by Germany of aid promised or disbursed under the rules show that firms in difficulty were assisted. Germany also conceded in its comments that firms in difficulty had been assisted under the Thuringia working capital programme.
(69) The aid element of the guarantee should have been taken into account in the calculation of the aid intensity of the loans, especially bearing in mind the risk of default in the case of firms in difficulty.
(70) This assessment is not affected either by Germany's statement in its comments that the German authorities, between 1993 and early 1996, did not know that the aid element associated with the guarantee and the particular risks involved in the granting of loans to firms in difficulty should have been taken into account in calculating the aid intensity. The Commission cannot accept this argument since back in 1989 it sent a letter to Member States pointing out that, in its view, all guarantees given by the State fell within the scope of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty(15). The German authorities should, in granting guarantees to firms facing liquidity difficulties, at least have had doubts as to whether the measures involved aid and they should have notified the measures contained in the scheme in good time to the Commission, in order to allow it to give its opinion on the matter.
(71) Under the Commission notice on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid in the form of guarantees(16), the cash grant equivalent of a loan guarantee in a given year can be:
(a) calculated in the same way as the grant equivalent of a soft loan, the interest subsidy representing the difference between the market rate and the rate obtained thanks to the State guarantee after any premiums paid have been deducted; or
(b) taken to be the difference between the outstanding sum guaranteed, multiplied by the risk factor (the probability of default) and any premium paid, i.e. (guaranteed sum x risk) - premium; or
(c) calculated by any other objectively justifiable and generally accepted method.
(72) The Commission thus confirmed its long-held view that, if at the time of the loan decision the probability of the borrower being unable to pay is evidently very high, the intensity of the aid can be equivalent to the sum actually secured by the guarantee.
(73) Furthermore, the aid element of the guarantee can, even in the case of viable firms, result in the de minimis ceiling being exceeded.
(74) In the Commission's view, the rules and their application involve aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty in so far as they do not fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 or do fall within the scope of the Regulation but exceed the de minimis ceiling. The same applies in respect of the other de minimis provisions in force at the time the measures were implemented.
(75) Where applied to firms in difficulty, the rules meant that recipient firms received from a private bank financial resources which, in view of their financial situation, they would not otherwise have received from private credit institutions on the basis of the loan terms normally applied by the latter.
(76) These financial resources made it possible for recipient firms either to avoid being forced out of the market or to improve their market position. If the firm had been forced out of the market, either existing overcapacities would have been reduced or the market shares made available would have been acquired by competitors, which could in either case have improved their profitability. The working capital loans do not preclude loans being granted to firms which produce goods or provide services that are the subject of intra-Community trade. It must therefore be assumed that the financial measures concerned by the proceedings are liable to affect trade between Member States.
(77) Even viable firms would not have obtained such finance from private banks on the terms offered and were therefore able to improve their market position vis-à-vis competitors within the common market as a result of the working capital loans provided. This applies in particular to viable firms operating in sensitive sectors. Community markets in sensitive sectors are faced with overcapacity. The financial advantage conferred on the specific firms by the working capital loans led to their position being strengthened vis-à-vis competitors, with the result that trade between Member States might be affected.
(78) The rules thus might have distorted or threatened to distort competition.
(79) The Commission accordingly concludes that the rules and their application constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty for firms involved in intra-Community trade.
4.2. Lawfulness of the aid
(80) The Commission regrets that, in granting the aid, Germany acted in breach of Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty.
4.3. Compatibility of the aid with the common market in so far as the scope of application of Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 or of the other, previously applicable, de minimis provisions was exceeded
(81) The Commission assessed the rules on the assumption that they were directed both at viable firms and at firms in difficulty.
(82) In as much as aid was granted to firms in difficulty, it constituted restructuring or rescue aid as defined in the Commission's Eighth Report on Competition Policy published in 1979 and in the 1994 Guidelines(17), confirmed by the Guidelines adopted in 1999(18).
(83) In so far as the aid was granted to viable firms in the sensitive sectors, it constituted operating aid within the meaning of the Commission communication of 1979 on regional aid systems(19) and of the Commission communication of 1988 on the method for the application of Article 92(3)(a) and (c) to regional aid(20). These communications were confirmed by the 1998 guidelines on national regional aid(21).
(84) The compatibility of the rules will be examined in the light of the relevant provisions applicable(22).
(85) In so far as the restructuring of firms in difficulty is involved, it should be noted that, in accordance with the Commission's practice and the 1994 Guidelines, the following criteria had to be met as a precondition for compatibility of the aid with the common market:
(a) submission and implementation of a restructuring plan capable of restoring the long-term viability of the firm;
(b) a significant contribution from the recipient firm and its shareholders;
(c) limitation of the aid to the strict minimum required;
(d) compliance with the special rules governing the sensitive sectors, requiring in principle the notification of individual cases;
(e) individual notification of aid to large firms;
(f) restructuring aid to be granted only once in so far as there are no unforeseen circumstances for which the company is not responsible.
(86) Under the rules, the only precondition for the granting of funds was that the applicant bank representing a firm had to provide appropriate backing from its own resources in the provision of the working capital.
(87) However, the rules did not require submission of a viable restructuring plan which, taking account of the working capital loan, made it likely that profitability could be restored on a long-term basis.
(88) The wording of the rules does not prohibit the repeated grant of restructuring aid or limit the amount of aid to the strict minimum required to achieve the goal. Germany did not indicate whether these criteria were taken into account in the granting of aid.
(89) The rules did not provide for individual notification of aid for large firms or require compliance with the special rules for sensitive sectors.
(90) The Commission therefore finds that, to the extent that the rules provide for restructuring aid to firms in difficulty, such aid is not compatible with the common market.
(91) In so far as the rescue of firms in difficulty is involved, it must be noted that the established policy in this respect was to make it a precondition of compatibility with the common market that rescue aid be granted either in the form of public loans on market terms or in the form of a State guarantee on a private-sector loan. This condition was not met in the case in point since the loans in question were soft loans.
(92) To the extent that the provision of rescue aid under the rules is involved, this aid is incompatible with the common market.
(93) In as much as loans were granted to economically viable firms in the sensitive sectors, they constituted operating aid, which had to be assessed by the Commission in the light of the provisions on regional aid that applied to the rules.
(94) Thuringia is an assisted area under Article 87(3)(a) (formerly Article 92(3)(a)) of the EC Treaty. The Commission communications on regional aid of 1979 and 1988(23) allowed the Commission exceptionally and on certain conditions to approve certain types of operating aid in assisted areas in view of the particular difficulties they face.
(95) A prerequisite for approval of operating aid was that it should contribute to durable and balanced economic development and should not give rise to sectoral overcapacity at Community level, such that the resulting Community sectoral problem was more serious than the original regional problem. A sectoral approach was required here whereby the Community rules and guidelines applicable to certain sectors of industry (steel, shipbuilding, synthetic fibres, textiles and clothing) and agriculture and to industrial firms involved in processing agricultural products were to be observed. Under these Community rules and guidelines, operating aid cannot be granted in the sectors concerned.
(96) The rules are incompatible with the common market in so far as aid to viable firms in the sensitive sectors is involved, since the Community rules and guidelines applicable to sensitive sectors, which prohibit the granting of operating aid to viable firms, should have been observed.
(97) The Commission takes the view that the exemptions under Article 87(2) of the EC Treaty do not apply in this case as the rules do not pursue any of the aims listed there. Nor did Germany claim that those exemptions applied(24).
(98) The Commission concludes that, apart from the Guidelines for assessing aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty, no special provisions concerning aid with horizontal objectives pursuant to Article 87(3)(c) of the EC Treaty are applicable to the rules since they do not pursue one of the special objectives and Germany has not argued that this is the case.
(99) In the Commission's view, the aid is equally not intended to promote an important project of common European interest or to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State. Nor does it promote culture or heritage conservation. The Commission therefore concludes that neither Article 87(3)(b) nor Article 87(3)(d) of the EC Treaty applies to the rules.
(100) Some of the individual cases covered by the rules may have been the subject of other formal investigation proceedings under Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty. This decision does not apply to them.
5. CONCLUSION
(101) The aid scheme is unlawful. Aid that exceeded the scope of Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 or, where it was not caught by the Regulation, exceeded the scope of the other applicable de minimis provisions in force at the time the scheme was implemented was granted unlawfully.
(102) The aid scheme is incompatible with the common market in that it allows rescue aid to be granted at subsidised interest rates outside its de minimis scope, allows restructuring aid to be granted without taking account of the conditions that it was the Commission's established practice to impose, does not require notification of individual cases in the sensitive sectors and does not rule out aid to viable firms in the sensitive sectors.
(103) Accordingly, application of the rules outside the scope of Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 or of the other relevant de minimis provisions to firms in difficulty and in respect of operating aid to viable firms in the sensitive sectors was incompatible with the common market.
(104) It is the Commission's long-established practice to require recovery from the recipient of aid which, under Article 87 of the EC Treaty, has been unlawfully granted and is incompatible, provided that the aid is not covered by de minimis provisions. This practice was confirmed by Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty(25). This Article requires Member States to take all necessary measures to recover the aid from the beneficiary. To clarify the number of cases where recovery is required, the Commission considers that Germany should draw up a list of all firms not covered by the scope of Regulation (EC) No 69/2001,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
The rules governing the Thuringia working capital programme (hereinafter referred to as "the rules") establish State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
The rules do not establish aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty if the payments fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 or, where this is not the case, within the scope of the de minimis provisions in force at the time the rules were implemented and, in combination with other de minimis aid, do not exceed the relevant de minimis ceiling of Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 or the previous de minimis provisions.
The rules do not establish aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty if the payments were for firms not involved in producing goods or providing services for intra-Community trade.
To the extent that the rules are caught by Article 87(1), they involve unlawful aid.
Article 2
In so far as the rules establish aid for viable firms outside the sensitive sectors, they are compatible with the common market.
Article 3
In so far as the rules establish rescue and restructuring aid for firms in difficulty, they are incompatible with the common market where they fall within the scope of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
Article 4
In so far as the rules establish operating aid for firms in the sensitive sectors, they are incompatible with the common market where they fall within the scope of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
Article 5
Germany shall take all necessary measures to recover from the beneficiaries the aid referred to in Articles 3 and 4 and unlawfully made available to them.
Recovery shall be effected without delay and in accordance with the procedures of national law provided that they allow the immediate and effective execution of the Decision. The aid to be recovered shall include interest from the date on which it was at the disposal of the beneficiaries until the date of its recovery. Interest shall be calculated on the basis of the reference rate used for calculating the grant equivalent of regional aid.
Article 6
This Decision does not apply to those cases covered by the rules that have been the subject of other Commission proceedings or of a final Commission decision. Germany shall draw up a list of the cases concerned.
Article 7
Germany shall, in implementing this Decision, draw up a list of the firms concerned in cases which fall outside the sectoral scope of Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 or which, if the aid element contained in the guarantee and other de minimis aid granted during the relevant period are included, exceed the ceiling laid down in that Regulation.
In implementing this Decision, Germany shall draw up a list of all firms in difficulty assisted under the rules which are not caught by Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 and shall indicate the criteria on which the classification is based.
In this connection, Germany shall also devise a method to identify the aid element in the guarantee.
In implementing this Decision, it shall draw up a list of firms assisted under the rules which are not caught by Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 and which were not involved in producing goods or providing services for intra-Community trade and shall indicate the criteria applied.
Article 8
Germany shall inform the Commission, within two months of notification of this Decision, of the measures taken to comply with it.
Article 9
This Decision is addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany.
Done at Brussels, 27 November 2002. | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 2213/88 of 19 July 1988 fixing the target prices and intervention prices for colza, rape and sunflower seed for the 1988/89 marketing year
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Article 43 thereof,
Having regard to the Act of Accession of Spain and Portugal, and in particular Article 89 (1) thereof,
Having regard to Council Regulation No 136/66/EEC of 22 September 1966 on the establishment of a common organization of the market in oils and fats (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 2210/88 (2), and in particular Article 22 (4) and Article 24a (2) thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission (3),
Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (4),
Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee (5),
Whereas, when the target prices and intervention prices for colza, rape and sunflower seed are fixed, account should be taken of the objectives of the common agricultural policy and of the contribution which the Community desires to make to the harmonious development of world trade; whereas the objectives of the common agricultural policy are, in particular, to ensure a fair standard of living for the agricultural community, to ensure that supplies are available and that they reach consumers at reasonable prices;
Whereas the intervention price must be fixed in accordance with the criteria laid down in Article 24 (1) of Regulation No 136/66/EEC;
Whereas the prices of colza, rape and sunflower seed must be fixed for specific standard qualities; whereas the latter should be laid down in relation to the average qualities of the seeds harvested in the Community; whereas, for colza and rape seed, the quality laid down for the 1987/88 marketing year meets these requirements and can accordingly be used for the 1988/89 marketing year;
Whereas, on the basis of these criteria, the target and intervention prices for colza, rape and sunflower seed should be fixed at the levels given below;
(6) OJ No 172, 30. 9. 1966, p. 3025/66.
(7) See page 1 of this Official Journal.
(8) OJ No C 139, 30. 5. 1988, p. 24.
(9) OJ No C 167, 27. 6. 1988.
(10) OJ No C 175, 4. 7. 1988, p. 33.
Whereas the supplement to be applied to the target and intervention prices for ´double zero' colza and rape seed must be fixed in accordance with the criteria laid down in Article 24a of Regulation No 136/66/EEC;
Whereas, under Article 68 of the Act of Accession, prices in Spain have been set at a level different from that of the common prices; whereas, pursuant to Article 70 (1) of the Act of Accession, the Spanish prices should be aligned on the common prices each year at the beginning of the marketing year; whereas the criteria envisaged for this alignment give the Spanish prices set out below,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1 For the 1988/89 marketing year, the target prices and the intervention prices for colza, rape and sunflower seeds shall be as follows:
(a) target price for colza and rape seed:
- 40,86 ECU per 100 kilograms for Spain,
- 45,02 ECU per 100 kilograms for the other Member States;
(b) intervention price for colza and rape seed:
- 36,60 ECU per 100 kilograms for Spain,
- 40,76 ECU per 100 kilograms for the other Member States;
(c) target price for sunflower seed:
- 46,28 ECU per 100 kilograms for Spain,
- 58,35 ECU per 100 kilograms for the other Member States;
(d) intervention price for sunflower seed:
- 41,40 ECU per 100 kilograms for Spain,
- 53,47 ECU per 100 kilograms for the other Member States;
Article 2 The prices referred to in Article 1 shall relate to seeds in bulk which are of sound, genuine and merchantable quality:
(a) with an impurity content of 2 % and, for seeds as such, moisture and oil contents of 9 % and 40 % respectively in the case of colza and rape seed;
(b) with an impurity content of 2 % and, for seeds as such, moisture and oil contents of 9 % and 44 % respectively in the case of sunflower seed.
Article 3 For the 1988/89 marketing year, the supplement to be applied to the target and intervention prices for ´double zero' colza and rape seed shall be 2,50 ECU per 100 kilograms.
Article 4 This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
It shall apply with effect:
- from 1 July 1988 as regards colza and rape seed,
- from 1 August 1988 as regards sunflower seed.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 19 July 1988. | [
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
*****
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 3047/83
of 28 October 1983
amending Regulation (EEC) No 2213/76 on the sale of skimmed-milk powder from public storage
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN
COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 of 27 June 1968 on the common organization of the market in milk and milk products (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1600/83 (2), and in particular Article 7 (5) thereof,
Whereas Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2213/76 (3), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 2836/83 (4), limited the quantity of skimmed-milk powder put up for sale by the Member States' intervention agencies to that taken into storage before 1 June 1983;
Whereas, having regard to the market situation and the amounts in storage, that date should be replaced by 1 August 1983;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Milk and Milk Products,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
In Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 2213/76, '1 June 1983' is hereby replaced by '1 August 1983'.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 28 October 1983. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1060/2006
of 12 July 2006
amending the corrective amount applicable to the refund on cereals
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 of 29 September 2003 on the common organisation of the market in cereals (1), and in particular Article 13(8) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
The corrective amount applicable to the refund on cereals was fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 992/2006 (2).
(2)
On the basis of today's cif prices and cif forward delivery prices, taking foreseeable developments on the market into account, the corrective amount at present applicable to the refund on cereals should be altered.
(3)
The corrective amount must be fixed according to the same procedure as the refund. It may be altered in the period between fixings,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The corrective amount referred to in Article 1(1)(a), (b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 which is applicable to the export refunds fixed in advance in respect of the products referred to, except for malt, is hereby altered to the amounts set out in the Annex hereto.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 13 July 2006.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 12 July 2006. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION of 3 June 1994 amending Commission Decision 93/437/EEC laying down specific conditions for importing fishery products from Argentina (94/341/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Directive 91/493/EEC of 22 July 1991 (1), laying down the health conditions for the production and the placing on the market of fishery products, and in particular Article 11 (5) thereof,
Whereas the list of establishments and factory ships approved by Argentina for importing fishery products into the Community has been drawn up in Commission Decision 93/437/EEC (2), as last amended by Decision 93/525/EEC (3); whereas this list may be amended following the communication of a new list by the competent authority in Argentina;
Whereas the competent authority in Argentina has communicated a new list adding three establishments and 23 factory ships, deleting 12 establishments and one factory ship, and amending the data of five establishments;
Whereas it is necessary to amend the list of approved establishments and factory ships accordingly;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision have been drawn up in accordance with the procedure laid down by Commission Decision 90/13/EEC (4),
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
Annex B of Decision 93/437/EEC is replaced by the Annex to this Decision.
Article 2
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 3 June 1994. | [
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 577/2006
of 7 April 2006
fixing the export refunds on poultrymeat
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2777/75 of 29 October 1975 on the common organisation of the market in poultrymeat (1), and in particular the third subparagraph of Article 8(3) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
Article 8(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2777/75 provides that the difference between prices on the world market for the products listed in Article 1(1) of that Regulation and prices for those products on the Community market may be covered by an export refund.
(2)
Given the present situation on the market in poultrymeat, export refunds should therefore be fixed in accordance with the rules and criteria provided for in Article 8 of Regulation (EEC) No 2777/75.
(3)
Article 8(3), second subparagraph of Regulation (EEC) No 2777/75 provides that the world market situation or the specific requirements of certain markets may make it necessary to vary the refund according to destination.
(4)
Refunds should be granted only on products that are allowed to move freely in the Community and that bear the identification mark as provided for in Article 5(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (2). Those products should also comply with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs (3).
(5)
The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Poultrymeat and Eggs,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
1. Export refunds as provided for in Article 8 of Regulation (EEC) No 2777/75 shall be granted on the products and for the amounts set out in the Annex to this Regulation subject to the condition provided for in paragraph 2 of this Article.
2. The products eligible for a refund under paragraph 1 must meet the relevant requirements of Regulations (EC) No 852/2004 and (EC) No 853/2004, notably preparation in an approved establishment and compliance with the identification marking requirements laid down in Annex II, Section I to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 10 April 2006.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 7 April 2006. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1444/2004
of 12 August 2004
amending the representative prices and additional duties for the import of certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EC) No 1210/2004 for the 2004/2005 marketing year
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 Commission Regulation (EC) No 1423/95 of 23 June 1995 laying down detailed implementing rules for the import of products in the sugar sector other than molasses (2), and in particular the second sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 1(2), and Article 3(1) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
The representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2004/2005 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1210/2004 (3). These prices and duties have last been amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1358/2004 (4).
(2)
The data currently available to the Commission indicate that the said amounts should be changed in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1423/95,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The representative prices and additional duties on imports of the products referred to in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1423/95, as fixed by Regulation (EC) No 1210/2004 for the 2004/2005 marketing year are hereby amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 13 August 2004.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 12 August 2004. | [
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE of 15 July 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the exploitation and marketing of natural mineral waters (80/777/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 of the Member States define natural mineral waters ; whereas differing definitions are adopted in this connection within the Community ; whereas these laws lay down the terms on which natural mineral waters are recognized as such and govern the conditions for exploiting the springs ; whereas they furthermore stipulate specific rules for marketing the waters in question;
Whereas the differences between these laws hinder the free movement of the natural mineral waters, creating disparate competitive situations, and consequently directly affect the establishing and functioning of the common market;
Whereas, in this particular case, the elimination of these barriers may be achieved both by an obligation on each Member State to allow the marketing in its territory of the natural mineral waters recognized as such by each of the other member States and by laying down common rules concerning in particular the microbiological requirements to be fulfilled and the conditions in which specific names must be used for certain of the mineral waters;
Whereas, pending the conclusion of agreements on mutual recognition of natural mineral waters between the Community and third countries, the terms should be laid down on which, until implementation of the said agreements, similar products imported from third countries may be allowed to enter the Community as natural mineral waters,
Whereas care should be taken to ensure that natural mineral waters retain at the marketing stage those characteristics which enabled them to be recognized as such ; whereas, therefore, the containers used for packaging them should have suitable closures;
Whereas, in respect of labelling, natural mineral waters are subject to the general rules laid down by 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 (1)OJ No C 69, 11.6.1970, p. 14. (2)OJ No C 45, 10.5.1971, p. 5. (3)OJ No C 36, 19.4.1971, p. 14. foodstuffs for sale to the ultimate consumer (1) ; whereas, accordingly, this Directive may be limited to laying down the additions and derogations which should be made to those general rules;
Whereas, in order to simplify and speed up the procedure, the Commission should be entrusted with the task of adopting technical implementing measures, and in particular defining the procedure for taking samples and the methods of analysis necessary to check the composition of natural mineral waters;
Whereas, in all cases in which the Council entrusts the Commission with responsibility for implementing rules laid down concerning foodstuffs intended for human consumption, provision should be made for a procedure establishing close cooperation between the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee for Foodstuffs, set up by Decision 69/414/EEC (2),
HAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:
Article 1
1. This Directive concerns waters extracted from the ground of a Member State and recognized by the responsible authority of that Member State as natural mineral waters satisfying the provisions of Annex I, Section I.
2. This Directive also concerns waters extracted from the ground of a third country, imported into the Community and recognized as natural mineral waters by the responsible authority of a Member State.
The waters referred to in the first subparagraph may be so recognized only if the responsible authority in the country of extraction has certified that they satisfy Annex I, Section I, and that regular checks are made on the application of the provisions of Annex II, paragraph 2.
The validity of the certification referred to in the second subparagraph may not exceed a period of two years. It shall not be necessary to repeat the recognition procedure referred to in the first subparagraph if the certification is renewed before the end of the said period.
3. This Directive shall not apply: - to waters which are medicinal products within the meaning of Directive 65/65/EEC (3),
- to natural mineral waters used at source for curative purposes in thermal or hydromineral establishments.
4. The grounds for granting the recognition referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2, shall be stated in due form by the responsible authority of the Member State and shall be officially published.
5. Each Member State shall inform the Commission of the cases where the recognition referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 has been granted or withdrawn. The list of natural mineral waters so recognized shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
Article 2
Member States shall take the measures necessary to ensure that only the waters referred to in Article 1 which comply with the provisions of this Directive may be marketed as natural mineral waters.
Article 3
Natural mineral water springs may be exploited and their waters bottled only in accordance with Annex II.
Article 4
1. Natural mineral water, in its state at source, may not be the subject of any treatment or addition other than: (a) the separation of its unstable elements, such as iron and sulphur compounds, by filtration or decanting, possibly preceded by oxygenation, in so far as this treatment does not alter the composition of the water as regards the essential constituents which give it its properties;
(b) the total or partial elimination of free carbon dioxide by exclusively physical methods;
(c) the introduction or the reintroduction of carbon dioxide under the conditions laid down in Annex I, Section III;
2. In particular any disinfection treatment by whatever means and, subject to paragraph 1 (c), the addition of bacteriostatic elements or any other treatment likely to change the viable colony count of the natural mineral water shall be prohibited.
3. Paragraph 1 shall not constitute a bar to the utilization of natural mineral water in the manufacture of soft drinks. (1)OJ No L 33, 8.2.1979, p. 1. (2)OJ No L 291, 19.11.1969, p. 9. (3)OJ No 22, 9.2.1965, p. 369/65.
Article 5
1. The revivable total colony count of a natural mineral water at source shall conform to its normal viable colony count and give satisfactory evidence of the protection of the source against all contamination. This total colony count shall be determined under the conditions laid down in Annex I, Section II, point 1.3.3.
After bottling, the total colony count at source may not exceed 100 per millilitre at 20 to 22 ºC in 72 hours on agar-agar or an agar-gelatine mixture and 20 per millilitre at 37 ºC in 24 hours on agar-agar. The total colony count shall be measured within the 12 hours following bottling, the water being maintained at 4 ºC ± 1 ºC during this 12-hour period.
At source, these values should not normally exceed 20 per millilitre at 20 to 22 ºC in 72 hours and 5 per millilitre at 37 ºC in 24 hours respectively, on the understanding that they are to be considered as guide figures and not as maximum permitted concentrations.
2. At source and during its marketing, a natural mineral water shall be free from: (a) parasites and pathogenic micro-organisms;
(b) Escherichia coli and other coliforms and faecal streptococci in any 250 ml sample examined;
(c) sporulated sulphite-reducing anaerobes in any 50 ml sample examined;
(d) Pseudomonas aeruginosa in any 250 ml sample examined.
3. Without prejudice to paragraphs 1 and 2 and the conditions of exploitation laid down in Annex II, at the marketing stage: - the revivable total colony count of a natural mineral water may only be that resulting from the normal increase in the bacteria content which it had at source,
- the natural mineral water may not contain any organoleptic defects.
Article 6
Any containers used for packaging natural mineral waters shall be fitted with closures designed to avoid any possibility of adulteration or contamination.
Article 7
1. The sales description of natural mineral waters shall be "natural mineral water" or, in the case of an effervescent natural mineral water as defined in Annex I, Section III, as appropriate, "naturally carbonated natural mineral water", "natural mineral water fortified with gas from the spring" or "carbonated natural mineral water".
The sales description of natural mineral waters which have undergone any of the treatments referred to in Article 4 (1) (b) shall have added to it as appropriate the indication "fully de-carbonated" or "partially de-carbonated".
2. Labels on natural mineral waters shall also give the following mandatory information: (a) - either the words : "composition in accordance with the results of the officially recognized analysis of ... (date of analysis)",
- or a statement of the analytical composition giving its characteristic constituents;
(b) the place where the spring is exploited and the name of the spring.
3. Member States may also: (a) retain the provisions which require the country of origin to be indicated, although this information cannot be demanded in the case of natural mineral waters from a spring in the territory of the Community;
(b) introduce provisions which require information on any treatments referred to in Article 4 (1) (a).
Article 8
1. The name of a locality, hamlet or place may occur in the wording of a trade description provided that it refers to a natural mineral water the spring of which is exploited at the place indicated by that description and provided that it is not misleading as regards the place of exploitation of the spring.
2. It shall be forbidden to market natural mineral water from one and the same spring under more than one trade description.
3. When the labels or inscriptions on the containers in which the natural mineral waters are offered for sale include a trade description different from the name of the spring or the place of its exploitation, this place or the name of the spring shall be indicated in letters at least one and a half times the height and width of the largest of the letters used for that trade description.
The first subparagraph shall apply, mutatis mutandis and with the same intention as regards the importance attributed to the name of the spring or the place of its exploitation, with regard to the trade description used in advertising, in whatsoever form, relating to natural mineral waters.
Article 9
1. It shall be forbidden, both on packaging or labels and in advertising in whatsoever form, to use designations, proprietary names, trade marks, brand names, illustrations or other signs, whether emblematic or not, which: (a) in the case of a natural mineral water, suggest a characteristic which the water does not possess, in particular as regards its origin, the date of the authorization to exploit it, the results of analyses or any similar references to guarantees of authenticity;
(b) in the of drinking water packaged in containers which does not satisfy the provisions of Annex I, Section I, are liable to cause confusion with a natural mineral water, in particular the description "mineral water".
2. (a) All indications attributing to a natural mineral water properties relating to the prevention, treatment or cure of a human illness shall be prohibited.
(b) However, the indications listed in Annex III to this Directive shall be authorized if they meet the relevant criteria laid down in that Annex or, in the absence thereof, criteria laid down in national provisions and provided that they have been drawn up on the basis of physico-chemical analyses and, where necessary, pharmacological, physiological and clinical examinations carried out according to recognized scientific methods, in accordance with Section I, paragraph 2 of Annex I.
(c) Member States may authorize the indications "stimulates digestion", "may facilitate the hepato-biliary functions" or similar indications. They may also authorize the inclusion of other indications, provided that the latter do not conflict with the principles stated in (a) and are compatible with those stated in (b).
3. Member States may adopt special provisions regarding information - both on packaging or labels and in advertising - concerning the suitability of a natural mineral water for the feeding of infants. Such provisions may also concern the properties of the water which determine the use of the said information.
Member States which intend taking such measures shall inform the other Member States and the Commission of them beforehand.
4. Not later than three years after notification of this Directive, the Commission shall submit to the Council a report and, where appropriate, suitable proposals on the application of the provisions referred to in 1.2.12 of Annex I, Section II.
Article 10
1. Member States shall adopt the measures necessary to ensure that trade in natural mineral waters which comply with the definitions and rules laid down in this Directive cannot be impeded by the application of non-harmonized national provisions governing the properties, composition, conditions of exploitation, packaging or labelling of natural mineral waters or foodstuffs in general.
2. Paragraph 1 shall not be applicable to non-harmonized national provisions justified on grounds of: - protection of public health,
- prevention of fraud, unless such provisions are likely to impede the application of the definitions and rules laid down by this Directive,
- protection of industrial and commercial property, indications of source, designations of origin and the prevention of unfair competition.
Article 11
The sampling procedures and the methods of analysis necessary for checking the microbiological characteristics referred to in Article 5 and the compositional characteristics referred to in 1.2 of Annex I, Section II, shall be determined in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 12.
Article 12
1. Where the procedure laid down in this Article is to be followed, the matter shall be referred to the Standing Committee on Foodstuffs, hereinafter called "the Committee", by its Chairman, either on his own initiative or at the request of the representative of a Member State.
2. The Commission representative shall submit a draft of the measures to be taken to the Committee. The Committee shall deliver its opinion on that draft within a time limit set by the chairman having regard to the urgency of the matter. Opinions shall be arrived at by a majority of 41 votes, the votes of the Member States being weighted in accordance with Article 148 (2) of the Treaty. The chairman shall not vote.
3. (a) Where the measures envisaged are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee the Commission shall adopt them;
(b) where the measures envisaged are not in accordance with the opinion of the Committee, or if no opinion is delivered, 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 within three months of the matter being brought before it the Council has not acted, the measures proposed shall be adopted by the Commission.
Article 13
Article 12 shall apply for a period of 18 months from the date on which the matter was first referred to the Committee under Article 12 (1).
Article 14
This Directive shall not apply to natural mineral waters intended for export to third countries.
Article 15
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,
- prohibit trade in products not complying with this Directive four years after its notification.
Article 16
This Directive shall also apply to the overseas departments of the French Republic.
Article 17
This Directive is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 15 July 1980. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
*****
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 3857/87
of 22 December 1987
amending Regulation (EEC) No 2681/83 laying down detailed rules for the application of the subsidy system for oilseeds
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation No 136/66/EEC of 22 September 1966 on the establishment of a common organization of the markets in oils and fats (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1915/87 (2), and in particular Article 27 (5) thereof,
Whereas, as a result of the increase in the Community's oilseed harvest, undertakings are increasingly stepping up the quantities which they process; whereas provision should therefore be made, in particular, for the application for the ID part of the certificate referred to in Article 6 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2681/83 (3), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3074/87 (4), to be considered in cases where the seeds enter the undertaking immediately after the application is lodged and during hours when the offices of the competent agency are closed;
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
The second subparagraph of Article 6 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2681/83 is hereby replaced by the follwing:
'However, the application shall also be considered where the seeds enter the undertaking during periods when the offices of the competent agency are closed including non-working days immediately following the day on which the said application was lodged.'
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 22 December 1987. | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1793/94 of 20 July 1994 amending for the 10th time Regulation (EC) No 3337/93 adopting exceptional support measures for the market in pigmeat in Belgium
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 organization of the market in pigmeat (1), as last amended by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1249/89 (2), and in particular Article 20 thereof,
Whereas because of the outbreak of classical swine fever in one production region in Belgium, exceptional support measures for the market in pigmeat were adopted for that Member State in Commission Regulation (EC) No 3337/93 (3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1481/94 (4);
Whereas it is necessary to adjust the buying-in price for pigs to the present market situation taking into account the decrease in market prices;
Whereas in view of a new outbreak of classical swine fever, the veterinary and commercial restrictions have been extended by the Belgian authorities to a new region in the middle of June 1994; whereas it is appropriate to include, as from 12 July 1994, the animals coming from this region in the buying-in scheme provided for by Regulation (EC) No 3337/93;
Whereas Commission Regulation (EC) No 1391/94 (5) has introduced as from 6 June 1994 a new quantity of pigs eligibles under the support measures provided for in Regulation (EC) No 3337/94; whereas it is appropriate to amend this date in order to allow the inclusion of pigs bought in in the first days of the month of June 1994;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Pigmeat,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Regulation (EC) No 3337/93 is hereby amended as follows:
1. Article 4 is amended as follows:
(a) in paragraph 1, 'ECU 109' is replaced by 'ECU 102' and 'ECU 93' is replaced by 'ECU 87';
(b) in paragraph 2, 'ECU 39' is replaced by 'ECU 32' and 'ECU 33' is replaced by 'ECU 27';
(c) in paragraph 3, 'ECU 31' is replaced by 'ECU 26' and 'ECU 26' is replaced by 'ECU 22';
2. Annex I is replaced by the Annex to this Regulation.
Article 2
In Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1391/94, '6 June 1994' is replaced by '31 May 1994'.
Article 3
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
It shall apply as from 21 July 1994. However, the provisions of Article 1 point 2 shall apply with effect from 12 July 1994.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 20 July 1994. | [
0,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION of 28 January 1991 on the eligibility of expenditure to be incurred in 1991 by Germany, Greece and the United Kingdom for the purpose of ensuring compliance with the Community system for the conservation and management of fishery resources (Only the German, Greek and Portuguese texts are authentic) (91/62/EEC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Decision 89/631/EEC of 27 November 1989 on a Community financial contribution towards expenditure incurred by Member States for the purpose of ensuring compliance with the Community system for the conservation and management of fishery resources (1), and in particular Article 2 (2) thereof,
Whereas, in accordance with Decision 89/631/EEC, the Commission has received applications for Community financial contributions from Germany, Greece and the United Kingdom towards expenditure to be incurred during 1991;
Whereas the applications refer to expenditure for the acquisition or modernization of vessels, aircraft and land vehicles including their equipment, systems for the detection and recording of fishing activities and systems for recording and transmitting catch data and other relevant information;
Whereas such expenditure will help to develop monitoring and supervision facilities for the proper implementation of the Community's fishery resources conservation arrangements;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Fishery Resources,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION: Article 1
The expenditure foreseen for 1991 shown in the Annex, corresponding to an amount of ECU 8 816 565, is eligible for a financial contribution under Decision 89/631/EEC. The Community contribution shall be 50 % of the eligible expenditure. Article 2
This Decision is addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany, the Hellenic Republic and the United Kingdom. Done at Brussels, 28 January 1991. | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 1423/92 of 27 May 1992 fixing the minimum purchase price for lemons delivered for processing and the amount of the financial compensation after processing of such lemons for the 1992/93 marketing year
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1035/77 of 17 May 1977 laying down special measures to encourage the marketing of products processed from lemons (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1199/90 (2), and in particular Article 3 thereof,
Whereas, pursuant to Article 1 (3) of Regulation (EEC) No 1035/77, the minimum price which processors must pay to producers is fixed at 105 % of the average withdrawal price, calculated in accordance with the first indent of Article 18 (1) (a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 of 18 May 1972 on the common organization of the market in fruit and vegetables (3), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1156/92 (4), from the 1991/92 marketing year; whereas the minimum prices for Spain and Portugal are fixed at 105 % of the average withdrawal price;
Whereas, in accordance with Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 1035/77, the financial compensation cannot exceed the difference between the minimum purchase price referred to in Article 1 of that Regulation and the prices applying to the raw material in producer third countries;
Whereas the provisions applicable where a product harvested in Spain or Portugal is processed in another Member State should be specified owing to the varying amounts fixed for those Member States;
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
1. For the 1992/93 marketing year, the minimum price referred to in Article 1 (3) of Regulation (EEC) No 1035/77 is hereby fixed as follows:
(ECU/100 kg net)
Spain Portugal Other Member States 11,61 11,76 14,71
2. The minimum price shall be fixed for goods ex-producers' packing stations.
Article 2
For the 1992/93 marketing year, the financial compensation referred to in Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 1035/77 is hereby fixed as follows:
(ECU/100 kg net)
Spain Portugal Other Member States 6,67 6,82 9,77
Article 3
The minimum price and the financial compensation applicable shall be those in force in the Member State in which the product was harvested.
Article 4
This Regulation shall enter into force the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
It is to be applied from 1 June 1992. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 27 May 1992. | [
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
*****
COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 1174/86
of 21 April 1986
amending Regulation (EEC) No 706/73 concerning the Community arrangements applicable to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man for trade in agricultural products
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to the 1972 Act of Accession, and in particular the third subparagraph of Article 1 (2) of Protocol No 3 thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,
Whereas certain veterinary provisions in respect of Northern Ireland and relating to foot-and-mouth disease and trade in live animals, fresh meat and meat-based products have been liberalized;
Whereas Regulation (EEC) No 706/73 (1) linked the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man to Northern Ireland for purposes of the veterinary sector;
Whereas, in order to minimize the risk of disease, it is necessary to permit these islands to maintain their veterinary rules in relation to foot-and-mouth disease which have been in force hitherto,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 706/73 is hereby replaced by the following:
'Article 3
From 1 September 1973, the Community provisions in the following fields:
- veterinary legislation,
- animal health legislation,
- plant health legislation,
- marketing of seeds and seedlings,
- food legislation,
- feedingstuffs legislation,
- quality and marketing standards,
shall apply under the same conditions as in the United Kingdom to the products referred to in Article 1 imported into the islands or exported from the islands to the Community.
However, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man may retain, concerning trade in live animals, fresh meat and meat-based products, the specific provisions in relation to foot-and-mouth disease which they apply to imports. Such provisions shall be no more restrictive than those in force on 30 September 1985'.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Luxembourg, 21 April 1986. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 485/2002
of 18 March 2002
establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 of 21 December 1994 on detailed rules for the application of the import arrangements for fruit and vegetables(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1498/98(2), and in particular Article 4(1) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations, the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products and periods stipulated in the Annex thereto.
(2) In compliance with the above criteria, the standard import values must be fixed at the levels set out in the Annex to this Regulation,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The standard import values referred to in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 shall be fixed as indicated in the Annex hereto.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 19 March 2002.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 18 March 2002. | [
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Decision
of 27 August 2003
amending Decision 2000/367/EC establishing a classification system for resistance-to-fire performance for construction products, as regards the inclusion of smoke and heat control products
(notified under document number C(2003) 2851)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2003/629/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Directive 89/106/EEC of 21 December 1988 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to construction products(1), as amended by Directive 93/68/EEC(2), and in particular Article 20(2) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Commission Decision 2000/367/EC of 3 May 2000 implementing Council Directive 89/106/EEC as regards the classification of the resistance-to-fire performance of construction products, construction works and parts thereof(3) should, for the purposes of its adaptation to technical progress, also cover smoke and heat control products.
(2) Decision 2000/367/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.
(3) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Construction,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
The Annex to Decision 2000/367/EC is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Decision.
Article 2
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 27 August 2003. | [
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Decision
of 24 May 2002
on the sale of Community olive oil residues held by the Italian intervention agency
(notified under document number C(2002) 1642)
(Only the Italian text is authentic)
(2002/408/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1638/98 of 20 July 1998 amending Regulation No 136/66/EEC on the establishment of a common organisation of the market in oils and fats(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1513/2001(2), and in particular Article 3(1) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Under the intervention arrangements prior to 1 November 1998 olive oil was purchased by the Spanish, Greek and Italian intervention agencies. The legal basis for those arrangements was repealed with effect from 1 November 1998 by Regulation (EC) No 1638/98. However, in order to guarantee a smooth transition from the intervention buying-in arrangements to the current situation where those arrangements no longer exist and in order to release all available stocks of olive oil from Community intervention agencies, the sale of quantities still in storage in Italy should be authorised. The oil is vat-bottom residues which contain a considerable percentage of olive oil.
(2) Article 2(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2754/78 of 23 November 1978 on intervention in the olive oil sector(3), as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 2203/90(4), provides that Community olive oil held by intervention agencies should be put up for sale by tender, unless special conditions warrant recourse to other procedures. The olive oil residues still in storage in Italy could not be sold under Commission Regulation (EC) No 2599/2001 of 28 December 2001 on the sale of Community olive oil residues held by the Spanish, Greek and Italian intervention agencies(5) because not enough tenders were received in Italy. Those olive oil residues should be put up for sale again. To enable the Italian authorities to find a fair solution under the conditions laid down in Regulation (EEC) No 2754/78, the sale of those residues should be authorised via direct agreement instead of via a public tendering procedure.
(3) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Oils and Fats,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
1. The Italian intervention agency "Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura", hereafter called "AGEA", is authorised to sell by direct agreement 27,1 tonnes of Community olive oil residue held by it as a result of intervention on the Community olive oil market.
2. The product referred to in paragraph 1 must be sold before 15 July 2002.
3. The product must be delivered before 8 September 2002.
4. The Italian intervention agency shall inform the Commission as soon as possible of the outcome of the sale.
Article 2
This Decision is addressed to the Italian Republic.
Done at Brussels, 24 May 2002. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION of 14 March 1996 establishing the list of approved fish farms in Denmark (Text with EEA relevance) (96/233/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Directive 91/67/EEC of 28 January 1991 concerning the animal health conditions governing the placing on the market of acquaculture animals and products (1), as last amended by Directive 95/22/EC (2), and in particular Article 6 thereof,
Whereas the Member States may obtain, for fish farms situated in zones which are not approved with regard to infectious haematopoietic necrosis (IHN) and viral haemorrhagic septicaemia (VHS), the status of approved farm free of these diseases;
Whereas, by Commission Decision 94/864/EC (3) and 95/336/EC (4), Denmark has already obtained approval for a number of fish farms as being free of infectious haematopoietic necrosis (IHN) and viral haemorrhagic septicaemia (VHS);
Whereas, by letter of 18 October 1995, Denmark submitted to the Commission the justifications for obtaining the status of approved farm in respect of VHS for one fish farm in a non-approved zone, as well as the national rules ensuring compliance with the rules on maintenance of approval;
Whereas the Commission and the Member States examined the justifications notified by Denmark for the farm in question;
Whereas the result of this examination is that the farm in question meets all the requirements of Article 6 of Council Directive 91/67/EEC;
Whereas it is necessary to consolidate the Decisions taken previously concerning the approval of fish farms in Denmark;
Whereas Denmark is already recognized as an approved zone in respect of IHN;
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 fish farms listed in the Annex are recognized as approved farms with regard to IHN and VHS, situated in a zone not approved with regard to VHS.
Article 2
Decision 95/336/EC is herewith repealed.
Article 3
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 14 March 1996. | [
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 565/2002
of 2 April 2002
establishing the method for managing tariff quotas and introducing a system of certificates of origin for garlic imported from third countries
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables(1), as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 911/2001(2), and in particular Article 31(2) thereof,
Having regard to Council Decision 2001/104/EC of 28 May 2001 on the conclusion of an Agreement in the form of an exchange of letters between the European Community and Argentina pursuant to Article XXVIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 for the modification of concessions with respect to garlic provided for in Schedule CXL annexed to GATT(3), and in particular Article 2 thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Following negotiations conducted in accordance with Article XXVIII of GATT 1994, the Community amended the conditions for the import of garlic. Since 1 June 2001 the normal customs duty for imports of garlic falling within CN code 0703 20 00 has consisted of an ad valorem customs duty of 9,6 % and a specific amount of EUR 1200 per tonne net. However, a quota of 38370 tonnes free of specific duty was opened by the Agreement concluded with Argentina, approved by Decision 2001/404/EC, hereafter called the "GATT quota". The Agreement stipulates that the quota is to be divided up into 19147 tonnes for imports from Argentina (serial number 09.4104), 13200 tonnes for imports from China (serial number 09.4105) and 6023 tonnes for imports from other countries (serial number 09.4106).
(2) Imports of garlic may also be carried out, outside the GATT quota or the normal duty, on preferential terms, under agreements concluded between the Community and certain third countries.
(3) The method for managing the GATT quota was established by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1047/2001(4), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1865/2001(5). Experience shows however that this management could be improved and simplified. In particular, the need for import licences for imports carried out outside the GATT quota should be abolished, and the conditions for access by importers to this quota should be adapted to take better account of traditional trade flows.
(4) Imports of garlic can be monitored in accordance with Article 308d of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code(6), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 444/2002(7).
(5) In view of the existence of a specific duty for non-preferential imports outside the GATT quota, management of the quota requires the introduction of a system of import licences. The detailed rules of that system must be complementary to, or derogate from, those laid down by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1291/2000 of 9 June 2000 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of import and export licences and advance fixing certificates for agricultural products(8), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2299/2001(9).
(6) Measures are needed to keep to a minimum speculative applications for import licences which are not linked to a genuine commercial activity on the fruit and vegetable market. To that end special rules should be laid down on applications for and the validity of licences.
(7) Given that the Agreement concluded with Argentina provides for the management of the GATT quota on the basis of a system of traditional and new importers, the concept of traditional importers should be defined and the quota allocated between the two categories of importer, while allowing optimum use of the quota.
(8) To guarantee correct management of the GATT quota, the measures to be taken by the Commission in the event that licence applications exceed, for a specific origin or in a specific quarter, the quantities fixed by Decision 2001/404/EC plus the unused quantities from licences previously issued, should be determined. Where such measures involve a reduction coefficient to be applied at the time of issue of licences, the possibility should be granted for applications for those licences to be withdrawn with immediate release of the security.
(9) To improve controls and prevent any risk of a deflection of trade based on inaccurate documentation, the existing system of certificates of origin for garlic imported from certain third countries and the requirement for this garlic to be transported direct from the third country of origin to the Community should be retained. That certificate of origin is to be issued by the competent national authorities in accordance with Articles 56 to 62 of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93.
(10) Regulation (EC) No 1047/2001 should be repealed.
(11) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Fresh Fruit and Vegetables,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
CHAPTER I
TARIFF QUOTAS
Article 1
Purpose and fixing of customs duty applicable to the quota
1. This Chapter lays down the rules for managing tariff quotas for garlic falling within CN code 0703 20 00, opened by Decision 2001/404/EC.
2. The ad valorem duty applicable to products imported under the quotas referred to in paragraph 1 shall be 9,6 %.
Article 2
Definitions
For the purposes of this Regulation:
(a) "import period" means a period of one year running from 1 June of one year to the following 31 May;
(b) "importers" means operators, natural or legal persons, individuals or groups having imported into the Community, in at least one of the previous two calendar years, at least 50 tonnes per year of fruit and vegetables as referred to in Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2200/96;
(c) "traditional importers" mean importers who have imported garlic into the Community in at least two of the three previous import periods, irrespective of the origin and date of these imports;
(d) "reference quantity" means the maximum quantity of annual imports of garlic carried out by a traditional importer during the 1998, 1999 and 2000 calendar years. Where the importer in question has not imported any garlic during at least two of these three years, the reference quantity shall be the maximum quantity of annual imports of garlic during the three import periods preceding that for which a licence application has been presented;
(e) "new importers" mean importers who are not traditional importers.
The reference quantity calculated for a period shall remain valid for the whole of that period.
Article 3
System of import licences
1. All imports under the quotas referred to in Article 1(1) shall be subject to the presentation of an import licence, hereafter called the "licence", issued in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1291/2000, subject to the provisions of this Regulation.
2. Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1291/2000 shall not apply to the licences. Box 19 of licences shall be marked "0".
3. Notwithstanding Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1291/2000, the rights accruing from licences shall not be transferable.
4. The amount of the security referred to in Article 15(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1291/2000 shall be EUR 15 per tonne net.
Article 4
Validity of licences
1. Box 8 of licence applications and licences shall indicate the country of origin of the product. The word "yes" in box 8 shall be marked with a cross. Licences shall be valid only for the products originating in the country indicated in that box.
2. Licences shall be valid only for the quarter for which they have been issued. Box 24 thereof shall contain one of the following entries:
- certificado expedido y válido solamente para el trimestre comprendido entre el 1 ... y el 28/29/30/31 ...
- licens, der kun er udstedt og gyldig for kvartalet fra 1. ... til 28./29./30./31. ...
- Lizenz nur erteilt und gültig für das Quartal vom 1. ... bis 28./29./30./31. ...
- Πιστοποιητικό εκδοθέν και ισχύον μόνο για το τρίμηνο από την 1η ... έως τις 28/29/30/31 ...
- licence issued and valid only for the quarter from 1 [month] to 28/29/30/31 [month]
- certificat émis et valable seulement pour le trimestre du 1er ... au 28/29/30/31 ...
- titolo rilasciato e valido unicamente per il trimestre dal 1o ... al 28/29/30/31 ...
- voor het kwartaal van 1... tot en met 28/29/30/31 ... afgegeven en uitsluitend in dat kwartaal geldig certificaat.
- certificado emitido e válido apenas para o trimestre de 1 de ... a 28/29/30/31 de ...
- todistus on myönnetty 1 päivän ... ja 28/29/30/31 päivän ... väliselle vuosineljännekselle ja se on voimassa ainoastaan kyseisenä vuosineljänneksenä
- licens utfärdad och giltig endast för tremånadersperioden den 1 ... till den 28/29/30/31 ...
Article 5
Licence applications
1. Licence applications may be lodged only by importers.
To support their applications, importers, and in particular traditional importers, shall provide information verifying to the satisfaction of the competent national authorities compliance with Article 2(b) and (c).
Where new importers have obtained licences pursuant to this Regulation or to Regulation (EC) No 1047/2001 during the previous import period, they must produce proof that at least 90 % of the quantity allocated to them has actually been released into free circulation.
2. For each of the quarters referred to in Annex I, licence applications may be lodged only from the second Monday of the month before the month preceding the quarter in question until the last Friday inclusive of that quarter.
Box 20 of those applications shall contain one of the following entries:
- certificado solicitado para el trimestre comprendido entre el 1 ... y el 28/29/30/31 ...
- licens, der er ansøgt om for kvartalet fra 1. ... til 28./29./30./31. ...
- Lizenz beantragt für das Quartal vom 1. ... bis 28./29./30./31. ...
- Πιστοποιητικό που ζητήθηκε για το τρίμηνο από την 1η ... έως τις 28/29/30/31. ...
- licence sought for the quarter from 1 [month] to 28/29/30/31 [month]
- certificat demandé pour le trimestre du 1er ... au 28/29/30/31 ...
- titolo richiesto per il trimestre dal 1o ... al 28/29/30/31 ...
- voor het kwartaal van 1... tot en met 28/29/30/31 ... aangevraagd certificaat.
- certificado pedido para o trimestre de 1 de ... a 28/29/30/31 de ...
- todistus on haettu 1 päivän ... ja 28/29/30/31 päivän ... väliselle vuosineljännekselle
- licens begärd för tremånadersperioden den 1 ... till den 28/29/30/31 ...
3. Licence applications lodged by traditional importers may cover, by import period, a quantity no more than the reference quantity for those importers.
4. For each of the three origins and for each of the quarters indicated in Annex I, licences applications lodged by new importers may cover no more than 10 % of the quantity referred to in Annex I for that quarter and for that origin.
5. No licence applications may be lodged for a specific quarter and for a specific origin where no quantity is indicated in Annex I for that quarter and for that origin.
6. Box 20 of licence applications shall indicate "traditional importer" or "new importer" as appropriate.
Article 6
Maximum quantity to be issued
1. For each of the three origins and for each of the quarters indicated in Annex I, licences shall be issued only up to a maximum quantity equal to the sum of:
(a) the quantity indicated in Annex I for that quarter and for that origin;
(b) the quantities not applied for during the previous quarter for that origin;
(c) the unused quantities notified to the Commission from licences previously issued for that origin.
However, quantities not applied for or not used during an import period may not be transferred to the following import period.
2. For each of the three origins and for each of the quarters indicated in Annex I, the maximum quantity calculated in accordance with paragraph 1 shall be allocated as follows:
(a) 70 % to traditional importers,
(b) 30 % to new importers.
However, the quantities available shall be allocated to each of the two categories of importers without discrimination from the first Monday of the second month of each quarter.
Article 7
Member State communications to the Commission
1. The Member States shall notify the Commission of:
(a) the quantities covered by licence applications;
(b) the quantities covered by unused or partly used licences, corresponding to the difference between the quantities entered on the back of the licences and the quantities for which they were issued;
(c) the quantities relating to applications for licences withdrawn pursuant to Article 8(4).
2. The information referred to in paragraph 1(a) shall be notified each Thursday in respect of applications lodged on the Monday and Tuesday of that week and each Monday in respect of applications lodged on the previous Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.
The information referred to in paragraph 1(b) and (c) shall be notified each Thursday in respect of information received the previous week.
The communications referred to in paragraph 1 shall be made by 12 noon (Brussels time) at the latest.
If no import licence application has been lodged or if there are no unused or withdrawn quantities within the meaning of paragraph 1(b) and (c), the Member State concerned shall notify the Commission thereof on the days indicated in this paragraph.
If the day for the communication of information provided for in this paragraph is a national holiday, the Member State concerned shall send the said communication by 3 p.m. (Brussels time) at the latest on the previous working day.
3. The communications referred to in paragraph 1 shall be effected by electronic means on the form sent for that purpose by the Commission to the Member States.
They shall be broken down by day of licence application, by third country of origin, by quarter and by type of importer within the meaning of Article 2.
Article 8
Issue of licences
1. Licences shall be issued on the fifth working day following the day on which applications are lodged unless the Commission takes measures within that time pursuant to paragraph 2.
Where measures are adopted pursuant to paragraph 2, licences shall be issued on the third working day following the entry into force of those measures.
2. Where the Commission finds, on the basis of the information notified by the Member States pursuant to Article 7, that licence applications exceed the available balance of one of the maximum quantities established in accordance with Article 6, it shall, if necessary, adopt by means of a regulation a single reduction percentage for the applications in question and shall stop the issue of licences until the date referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 6(2) or for the rest of that quarter for subsequent applications.
3. For the purposes of the examination referred to in paragraph 2, the Commission shall take account of the licences already issued or to be issued for the quarter and the origin in question.
4. Where, pursuant to paragraph 2, the quantity for which a licence is issued is less than the quantity requested, the licence application may be withdrawn within three working days of the entry into force of the measures adopted pursuant to paragraph 2. In the event of such a withdrawal the security shall be released immediately.
5. No licence may be issued with a view to importing products originating in countries listed in Annex II which have not forwarded to the Commission the information needed to set up an administrative cooperation procedure in accordance with Articles 63 to 65 of Regulation (EC) No 2454/93. The information shall be deemed to have been forwarded on the date of its publication as provided for in Article 11.
CHAPTER II
CERTIFICATES OF ORIGIN
Article 9
General provisions
Any release into free circulation in the Community of garlic originating in a third country listed in Annex II shall be subject to:
(a) presentation of a certificate of origin issued by the competent national authorities of that country in accordance with Articles 55 to 65 of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93, and
(b) the condition that the product has been transported directly, within the meaning of Article 10, from that country to the Community.
Article 10
Direct transport
1. The following shall be considered as transported direct to the Community from the third countries listed in Annex II:
(a) products transported without passing through the territory of any other third country;
(b) products transported through one or more third countries other than the country of origin, with or without transhipment or temporary warehousing in those countries, provided that such passage is justified for geographical reasons or exclusively on account of transport requirements and provided that the products:
(i) have remained under the supervision of the customs authorities of the country or countries of transit or warehousing,
(ii) have not entered into commerce or been released for consumption there, and
(iii) have not undergone operations there other than unloading and reloading or any other operation to keep them in good condition.
2. Proof that the conditions referred to in paragraph 1(b) have been satisfied shall be submitted to the Community authorities. That proof may be provided, in particular, in the form of one of the following documents:
(a) a single transport document issued in the country of origin covering passage through the country or countries of transit;
(b) a certificate issued by the customs authorities of the country or countries of transit containing:
(i) a precise description of the goods;
(ii) the dates of their unloading and reloading or their lading or unlading, identifying the vessels used;
(iii) certification of the conditions in which they were kept.
Article 11
Administrative cooperation
As soon as the information needed to set up an administrative cooperation procedure pursuant to Articles 63 to 65 of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 has been forwarded by each third country listed in Annex II, a communication concerning the forwarding of that information shall be published in the C series of the Official Journal of the European Communities(10).
CHAPTER III
FINAL PROVISIONS
Article 12
Repeal
Regulation (EC) No 1047/2001 is hereby repealed with effect from 1 June 2002.
Article 13
Entry into force
This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
It shall apply to licences applied for from 8 April 2002, for the quarter from 1 June to 31 August 2002, and to releases into free circulation effected from 1 June 2002. It shall not apply to releases into free circulation carried out, until 31 May 2002, under import licences issued in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1047/2001.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 2 April 2002. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE of 24 November 1978 amending Directive 72/159/EEC on the modernization of farms and Directive 73/131/EEC on the guidance premium provided for in Article 10 of the Directive of 17 April 1972 on the modernization of farms (78/1017/EEC)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Article 43 thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission (1),
Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (2),
Whereas under Article 14 (2) (a) of Council Directive 72/159/EEC of 17 April 1972 on the modernization of farms (3), as last amended by Council Directive 77/390/EEC (4), Member States may, during a period of five years from the time when the said Directive takes effect, grant temporary aids to farmers who are not capable of attaining the level of earned income laid down under Article 4 of that Directive and who are not yet eligible for the annuities provided for in Article 2 (1) of Council Directive 72/160/EEC of 17 April 1972 concerning measures to encourage the cessation of farming and the reallocation of utilized agricultural area for the purposes of structural improvement (5);
Whereas, pending the re-examination of Directive 72/159/EEC provided for in Article 16 of the said Directive, the period of application of this measure was extended until 31 December 1977 by Directive 77/390/EEC;
Whereas, since this re-examination is still in progress, it would seem appropriate to extend the period laid down in Article 14 (2) (a) of Directive 72/159/EEC until 31 December 1979 as regards the measures provided for under that Article in force in the Member States on 15 March 1977;
Whereas the provision in the development plan for the farm to concentrate on the production of beef, veal, mutton or lamb may require differing efforts ; whereas the amounts fixed by Council Directive 73/131/EEC of 15 May 1973 on the guidance premium provided for in Article 10 of the Directive of 17 April 1972 on the modernization of farms (6) should be changed into ceiling amounts,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:
Article 1
The period laid down in Article 14 (2) (a) of Directive 72/159/EEC shall be extended until 31 December 1979 as regards the measures provided for under that Article in force in the Member States on 15 March 1977.
Article 2
The second paragraph of Article 1 of Directive 73/131/EEC shall be replaced by the following:
"The maximum amount of this premium shall be: - 48 units of account per hectare within a ceiling of 4 800 units of account per farm in the first year,
- 32 75 units of account per hectare within a ceiling of 3 250 units of account per farm in the second year,
- 16 75 units of account per hectare within a ceiling of 1 650 units of account per farm in the third year."
Article 3
Article 1 shall take effect as from 1 January 1978.
Article 4
This Directive is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 24 November 1978. | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1471/1999
of 5 July 1999
amending Regulation (EC) No 347/96 establishing a system of rapid reporting of the release of salmon for free circulation in the European Community
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3759/92 of 17 December 1992 on the common organisation of the market in aquaculture and fisheries products(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 3318/94(2), and in particular Article 30 thereof,
(1) Whereas by Regulation (EC) No 347/96(3) the Commission established a system of rapid reporting of the terms of importation of salmon on account of market disturbance and the imposition of a temporary minimum price;
(2) Whereas following the conclusion of anti-dumping and anti-subsidies investigations, Council Regulation (EC) No 772/1999(4) as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1003/1999(5), imposes definitive anti-dumping and countervailing duties and an effective minimum price by presentation of salmon, on imports of farmed Atlantic salmon originating in Norway; whereas these duties do not apply to wild Atlantic salmon falling within the same CN codes;
(3) Whereas the duties do not apply to imports for farmed Atlantic salmon exported by the companies listed in the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 772/1999, which are companies exempted from the duties on account of having offered price undertakings, which the Commission has accepted by Decision 97/634/EC(6) as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 929/1999(7);
(4) Whereas in order to improve the usefulness of the information communicated through the rapid reporting system and to allow monitoring of the undertakings and of the anti-dumping and anti-subsidy duties, information relating to imports of salmon should be further broken down both by type and presentation and by exporting company in the case of Norway by amending Regulation (EC) No 347/96;
(5) Whereas the list of undertakings has been repeatedly amended due to violations, withdrawals, or acceptance of new undertakings; whereas it is expected that similar amendments will occur in the future;
(6) Whereas the technology now exists to send computer-generated data by electronic mail and therefore the form of transmission should be definitively introduced and the message format defined; whereas Regulation (EC) No 347/96 should be amended to this end;
(7) Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Fishery Products,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Regulation (EC) No 347/96 is amended as follows:
1. in Article 1(1), a third sentence is added as follows: "For the list of Norwegian companies benefiting from undertakings, as provided by Council Regulation (EC) No 772/1999(8), additional information on the goods released shall be notified in the form of TARIC code and TARIC additional code, as set out in the Annex, giving the imports by presentation for each company with an undertaking.";
2. in Article 1(2), the second sentence is replaced by the following: "The notification shall be sent to the Commission by electronic mail in the form indicated in Annex II.";
3. the Annex is replaced by the Annex to the present Regulation.
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, 5 July 1999. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION
of 3 June 1992
relating to the computer retrieval of local Animo units
(92/341/EEC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic 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 91/628/EEC (2), and in particular Article 20 (3) thereof,
Whereas on 19 July 1991 the Commission adopted Decision 91/398/EEC on a computerized network linking veterinary authorities (Animo) (3) and on 21 February 1992, Decision 92/175/EEC establishing the list and identity of the units of the Animo computerized network (4);
Whereas, in order to ensure the smooth operation of the Animo network, provision should be made for a computerized system allowing the unit of destination to be identified via the postal destinations;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
1. Each Member State shall, before 15 June 1992, transmit to the Commission, in computerized form as shown in the Annex, a list of postal destinations in alphabetical order. Each postal destination shall be accompanied by the identification number of the local unit corresponding to it.
2. On the basis of the data transmitted by the Member States in accordance with paragraph 1, the Commission shall establish, in computerized form to be integrated in the application software as defined in the fourth indent of Article 2 (2) of Decision 91/398/EEC, a repertory showing, for the Community as a whole, the postal destinations accompanied by the identification number of the local units and shall transmit this repertory to the Member States.
3. The repertory referred to in paragraph 2 shall be regularly updated by the Commission in the light of data transmitted by the Member States.
Article 2
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 3 June 1992. | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION of 18 July 1996 terminating the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of PET video film originating in the Republic of Korea (96/437/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 Article 23 thereof,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 3283/94 of 22 December 1994 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (2), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1251/95 (3), and in particular Articles 5 and 9 thereof,
After consulting the Advisory Committee,
Whereas:
I. PROCEDURE
(1) In February 1995, the Commission received a complaint from three companies, Hoechst-Diafoil GmbH, Rhône-Poulenc Films and Teijin-DuPont Films, concerning imports of PET video film originating in the Republic of Korea. The three complainants allegedly represented 100 % of total PET video film output in the Community. The complaint contained evidence of dumping and material 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 (4), the initiation of an antidumping proceeding concerning imports into the Community of PET video film originating in the Republic of Korea.
(2) The Commission officially advised the exporters and importers known to be concerned; the representatives of the exporting country and the complainants and gave the parties directly concerned the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing.
II. WITHDRAWAL OF THE COMPLAINT AND TERMINATION OF THE PROCEEDING
(3) The complaining Community producers formally withdrew their complaint concerning imports of PET video film originating in the Republic of Korea. The Commission considered that a termination of the proceeding would not be against the interest of the Community.
(4) Consequently, the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of PET video film originating in the Republic of Korea should be terminated without adoption of protective measures.
(5) The Advisory Committee has been consulted and has raised no objection.
(6) Interested parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which the Commission intended to terminate the proceeding and have been given the opportunity to comment,
HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Sole Article
The anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of PET video film originating in the Republic of Korea is hereby terminated.
Done at Brussels, 18 July 1996. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 384/2004
of 1 March 2004
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.
(4) It is appropriate to provide that binding tariff information which has been issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature but which is not in accordance with this Regulation can, for a period of three months, continue to be invoked by the holder, under Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code(2).
(5) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The goods described in column 1 of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN codes indicated in column 2.
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 twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 1 March 2004. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 2233/92 of 31 July 1992 laying down detailed rules for the application of the specific premium for the maintenance of dairy herds in the Azores
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1600/92 of 15 June 1992 concerning specific measures for the Azores and Madeira relating to certain agricultural products (1), and in particular Article 24 (6) thereof,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1676/85 of 11 June 1985 on the value of the unit of account and the conversion rates to be applied for the purposes of the common agricultural policy (2), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 2205/90 (3), and in particular Article 12 thereof,
Whereas Article 24 (4) of Regulation (EEC) No 1600/92 provides for the granting of specific annual premiums for the maintenance of dairy herds in respect of up to 78 000 head;
Whereas, in order to make verification of applications easier, the Member State in question should take the necessary measures to prevent the premium in question from being used for purposes other than those laid down and whereas there is provision for the Commission staff to be informed as to whether the scheme is working properly;
Whereas the scheme introduced by Regulation (EEC) No 1600/92 came into force on 1 July 1992; whereas the detailed rules for its application should take effect on the same date;
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
1. In accordance with Article 24 of Regulation (EEC) No 1600/92, producers may qualify on application for a specific annual premium for the maintenance of their dairy herds.
2. The aid, amounting to ECU 80 per cow, shall be converted using the agricultural conversion rate applying on the first day of the month in which the premium application is submitted.
3. In order to qualify for the premium, producers must show to the satisfaction of the competent authority that they deliver milk and milk products from the holdings under their management on the day on which the application is submitted.
In addition, the premium shall be granted subject to an undertaking by the recipient to:
- deliver milk and milk products for 12 months from the day on which the application is submitted,
- maintain the number of dairy cows on his holding in respect of which he has submitted a premium application on his holding for a period of 12 months.
Article 2
Portugal shall take all measures necessary to ensure that:
(a) premiums are granted in respect of no more than 78 000 cows;
(b) a single period is fixed each year for the submission of premium applications;
(c) detailed rules are laid down for monitoring the number of cows covered by applications;
(d) other detailed rules, including rules to ensure that premiums are paid solely to dairy farmers, are laid down.
Article 3
1. Where the number of animals actually shown to be eligible as a result of checks is less than that in respect of which premium applications have been submitted, no premium shall be paid, without prejudice to paragraphs 2, 3 and 4.
2. Where the reduction in the number of animals may be ascribed to natural circumstances affecting the life of the herd, premiums shall be paid in respect of the number of animals actually eligible provided that the recipient has notified the competent authority of the circumstances in writing within 10 days of the event in question.
3. Producers shall continue to qualify for the premium in respect of the number of animals actually eligible where they have been unable to fulfil the undertaking laid down in Article 2 for reasons of force majeure. Producers shall notify the competent authorities of the circumstances within 10 days of the event in question.
4. In cases other than those covered by paragraphs 2 and 3, where the difference between the number of animals actually eligible and the declared number is less than 5 % or one head at most if the number of declared animals is equal to or less than 20 head, premiums shall be paid in respect of the number of eligible animals, less 20 %, provided that, in the opinion of the competent authority, no false declaration submitted deliberately or through serious negligence is involved.
5. Amounts paid unduly shall be recovered, plus interest to be determined by the Member State running from the date of payment of the premium until its recovery.
6. Where paragraph 1 is applied, if the competent authority finds that a false declaration made deliberately or through serious negligence is involved, the producer in question shall not be eligible for the premium for 12 months from the date of such finding.
Article 4
Portugal shall notify the Commission staff within three months of the entry into force of this Regulation of measures taken pursuant to Article 2, including the system of controls introduced.
Article 5
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 July 1992. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 31 July 1992. | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 636/2008
of 3 July 2008
on the issuing of export licences for wine-sector products
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 883/2001 of 24 April 2001, laying down detailed rules for implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 as regards trade with third countries in products in the wine sector (1), and in particular Article 7 and Article 9(3) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
Article 63(7) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine (2), limits the grant of export refunds for wine-sector products to the volumes and expenditure contained in the Agreement on Agriculture concluded during the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations.
(2)
Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2001 lays down the conditions under which the Commission may take specific measures to prevent an overrun of the quantity laid down or the budget available under the said Agreement.
(3)
On the basis of information on export licence applications available to the Commission on 2 July 2008, the quantity still available for the period until 31 July 2008, for destination zones (1) Africa and (3) eastern Europe, referred to in Article 9(5) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2001, could be exceeded unless the issue of export licences with advance fixing of the refund is restricted. Therefore, a single percentage for the acceptance of applications submitted from 1 July 2008 should be applied and the submission of applications and the issue of licences suspended for this zone until 1 August 2008,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
1. Export licences with advance fixing of the refund for wine-sector products for which applications are submitted from 1 July 2008 under Regulation (EC) No 883/2001 shall be issued in concurrence with 13,69 % of the quantities requested for zone (1) Africa and in concurrence with 70,24 % of the quantities requested for zone (3) eastern Europe.
2. The issue of export licences for wine-sector products referred to in paragraph 1 for which applications are submitted from 2 July 2008 and the submission of export licence applications from 4 July 2008 for destination zones (1) Africa and (3) eastern Europe shall be suspended until 1 August 2008.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 4 July 2008.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 3 July 2008. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Decision
of 20 November 2001
concerning a request for exemption submitted by France pursuant to Article 8(2)(c) of Council Directive 70/156/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the type-approval of motor vehicles and their trailers
(notified under document number C(2001) 3650)
(Only the French text is authentic)
(2001/821/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Directive 70/156/EEC of 6 February 1970 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the type-approval of motor vehicles and their trailers(1), as last amended by Directive 2000/40/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council(2), and in particular Article 8(2)(c) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) The request for exemption submitted by France on 7 May 2001, which reached the Commission on 11 May 2001, contains the information required by Article 8(2)(c) of Directive 70/156/EEC. The request concerns the installation of an autonomous cruise control system and/or an electronic stability program system on class M1 vehicles.
(2) The reasons given in the request, according to which such equipment does not meet the requirements of the directives concerned, in particular those of Council Directive 71/320/EEC of 26 July 1971 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the braking devices of certain categories of motor vehicles and of their trailers(3), as last amended by Commission Directive 98/12/EC(4), and those of Council Directive 76/756/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the installation of lighting and light-signalling devices on motor vehicles and their trailers(5), as last amended by Commission Directive 97/28/EC(6), are well founded.
(3) The Community directives concerned should be amended in order to permit the approval and placing on the market of class M1 vehicles fitted with an autonomous cruise control system and an electronic stability program system.
(4) Aspects relating to vehicle safety are covered by compliance with the special requirements to be applied to the safety aspects of complex electronic vehicle control systems of the future Annex 18 to EEC/UNO Regulation No 13.09 on braking.
(5) Consequently, the request for an exemption can be approved.
(6) The measure provided for by this Decision is in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on Adaptation to Technical Progress set up by Directive 70/156/EEC,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
In accordance with Article 8(2)(c) of Directive 70/156/EEC, the request submitted by France for an exemption relating to the approval and placing on the market of M1 class vehicles fitted with an autonomous cruise control system and/or an electronic stability program system, is approved.
Article 2
This Decision is addressed to the Republic of France.
Done at Brussels, 20 November 2001. | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 10/2007
of 9 January 2007
establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 of 21 December 1994 on detailed rules for the application of the import arrangements for fruit and vegetables (1), and in particular Article 4(1) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations, the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products and periods stipulated in the Annex thereto.
(2)
In compliance with the above criteria, the standard import values must be fixed at the levels set out in the Annex to this Regulation,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The standard import values referred to in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 shall be fixed as indicated in the Annex hereto.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 10 January 2007.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 9 January 2007. | [
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 1215/76 of 4 May 1976 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1056/72 on notifying the Commission of investment projects of interest to the Community in the petroleum, natural gas and electricity sectors
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Articles 5 and 213 thereof,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Articles 187 and 192 thereof,
Having regard to the draft 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 Regulation (EEC) No 1056/72 (3) provides that Member States shall communicate to the Commission at the beginning of each year information concerning investment projects relating to the production, transport, storage or distribution of petroleum, natural gas or electric power which are scheduled to start within three years from 1 January of the current year;
Whereas experience has shown that, because of the technical, financial, industrial and social aspects of investment projects in the electricity sector, there is a growing tendency to formulate such projects at least five years before the expected commencement of work;
Whereas it is therefore necessary to ensure that the Commission is notified of investment projects in the electricity sector on which work is expected to commence within five years from 1 January of the current year;
Whereas experience has shown that the Commission was not notified of some investment projects because one or more of their major features was subject to further review;
Whereas Article 2 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1056/72 provides that certain features of investment projects communicated to the Commission shall be indicated;
Whereas experience has shown that in order to assess the significance of an investment project the Commission needs to know what stage decisions on it have reached and its place in national plans;
Whereas experience has shown that the list of investment projects set out in the Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 1056/72 is not sufficiently comprehensive to ensure that the Commission has adequate information for carrying out its task in connection with the Community's common energy policy, particularly in the petroleum refining and electric power generation and transmission sectors;
Whereas, in the case of petroleum refining, investment in desulphurization plants for residues, gas oil and feedstock is of increasing importance in view of the strict quality standards to be adopted within the Community in order to control pollution;
Whereas Council Regulation (EEC) No 1056/72 does not extend to investment in the electricity sector relating to nuclear electricity generating plants; (1)OJ No C 280, 8.12.1975, p. 58. (2)OJ No C 35, 16.2.1976, p. 22. (3)OJ No L 120, 25.5.1972, p. 7.
Whereas Articles 41 and 42 of the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community provide that the Commission must receive notification of any kind of nuclear investment project not later than three months before the first contracts are concluded with the suppliers or three months before the work begins ; whereas this means that notification of projects is given when they are at a very advanced stage and then only at the initiative of and on the date chosen by the person or undertaking making the investment;
Whereas the establishment of a common energy policy is one of the agreed objectives of the Community and the Commission has been instructed to propose measures for the attainment of this objective ; whereas, if the objectives set out in the Council resolution of 17 December 1974 concerning Community energy policy objectives for 1985 (1), the Council resolution of 17 December 1974 on a Community action programme on the rational utilization of energy (2) and the Council resolution of 13 February 1975 concerning measures to be implemented to achieve the Community energy policy objectives adopted by the Council on 17 December 1974 (3) are to be achieved, greater use must be made of the Community's industrial potential, particularly in the nuclear sector;
Whereas in order to assist manufacturing industry in undertaking the investment and adjustments necessary for the supply of heavy plant under the investment programmes relating to electric power supplies, the Commission must be informed of the projects involved in these programmes sufficiently far in advance of their implementation to be able to provide industry with information - the exact form varying according to the degree of final commitment reached with regard to the construction plans - which will enable an accurate assessment to be made of the technical, financial and social risks involved;
Whereas, in the electricity sector, investment projects relating to underground and sub-marine transmission cables, which constitute essential links in national or international interconnecting networks, are of interest to the Community ; whereas the Commission needs information on such projects to enable it to carry out its task in the electricity sector ; whereas provision should be made to ensure that such projects are communicated to the Commission,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The following shall be substituted for Article 1 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1056/72:
"1. Member States shall, before 15 February of each year, communicate to the Commission the information they have obtained on the basis of the provisions of paragraph 2 concerning investment projects listed in the Annex which relate to the production, transport, storage or distribution of petroleum, natural gas or electric power and on which work is scheduled to start within three years, in the case of projects in the petroleum and natural gas sectors, or within five years, in the case of projects in the electricity sector ; the notifications must take account of the latest developments in the situation.
Member States shall add to their notifications any comments they may have."
Article 2
The following paragraph shall be added to Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 1056/72:
"5. The notifications provided for in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall also cover investment projects of which the major features (location, contractor, undertaking, technical features, etc.) may, in whole or in part, be subject to further review or to final authorization by a competent authority."
Article 3
The following shall be added to Article 2 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1056/72 after the fifth indent:
"In the case of investment projects which are at the planning stage, the notifications shall include the following information on the stage reached in the decisions on each project: - whether or not firm decisions have been taken concerning all the major features of the project (location, contractor, undertaking, technical features, etc.),
- what the place of the project is in national plans."
(1)OJ No C 153, 9.7.1975, p. 2. (2)OJ No C 153, 9.7.1975, p. 5. (3)OJ No C 153, 9.7.1975, p. 6.
Article 4
The following shall be added to point 1.1 of the Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 1056/72 after the third indent:
"- desulphurization plants for residual fuel oils/gas oil/feedstock."
Article 5
The following shall be substituted for point 3.1, first indent, of the Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 1056/72:
"- thermal power stations (generators with a unit capacity of 200 MW or more)."
Article 6
The following shall be substituted for point 3.2 of the Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 1056/72:
"3.2 Transport - overhead transmission lines, if they have been designed for a voltage of 345 kV or more;
- underground and sub-marine transmission cables, if they have been designed for a voltage of 100 kV or more and constitute essential links in national or international interconnecting networks."
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 4 May 1976. | [
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1879/94 of 27 July 1994 fixing the amount of aid in respect of silkworms for the 1994/95 rearing year
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 845/72 of 24 April 1972 laying down special measures to encourage silkworm rearing (1), and in particular Article 2 (3) thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission (2),
Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (3),
Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee (4),
Whereas Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 845/72 provides that the amount of aid for silkworms reared within the Community must be fixed each year in such a way as to help ensure a fair income for silkworm rearers, taking into account the state of the market in cocoons and raw silk, of foreseeable trends on that market and of import policy;
Whereas application of the abovementioned criteria entails fixing the amount of aid at the level mentioned below,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
For the 1994/95 rearing year, the amount of aid in respect of silkworms as referred to in Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 845/72 shall be fixed at ECU 110,41 per box of silkworm eggs used.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
It shall apply with effect from 1 April 1994.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 27 July 1994. | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 737/94 of 30 March 1994 on the sale of beef at prices fixed at a flat rate in advance held by certain intervention agencies and intended for supplying the Canary Islands and repealing Regulation (EC) No 384/94
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 of 27 June 1968 on the common organization of the market in beef and veal (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 3611/93 (2), and in particular Article 7 (3) thereof,
Whereas certain intervention agencies hold substantial stocks of beef bought into intervention; whereas an extension of the storage period for that beef should be avoided on account of the ensuing high costs;
Whereas Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1912/92 of 10 July 1992 laying down detailed implementing rules for the specific measures for supplying the Canary Islands with products from the beef and veal sector (3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 577/94 (4), lays down the forecast supply balance for frozen meat of bovine animals for the period 1 July 1993 to 30 June 1994; whereas, in the light of traditional trade patterns, it is appropriate to release intervention beef for the purpose of supplying the Canary Islands during that period;
Whereas Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1695/92 of 30 June 1992 laying down common detailed rules for implementation of the specific arrangements for the supply of certain agricultural products to the Canary Islands (5), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 2596/93 (6), provides for the use of aid certificates delivered by the competent Spanish authorities for supplies from the Community; whereas the potential purchaser should be obliged to submit an aid certificate to the intervention agency at the same time as the application to purchase from intervention; whereas, in order to improve the operation of the abovementioned arrangements, certain derogations from Regulation (EEC) No 1912/92 should be provided for, in particular, with regard to the payment of aid and the security for aid certificates; whereas the support arrangements for the supply of the Canary Islands from intervention stocks provided for in Article 3 (2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1601/92 (7), as last amended by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1974/93 (8), should be simplified by including the aid in the sale prices set in this Regulation;
Whereas for the purpose of purchase and control procedures, it is appropriate to apply certain provisions of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2173/79 of 4 October 1979 on detailed rules of application for the disposal of beef bought in by intervention agencies and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 216/69 (9), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1759/93 (10), and Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3002/92 of 16 October 1992 laying down common detailed rules for verifying the use and/or destination of products from intervention (11), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1938/93 (12);
Whereas it is necessary to provide for the lodging of a security to guarantee that the beef arrives at the intended destination;
Whereas Commission Regulation (EC) No 384/94 (13) should be repealed;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Beef and Veal,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
1. A sale shall be organized of approximately:
(a) - 1 706 tonnes of boneless beef held by the Irish intervention agency,
- 2 000 tonnes of boneless beef held by the United Kingdom intervention agency,
- 1 000 tonnes of boneless beef held by the Danish intervention agency,
- 500 tonnes of boneless beef held by the French intervention agency.
(b) - 500 tonnes of bone-in beef hindquarters held by the French intervention agency and bought in under Article 6 of Regulation (EEC) No 805/68,
(c) - 151 tonnes of bone-in hindquarters held by the Danish intervention agency and bought in under Article 6a (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 805/68.
2. This meat shall be sold for delivery to the Canary Islands.
3. The qualities and selling prices of the products are given in Annex I hereto.
Article 2
1. Subject to the provisions of this Regulation, the sale shall take place in accordance with the provisions of Regulation (EEC) No 2173/79, and in particular, Articles 2 to 5 thereof, and in accordance with the provisions of Regulation (EEC) No 3002/92.
2. The intervention agencies shall sell those products which have been in storage longest first.
Particulars of the quantities and places where the products are stored shall be made available to interested parties at the addresses given in Annex II.
Article 3
1. A purchase application shall only be valid when accompanied by an aid certificate covering at least the quantity concerned and issued pursuant to Regulations (EEC) No 1695/92 and (EEC) No 1912/92.
2. Notwithstanding Article 4 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1695/92, aid shall not be paid for intervention beef sold pursuant to this Regulation.
3. Notwithstanding Article 4 (4) (b) of Regulation (EEC) No 1695/92, in box 24 of the aid certificate application and of the aid certificate shall be entered: 'Aid certificate for use in the Canary Islands - no aid to be paid.'
4. Notwithstanding Article 6 (1) (b) of Regulation (EEC) No 1912/92, the security laid down for aid certificates shall be ECU 2 per 100 kilograms.
Article 4
Notwithstanding the second subparagraph of Article 2 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2173/79, purchase applications shall not indicate the store or stores where the meat applied for is being kept.
Article 5
1. Notwithstanding Article 15 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2173/79, the security shall be ECU 100 per tonne.
2. A security of ECU 2 500 per tonne of bone-in beef and of ECU 3 000 per tonne of boneless beef to guarantee delivery to the Canary Islands shall be lodged by the purchaser before taking over the meat concerned. The guarantee for fillets, however, shall be ECU 7 000 per tonne.
Delivery of the products concerned to the Canary Islands shall be a primary requirement within the meaning of Article 20 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2220/85 (14).
Article 6
In the removal order referred to in Article 3 (1) (b) of Regulation (EC) No 3002/92 and the T 5 control copy shall be entered:
« Carne de intervención destinada a las islas Canarias - Sin ayuda [Reglamento (CE) no 737/94] »;
»Interventionskoed til De Kanariske OEer - uden stoette (Forordning (EF) nr. 737/94]«;
"Interventionsfleisch fuer die Kanarischen Inseln - ohne Beihilfe (Verordnung (EG) Nr. 737/94]";
«Kreas apo tin paremvasi gia tis Kanarioys Nisoys - choris enischyseis [Kanonismos (EK) arith. 737/94]»;
'Intervention meat for the Canary Islands - without the payment of aid [Regulation (EC) No 737/94]';
« Viandes d'intervention destinées aux îles Canaries - Sans aide [règlement (CE) no 737/94] »;
« Carni in regime d'intervento destinate alle isole Canarie - senza aiuto [Regolamento (CE) n. 737/94] »;
"Interventievlees voor de Canarische eilanden - zonder steun (Verordening (EG) nr. 737/94)";
« Carne de intervençao destinada às ilhas Canárias - sem ajuda [Regulamento (CE) nº 737/94] ».
Article 7
Regulation (EC) No 384/94 is hereby repealed.
Article 8
This Regulation shall enter into force on 6 April 1994.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 30 March 1994. | [
0,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1495/2000
of 10 July 2000
establishing the quantities to be allocated to importers from the Community quantitative quotas redistributed by Regulation (EC) No 849/2000
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 519/94 of 7 March 1994 on common rules for imports from certain third countries and repealing Regulations (EEC) Nos 1765/82, 1766/82 and 3420/83(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1138/98(2),
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 520/94 of 7 March 1994 establishing a Community procedure for administering quantitative quotas(3), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 138/96(4) and in particular Articles 9 and 13 thereof,
Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 849/2000 of 27 April 2000 redistributing the unused portions of the 1999 quantitative quotas for certain products originating in the People's Republic of China(5), and in particular Article 6 thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Regulation (EC) No 849/2000 established the portion of each of the quotas concerned reserved for traditional and other importers and the conditions and methods for participating in the allocation of the quantities available. Importers lodged applications for import licences with the competent national authorities between 3 and 26 May 2000, at 3 p.m., Brussels time, in accordance with Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 849/2000.
(2) The Commission has received from the Member States under Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 849/2000 particulars of the numbers and aggregate volume of import licence applications submitted and the total volume imported by traditional importers in 1997 or 1998, the reference year.
(3) The Commission is now able, on the basis of that information, to establish uniform quantitative criteria by which the competent national authorities may satisfy licence applications submitted by importers in the Member States for the quantitative quotas redistributed by Regulation (EC) No 849/2000;
(4) Examination of the figures supplied by Member States shows that the aggregate volume of the applications submitted by traditional importers for the products listed in Annex I to this Regulation exceeds the portion of the quota set aside for them. The applications must therefore be met by applying the uniform rate of reduction/increase shown in Annex I to the imports, expressed in volume terms, of each importer over the reference period.
(5) Examination of the figures supplied by Member States shows that the aggregate volume of applications submitted by non-traditional importers for the products listed in Annex II to this Regulation exceeds the portion of the quota set aside for them. The applications must therefore be met by applying the uniform rate of reduction shown in Annex II to the amounts requested by each importer, as limited by Regulation (EC) No 849/2000,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
In response to licence applications in respect of the products listed in Annex I duly submitted by traditional importers, the competent national authorities shall allocate each importer a quantity equal to its imports for 1997 or 1998, adjusted by the rate of reduction/increase specified in the said Annex for each quota.
Where the use of this quantitative criterion would entail allocating an amount greater than that applied for, the quantity allocated shall be limited to that specified in the application.
Article 2
In response to licence applications in respect of the products listed in Annex II duly submitted by non-traditional importers, the competent national authorities shall allocate each importer a quantity equal to the amount requested within the limits set by Regulation (EC) No 849/2000 adjusted by the rate of reduction specified in the said Annex for each quota.
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, 10 July 2000. | [
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1446/1999
of 24 June 1999
amending Regulation (EC) No 858/94 introducing a system for the statistical monitoring of trade in bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) within the Community
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 37 thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission(1),
Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament(2),
Whereas
(1) in the context of measures to regulate stocks of bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) adopted by the International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, hereinafter called the "ICCAT", to which the Community is a party, a system for the statistical monitoring of catches and imports of bluefin tuna has been implemented by the contracting parties; to that end, the necessary measures were adopted in Regulation (EC) No 858/94(3);
(2) to facilitate management of this system by the Community and its Member States, at its tenth extraordinary meeting, held in San Sebastian in November 1996, the ICCAT adopted a recommendation enabling Member States to authenticate the statistical documents relating to catches of bluefin tuna made by vessels flying the flag of another Member State;
(3) to supplement the arrangements for managing stocks of bluefin tuna, at its 15th ordinary meeting, held in Madrid from 14 to 21 November 1997, the ICCAT adopted a recommendation extending the statistical monitoring system to re-exports of bluefin tuna; to this end, the rules governing the various types of commercial operations including one or more re-exports to or from the customs territory of the Community must be established, and a model re-export licence provided to this end;
(4) implementation of these measures by the Community requires Regulation (EC) No 858/94 to be amended; at the same time the list of third countries in point 2 of Annex II to that Regulation should be updated,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Regulation (EC) No 858/94 is amended as follows:
(1) the following indent shall be added to Article 1: "- re-exports to third countries of bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) falling within CN codes ex 0302 39, ex 0303 49, ex 0304 20 45, ex 1604 14 16 and ex 1604 14 18."
(2) the following Article shall be inserted after Article 2: "Article 2a
1. All quantities of bluefin tuna caught by a vessel flying the flag of a Member State and exported to a third country shall be accompanied by the statistical document in Annex I.
2. Statistical documents drawn up pursuant to paragraph 1 may be authenticated by the competent authorities of the Member States whose flag the vessels flies or by those of a different Member State where the products concerned are landed, provided the corresponding quantities of bluefin tuna are exported outside the Community from the territory of the Member State of landing.
3. Without prejudice to Article 5(1), Member States which authenticate statistical documents pursuant to paragraph 1 shall inform the Member State whose flag the vessels flies by forwarding to them a copy of the documents they have authenticated within two months of the date of authentication.
4. Once this Regulation enters into force, each Member State shall communicate to the Commission the information on its competent authorities referred to in paragraph 2; the Commission shall forward this information to the other Member States."
(3) the following paragraph shall be added to Article 3: "4. All quantities of bluefin tuna imported into the Community market after having been re-exported by a third country must be accompanied by a re-export licence in accordance with Annex III.
The re-export licence must have been completed, signed and authenticated in accordance with the procedures laid down in paragraph 2 for the statistical document; it shall then be supplied to the competent authorities of the Member State where the product is imported."
(4) the following Article shall be inserted after Article 3: "Article 3a
1. All quantities of bluefin tuna re-exported to a third country after having been imported into the Community must be accompanied by a re-export licence in accordance with Annex III.
2. The sections of the re-export licence which concern them shall be completed and signed by the relevant traders, who shall be responsible for the statements made. Re-export licences must be accompanied by a duly authenticated copy of the original statistical document as referred to in Article 3.
3. Re-export licences shall be authenticated by the competent authorities of the Member State from which the re-export is to take place.
4. Re-exports of bluefin tuna which have already been re-exported shall require a new re-export licence to be drawn up and authenticated; in such cases, the duly authenticated copies of the statistical documents and the original re-export licences accompanying the product must be attached to the new licence."
(5) the following indent shall be added to Article 5(1): "- the quantities of each commercial presentation of bluefin tuna entered each half-year for free circulation in its territory after having been re-exported from a third country, broken down by country of origin."
(6) point 2 of Annex II shall be replaced by the text appearing in Annex I to this Regulation;
(7) Annex III appearing in Annex II to this Regulation shall be added.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Luxembourg, 24 June 1999. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
*****
COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 1637/87
of 9 June 1987
opening, allocating and providing for the administration of a Community tariff quota for certain wines having a registered designation of origin, falling within subheading ex 22.05 C of the Common Customs Tariff and originating in Morocco (1987/1988)
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 Article 21 of the Cooperation Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Morocco (1) stipulates that certain wines having a registered designation of origin, falling within subheading ex 22.05 C of the Common Customs Tariff and originating in Morocco, specified in the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters of 12 March 1977 (2), shall be imported into the Community free of customs duties within the limits of an annual Community tariff quota of 50 000 hectolitres; whereas these wines must be put up in containers holding two litres or less; whereas the tariff quota in question should therefore be opened for the period 1 July 1987 to 30 June 1988;
Whereas, pursuant to Article 1 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 449/86 of 24 February 1986 determining the arrangements to be applied by the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic to trade with certain third countries (3), the provisions applicable by the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic to trade with Morocco are subject to the tariff treatment and other trade rules applied to third countries enjoying most-favoured-nation treatment; whereas, therefore, this Regulation applies only to the Community as constituted on 31 December 1985;
Whereas the wines in question are subject to compliance with the free-at-frontier price; whereas the wines in question may benefit from this tariff quota on condition that Article 18 of Regulation (EEC) No 337/79 (4), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3805/85 (5), is complied with;
Whereas it is in particular necessary to ensure equal and uninterrupted access for all Community importers to the abovementioned quota, and uninterrupted application of the rates laid down for this quota to all imports of the products concerned into the Member States until the quota has been used up; whereas, having regard to the above principles, the Community nature of the quota can be respected by allocating the Community tariff quota among the Member States; whereas, in order to reflect most accurately the actual development of the market in the products in question, such allocation should be in proportion to the requirements of the Member States, assessed by reference to both the statistics relating to imports of the said products from Morocco over a representative reference period and the economic outlook for the quota period concerned;
Whereas in this case, however, neither Community nor national statistics showing the breakdown for each of the types of wines in question are available and no reliable estimates of future imports can be made; whereas, in these circumstances, the quota volume should be allocated in initial shares, taking into account demand for these wines on the markets of the various Member States;
Whereas, to take account of import trends for the products concerned in the various Member States, the quota amount should be divided into two instalments, the first being allocated among the Member States and the second held as a reserve intended to cover at a later date the requirements of Member States who have used up their initial share; whereas in order to guarantee some degree of security to importers in each Member State, the first instalment of the Community quota should be fixed at a level which could, in the present circumstances, be 30 % of the quota volume;
Whereas the initial shares of the Member States may be used up at different rates; whereas, in order to take this into account and to avoid a break in continuity, any Member State which has used up almost all of its initial share should draw an additional share from the reserve; whereas this should be done by each Member State each time one of its additional shares is almost used up, and so on as many times as the reserve allows; whereas the initial and additional shares must be valid until the end of the quota period; whereas this form of administration requires close collaboration between the Member States and the Commission, and the Commission must be in a position to follow the extent to which the quota volume has been used up and inform the Member States thereof;
Whereas, if at a given date in the quota period a substantial quantity of its initial share remains unused in any Member State, it is essential that it should return a significant proportion thereof to the reserve, to prevent part of the Community quota remaining unused in one Member State when it could be used in others;
Whereas, since the Kingdom of Belgium, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg are united within and jointly represented by the Benelux Economic Union, all transactions concerning the administration of the shares allocated to that economic union may be carried out by any one of its members,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
1. From 1 July 1987 to 30 June 1988 the customs duty applicable on import into the Community as constituted on 31 December 1985 of the following products shall be suspended at the level and within the limits of a Community tariff quota as follows:
1.2.3.4.5 // // // // // // Order No // CCT heading No // Description // Amount of tariff quota (hectolitres) // Rate of duty (%) // // // // // // 09.1107 // 22.05 // Wine of fresh grapes; grape must with fermentation arrested by the addition of alcohol: // // // // // C. Other: // // // // // - Wines entitled to one of the following designations of origin: // // // // // Berkane, Sais, Beni M'Tir, Guerrouane, Zemmour, Zennata of an actual alcoholic strength, not exceeding 15 % vol, in containers holding two litres or less, originating in Morocco // 50 000 hectolitres // free // // // // //
2. The wines in question shall be subject to compliance with the free-at-frontier reference price.
The wines in question shall benefit from this tariff quota on condition that Article 18 of Regulation (EEC) No 337/79 is complied with.
3. Each of these wines, when imported, shall be accompanied by a certificate of designation of origin, issued by the relevant Moroccan authority, in accordance with the model annexed to this Regulation.
Article 2
1. The tariff quota laid in Article 1 shall be divided into two instalments.
2. A first instalment of the quota shall be allocated among the Member States; the shares which, subject to Article 5, shall be valid up to 30 June 1988, shall be as follows:
1.2 // // (hectolitres) // Benelux // 2 400 // Denmark // 1 410 // Germany // 3 000 // Greece // 570 // France // 2 790 // Ireland // 1 020 // Italy // 1 410 // United Kingdom // 2 400
3. The second instalment of the quota, amounting to 35 000 hectolitres, shall constitute the reserve.
Article 3
1. If 90 % or more of a Member State's initial share, as specified in Article 2 (2), or of that share less the portion returned to the reserve where Article 5 has been applied, has been used up, that Member State shall, without delay, by notifying the Commission, draw a second share equal to 15 % of its initial share, rounded up were necessary to the next whole number, in so far as the amount in the reserve allows.
2. If, after its initial share has been used up, 90 % or more of the second share drawn by a Member State has been used up, that Member State shall, in accordance with the conditions laid down in paragraph 1, draw a third share equal to 7,5 % of its initial share.
3. If, after its second share has been used up, 90 % or more of the third share drawn by a Member State has been used up, that Member State shall, in accordance with the conditions laid down in paragraph 1, draw a fourth share equal to the third.
This process shall continue to apply until the reserve is used up.
4. Notwithstanding paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, Member States may draw smaller shares than those fixed in these paragraphs if there is reason to believe that those fixed might not be used up. They shall inform the Commission of their grounds for applying this paragraph. Article 4
The additional share drawn pursuant to Article 3 shall be valid until 30 June 1988.
Article 5
Member States shall return to the reserve, not later than 1 April 1988, such unused portion of their initial share which, on 15 March 1988, is in excess of 20 % of the initial amount. They may return a greater quantity if there are grounds for believing that this quantity might not be used in full.
Member States shall notify the Commission, not later than 1 April 1988, of the total imports of the products concerned effected under the Community quotas up to and including 15 March 1988, and, where appropriate, the proportion of their initial share that they are returning to the reserve.
Article 6
The Commission shall keep an account of the shares opened by Member States pursuant to Articles 2 and 3 and, as soon as it has been notified, shall inform each Member State of the extent to which the reserve has been used up.
It shall notify the Member States, not later than 5 April 1988, of the state of the reserve after quantities have been returned thereto pursuant to Article 5.
It shall ensure that the drawing which uses up the reserve is limited to the balance available and, to this end, shall specify the amount thereof to the Member State making the final drawing.
Article 7
1. Member States shall take all measures necessary to ensure that additional shares drawn pursuant to Article 3 are opened in such a way that imports may be charged without interruption against their aggregate shares in the Community quota.
2. Member States shall ensure that importers of the products concerned have free access to the shares allocated to them.
3. The Member States shall charge the imports of the products concerned against their share as and when the products are entered with customs authorities for free circulation.
4. The extent to which a Member State has used up its shares shall be determined on the basis of the imports charged in accordance with paragraph 3.
Article 8
At the request of the Commission, Member States shall inform it of imports actually charged against their shares.
Article 9
The Member States and the Commission shall collaborate closely in order to ensure that this Regulation is obeserved.
Article 10
This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 July 1987.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Luxembourg, 9 June 1987. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Decision
of 3 February 2004
on the implementation of the Preparatory Action on the Enhancement of the European industrial potential in the field of security research
(2004/213/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Commission Decision 2003/113 final of 11 March 2003 adopting a Communication "European Defence - Industrial and Market Issues - Towards an EU Defence Equipment Policy"(1), and in particular Item 5,
Having regard to Article 157, point 1, fourth indent of the Treaty (fostering better exploitation of the industrial potential of policies of innovation, research and technological development),
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
The Commission is launching a Preparatory Action on the Enhancement of the European industrial potential in the field of security research (2004-2006) as referred to in the Commission Communication on "Implementation of the Preparatory Action on the Enhancement of the European industrial potential in the field of security research: Towards a programme to advance European security through Research and Technology".
The Activities and Programme of Work for the Preparatory Action are part of the Communication (Section II) and form the basis for subsequent calls for proposals and calls for tenders.
Article 2
Details for the Implementation of this Preparatory Action are set out in the Annex.
The budget line for this activity is 08 14 01.
Done at Brussels, 3 February 2004. | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0
] |
COUNCIL DECISION of 6 December 1994 concerning the continuance of the Handynet system in the framework of the activities undertaken to date on the first technical aids module (94/782/EC)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European 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 principal objective of Council Decision 93/136/EEC of 25 February 1993 establishing a third Community action programme to assist disabled people (Helios II 1993 to 1996) (4) is to promote equal opportunities for, and the integration of, disabled people; whereas one of the general objectives is to meet the information needs of disabled people by means of the Handynet computerized information and documentation system based on data collected at national level and updated and adapted at European level;
Whereas, under the Helios II programme, the Commission, in accordance with Decision 93/136/EEC, has collected, adapted at European level, updated, exchanged and disseminated information on technical aids collected in the Member States;
Whereas, in accordance with Article 4 (1) (b) of Decision 93/136/EEC, the Council is to re-examine the Handynet system, before 31 December 1994, on the basis of a Commission report evaluating, inter alia, the first module on technical aids of this system and, acting on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament, is to decide on the conditions for continuing the system after that date;
Whereas the Commission has presented a report on the application of the Handynet system; whereas the system should be continued in the framework of the activities undertaken to date on the first technical aids module;
Whereas the Treaty does not provide, for the adoption of this Decision, powers other than those of Article 235,
HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Article 1
The Handynet computerized information and documentation system of the Helios II programme shall be continued from 1 January 1995 to 31 December 1996 in the framework of the activities undertaken to date on the first technical aids module.
Article 2
This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
Done at Brussels, 6 December 1994. | [
1,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION
of 26 September 2006
concerning the State aid granted by the Netherlands to Holland Malt BV
(notified under document number C(2006) 4196)
(Only the Dutch text is authentic)
(2007/59/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 called on interested parties to submit their comments (1) pursuant to the provision(s) cited above and having regard to their comments,
Whereas:
I. PROCEDURE
(1)
The measure was notified in accordance with Article 88 (3) of the EC Treaty by letter of 31 March 2004, registered on 6 April 2004.
(2)
By letters of 1 June 2004, 12 August 2004 and 16 February 2005, the Commission asked the Netherlands for further information. By letters dated 5 July 2004, 17 December 2004 and 15 March 2005, registered as received on 7 July 2004, 3 January 2005 and 23 March 2005 respectively, the Netherlands replied to the Commission's requests.
(3)
By letter dated 5 May 2005, the Commission informed the Netherlands of its decision to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the Treaty concerning this aid measure.
(4)
The Commission decision to initiate the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Communities (2). The Commission requested the interested parties to submit their comments on the aid measure in question.
(5)
By letter dated 10 June 2005 the Netherlands submitted a series of comments.
(6)
The Commission received comments from interested parties. It forwarded them to the Netherlands, which was given the opportunity to react; the Netherlands' comments were received by the Commission by letter dated 14 October 2005.
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE AID MEASURE
(7)
The Netherlands has decided to grant a subsidy to Holland Malt BV under a regional investment scheme ‘Regionale investeringsprojecten 2000’ (hereinafter called the IPR scheme). The regional investment scheme was approved by the Commission in 2000 (3); on 18 February 2002 an amendment to the scheme was also approved (4), whereby the IPR scheme was applied to the sectors processing and selling agricultural products listed in Annex I to the Treaty.
(8)
The present case concerns a subsidy for an investment project of Holland Malt BV. Holland Malt BV, hereinafter referred to as ‘Holland Malt’, is a joint venture between the brewery Bavaria NV and Agrifirm, a cooperative association of cereal producers in North Netherlands and Germany. The subsidy is for building a malting plant in Eemshaven, in the municipality of Eemsmond. As a result of the investment, the various stages (storage and processing of malting barley and the production of and trade in malt) will be integrated in one chain.
(9)
The Netherlands Ministry of Economic Affairs has decided to subsidize 13,5 % gross (10 % net) of the eligible investments of EUR 55 million, with a maximum of EUR 7 425 000. Because it concerns a subsidy for an investment project by an undertaking in the sector processing and marketing agricultural products mentioned in Annex I of the Treaty, and the eligible costs of the project are over EUR 25 million, the aid must be specifically notified to the Commission under point 4.2.6 of the Community guidelines for state aid in the agriculture sector (5) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the guidelines’).
(10)
The decision by Holland Malt to invest was taken after the Dutch government had committed itself to granting a subsidy by letter dated 23 December 2003. The commitment was entered into subject to approval of the aid by the European Commission. The building activities of Holland Malt in Eemshaven started in February 2004. The plant became operational in April 2005.
(11)
In initiating the procedure under Article 88(2) of the Treaty, the Commission had regard to the following:
(12)
Having established that the measure at this stage would appear to be state aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty, the Commission investigated whether there were any derogations which meant that the measure could be considered compatible with the common market.
(13)
In view of the measure's characteristics, the only possible derogation is that in Article 87(3)(c) of the Treaty, under which aid to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas, where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest, may be considered compatible with the common market.
(14)
As the aid was linked to an investment in the processing and marketing of agricultural products, the Commission had to verify whether all requirements of point 4.2 of the guidelines were fulfilled. The Commission doubted the applicability of Article 87(3)(c) of the Treaty, for the following reasons:
(15)
Point 4.2.5 of the guidelines states that no aid may be granted for investments in connection with the processing and marketing of agricultural products unless sufficient evidence can be produced that normal market outlets for the products concerned can be found. On the basis of the information available to the Commission at the time of the opening of the procedure, it could not be excluded that the malt market showed overcapacity.
(16)
Holland Malt argued that it provided ‘premium malt’ of high quality for the production of ‘premium beer’ and that the market for this kind of malt and beer was still growing. However, at the time of the opening of the procedure, it was not clear whether ‘premium malt’ and ‘premium beer’ were not simply marketing concepts and therefore did not correspond to a specific separate product market for which overcapacity could be excluded.
III. COMMENTS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES
(17)
The Commission received comments from
-
the Finnish Maltsters' Association
-
the Maltsters's Association of Great Britain
-
the German Maltsters' association
-
the French Maltsters' Association
-
the Danish Maltsters' Association
-
an interested party which on grounds of potential damage requested that its identity be withheld
-
the Dutch Agriculture and Horticulture Organisation (LTO Nederland)
-
Agrifirm
-
Holland Malt
-
the Dutch province of Groningen.
(18)
The Finnish Maltsters' Association opposes the Netherlands' intention to grant a subsidy to Holland Malt B.V, saying that state subsidies for malting plant investments will have an anti-competitive impact. It mentions that the overcapacity in the malting industry in the Community is about one million tonnes, which would necessitate a closure of 10 % of the capacity during the coming years. As for Holland Malt's claim that it provides ‘premium malt’ for the production of ‘premium beer’, the Finnish Maltsters' Association mentions that existing malting houses in the Community can already serve the market with a wide range of malts including high quality ‘premium malt’.
(19)
The Maltsters Association of Great Britain strongly believes that any state aid for malting must by expressly prohibited. It refers to a letter of 2004 from Euromalt, the European association representing the malting industry, to the Commission, in which the association expresses its concern that no new malting capacity should receive state funding due to the existing overcapacity of malt production in both the Community and the world market (6). According to the association, the Member States have a malting capacity of 8,8 million tonnes, with demand at about 5,9 million tonnes. This leaves a potential Community export surplus of 2,9 million tonnes to serve a global market in which 4,3 million tonnes are traded annually. Community malt export licences were issued in the 2003/2004 marketing year for a total of 2,48 million tonnes. In the marketing year ending June 2005, this fell to 2,22 million tonnes, reflecting the difficult market situation and limited market opportunities for Community maltsters. The Maltsters' Association of Great Britain estimates that the surplus of malt in the Community is 500 000 tonnes, which is expected to grow to nearly one million tonnes due to a combination of new capacity still to come on stream and reduced export demand from Russia and Eastern Europe as those areas have become virtually self-sufficient. According to the Maltsters' Association of Great Britain, the effect of this overcapacity has been that, in the current market for malt, prices have fallen to a level where variable costs are no longer covered. The Maltsters Association of Great Britain furthermore contests the notion that the new Dutch capacity has been built to produce premium malt for premium markets. There has been significant consolidation in the brewing industry and the majority of maltsters' customers want only high-quality malt that meets their exacting (and often global) specifications and satisfies all food safety requirements. To divide the malt market into premium and non-premium sectors defies reality, according to the Maltsters Association of Great Britain.
(20)
The German Maltsters' Association is very concerned about the intention of the Netherlands to grant an investment subsidy for the establishment of a production plant for malt in the province of Groningen. According to the German Maltsters' Association, exports from the Community to traditional sales areas such as the Mercosur countries and Russia/Ukraine will decline markedly due to the development of an own malting industry and protection against imports. In addition, overseas competitors such as Canada and Australia are doing extremely well because of their proximity to the still growing beer markets of the Far East and South-East Asia and because of their governments' liberal trade policies. Simultaneously, malt sales in the internal market are stagnating, leading to an EU overcapacity in the Community of around one million tonnes. The German Maltsters' association considers that the promotion of local malting barley production is not a proper argument. It points out that the entire Dutch production of malting barley is already bought by the malting industry and that the new production plant in Groningen will depend on barley imports.
(21)
The French Maltsters' Association is against any state aid for new malting factories in the Community. It refers to the same letter from Euromalt as the Maltsters' Association of Great Britain and mentions the same production, import and export figures for malt. It also states that malt is currently being traded at prices at which variable costs are not covered. According to the French Maltsters' Association, justifying the state aid for the Dutch investment by referring to a separate market for high-quality malt is not correct, since the majority of brewers ask for such high quality malt. Finally the French Maltsters' Association is of the opinion that the Community malting industry would actually have to close obsolete malting plants to improve market conditions.
(22)
The Danish Maltsters' Association objects to the planned subsidy for Holland Malt. According to the Association, the malting industry worldwide is based on free market conditions. It is characterised by private ownership, its development being driven by private investments made by companies in the malting sector. A subsidy of EUR 7,4 million out of a total investment of EUR 55 million would distort competition and give an unjustified comparative advantage for the company receiving such a subsidy, especially in the first years after commissioning. The Danish Maltsters' Association furthermore objects to the argument whereby ‘premium malt’ is distinguished from ‘normal malt’. Malt is a generic product, with slight variations, but subject to quality standards imposed by the brewing industry. Lastly, the Danish Maltsters' Association does not see any local or regional reasons to subsidise the investment in the Eemsmond region, which is, in its view, a normal developed region in the Netherlands with an infrastructure that is closely associated with the barley and malt supply chain.
(23)
The interested party which on grounds of potential damage requested that its identity be withheld objects to the subsidy for the following reasons. It considers a distinction between premium and normal malt artificial, does not see any local or regional reasons to subsidise the investment and considers that the subsidy would distort competition on the malt market, which is characterised by private ownership and private investments.
(24)
The Dutch Agriculture and Horticulture Organisation (LTO Nederland) is of the opinion that the Holland Malt malting plant in Eemshaven is of great importance for arable farming in that region. The location of the factory at a port and the production process aimed at the high-quality segment of the malt and beer market offer considerable socio-economic prospects for arable farming in the north-east Netherlands. It will stimulate the cultivation of cereals that can be used in this production process. The barley of the arable farmers forms part of a fully registered and certified integrated chain, leading to an end product of high-quality beer. The two most important crops being grown in this region are starch potatoes and sugar beet. However, efficiency improvements and reform of Community policy have meant that the area under these crops has become smaller. Barley for the malting factory would offer one of the few lucrative alternatives to growing these crops. For these reasons, arable farmers have promised a financial stake in Holland Malt.
(25)
Agrifirm fully supports the granting of a subsidy to Holland Malt. It is cooperating with the brewery Bavaria in the Holland Malt joint venture, which provides an integrated chain with regard to the cultivation, storage and processing of malting barley. According to Agrifirm, the Holland Malt production and storage facility provides unique opportunities. The cultivation of malting barley will offer better prospects for farmers in the region. By focusing on the production of malting barley that meets the needs for premium malt, farmers in the region can profit from the growth prospects afforded by the market for premium beer. Building the plant in Eemshaven will, given the logistic advantages, create new industrial activity in North Netherlands. The decision of the Dutch government to grant a subsidy provides a basis for feasible exploitation in the first critical years of the project.
(26)
According to Holland Malt, it is possible to argue that there is a separate market for premium beer and premium malt. In the premium malt market, outlets for Holland Malt's HTST (‘high temperature, short time’) malt can easily be found. HTST malt increases stability of taste, flavour and sparkle and therefore the shelf life of beer. Holland Malt refers to a letter from the University of Weihenstephan, Munich, which confirms that the patented technology leads to a type of malt that can clearly be distinguished from regular malt (7). In addition, a premium beer brewer, in an annex to the letter from Holland Malt, also recognises the unique features of HTST malt. HTST malt will, moreover, be priced in a higher price range than regular malt produced by other malt houses. As a result of its unique physical characteristics, its perceivable quality and its higher price range, it is very likely according to Holland Malt, that there will be no or limited substitutability between HTST malt and regular malt. HTST malt is expected to create a demand and a market of its own. According to Holland Malt, it cannot simply be assumed therefore that its investment will result in a capacity increase of 55 000 tonnes on the market for regular malt.
(27)
Holland Malt also notes that, despite the overcapacity in the global market, the investment in Holland Malt will not necessarily lead to more capacity. Holland Malt, being located at a deep sea port, will find normal outlets in the market for export malt. While the growth prospects of the inland European malting industry may deteriorate on account of falling demand for malt in Western Europe, the export trade in malt offers substantial growth prospects. According to Holland Malt, this is confirmed by three reports from 2005 (8). These show that emerging markets in Asia, Latin America, Africa and Eastern Europe place the highest requirements on malt and that the European malt industry has a competitive advantage because of the high quality of its malt. Holland Malt notes that it has no difficulties in finding normal outlets for its malt and refers to the fact that its order books were full for 2005, while for the second year in a row it would sell more malt than it produced. It also notes that its closed capacity at Wageningen and Lieshout was catering for the declining malt market in Western Europe, whereas the new capacity at Eemshaven will be targeted at a growing export market. As a result, the net increase in capacity on the malt market will be smaller than is stated in the Commission's letter of 5 May 2005. Holland Malt contends that the investment in the facility at Eemshaven will affect trade with third countries rather than trade between Member States, as the export of malt is a separate market segment from that in which inland malt suppliers operate. Holland Malt emphasises that the situation on the world malt market did not prevent the Commission from authorising investment aid for a malting plant in Lithuania.
(28)
Holland Malt states that the investment will have a positive impact on the rural development of the North Netherlands region and Germany. It will create an alternative form of crop-growing for a large number of arable farmers (about 1 800). Farmers will grow high quality malting barley for a growing market that, unlike feed barley, will not end up in the Community intervention scheme. In addition, the cultivation of malting barley is less harmful for the environment than that of feed barley. Holland Malt notes that its integrated malt production and barley storage facility makes a definite contribution to food safety.
(29)
The province of Groningen supports the state aid for the Holland Malt investment. It refers to the positive effect on employment in the region. It also underlines the innovative technology used in the project and the boost it will give to the development of Eemshaven, inter alia through the creation of an agri-business park. The province also mentions the stimulus it will provide to farmers facing difficulties in traditional, locally grown crops like starch potatoes. Changing to the cultivation of malting barley will give them better prospects.
IV. COMMENTS FROM THE NETHERLANDS
(30)
The Netherlands responded to the opening of the procedure by letter of 10 June 2005. It reacted to the comments from third parties by letter of 14 October 2005, having requested an extension of the period for replying.
(31)
In the first letter, the Netherlands states that although the growth prospects for the inland European malting industry may deteriorate given the decreasing demand for malt in Western Europe, the export trade in malt offers substantial growth prospects. Holland Malt can profit from its location at a deep sea port. In this sense it is fair to talk of a divided malt market. The investment in Holland Malt will not affect the already shrinking market of local, inland malt houses in Western Europe. The Netherlands states that the quantity of malt for which export certificates were issued in the Community in 2004/05 was the same as in 2003/04 and requests the Commission to take account of the most recent data on export certificates. Furthermore, the Netherlands considers that a special market segment exists for the high-quality malt of Holland Malt. Reference is made to the letter from the University of Weihenstephan confirming the distinctive characteristics of HTST malt.
(32)
In its response to the comments from third parties, the Netherlands affirms that in the coming years the world market for malt will grow. Reference is made to a seminar on malting barley on 4-5 October 2005, at which the International Grains Council (9) forecast that global malting capacity will have risen by 10 % in 2010. At this seminar, Rabobank announced that global beer consumption was growing by 2 % a year, mainly caused by increasing beer consumption in emerging markets like South America, Africa, Russia, South-East Asia and China. Modern malting facilities located at deep sea ports and able to produce in bulk will be able to profit from this development. The Netherlands refers to a letter from Euromalt of August 2005 (10), in which it is stated that small, old and inadequate capacity must be closed. The same letter mentions an overcapacity in the Community malting industry of at least 500 000 - 700 000 tonnes. The Netherlands, however, claims that this figure is based on a production of 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. Periods of standstill are not taken into account, which makes it uncertain whether overcapacity actually exists. The Netherlands furthermore refers to a report (11) by the research bureau Frontier Economics on Holland Malt (on the geographic market and innovation aspects). The report's conclusion is as follows: ‘there is no indication that the subsidy granted to Holland Malt will lead to a displacement of malt sales by other European producers over and above that which would occur in any event. There is no indication therefore that the provision of the subsidy would exacerbate any overcapacity among European producers of standard malt’. The Netherlands requests the Commission to take account of the existence of a separate market for HTST malt, a type of high-quality malt which counteracts the ‘ageing’ of beer. In addition, it mentions a further closure of 12 000 tonnes of malting capacity, bringing the total closure of existing capacity to 77 000 tonnes. The extra capacity is merely 0,5 % of the total Community production capacity, which would not distort the Community malt market. Finally, the Netherlands states that the subsidy it plans to give is only meant to compensate the location disadvantage of Eemshaven and to offer a level playing field to Holland Malt (without the subsidy, a comparable investment would have been made in a production plant in the deep sea port of Terneuzen).
V. ASSESSMENT OF THE AID
(33)
The measure concerns aid to an undertaking that is active in barley processing. Under Article 23 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 of 29 September 2006 on the common organisation of the market in cereals (12), Articles 87, 88 and 89 of the Treaty are to apply to the products covered by the Regulation. The sector concerned by the aid scheme in question is therefore subject to the Community rules on state aid.
(34)
Under Article 87(1) of the Treaty any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods is, insofar as it affects trade between Member States, incompatible with the common market.
(35)
The measure consists of a direct subsidy for investment. It is selective in the sense that it favours one single undertaking, i.e. Holland Malt.
(36)
According to the case law of the Court of Justice, improvement in the competitive position of an undertaking resulting from a state aid generally points to a distortion of competition compared with other competing undertakings not receiving such assistance (13).
(37)
A measure affects trade between Member States adversely if it hampers imports from other Member States or facilitates exports to other Member States. The deciding factor is whether there is a risk that intra-Community trade will develop differently or is liable to develop differently as a result of the measure in question.
(38)
The product to which the aid in question relates (malt) is subject to significant intra-Community trade. In 2004, some 1,3 million tonnes of malt were traded within the Community. This represented some 15 % of total 2004 Community malt production (14). The sector is thus exposed to competition. Therefore, there is a risk that intra-Community trade will develop differently as a result of the measure.
(39)
The measure in question thus constitutes aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty.
(40)
Exceptions to the prohibition in Article 87(1) are established in paragraphs 2 and 3 of that Article.
(41)
The exceptions listed in Article 87(2) are not applicable, given the nature of the aid measure and its objectives. Nor has the Netherlands claimed that Article 87(2) is applicable.
(42)
Article 87(3) specifies other forms of aid, which may be regarded as compatible with the common market. Their compatibility with the Treaty has to be studied from the point of view of the Community, not solely that of a given Member State. To ensure the proper operation of the common market, the exceptions provided for in Article 87(3) must be interpreted in a strict manner.
(43)
As regards Article 87(3)(a), it is pointed out that the beneficiary of the aid is not located in a region where the economic situation can be described as extremely unfavourable in accordance with the Guidelines on national regional aid (15) (having a per capita gross domestic product, measured in purchasing power standards, of less than 75 % of the Community average). Therefore, Article 87 (3) (a) of the Treaty cannot justify an aid for the production, processing or marketing of products in Annex I to the Treaty.
(44)
As regards Article 87(3)(b), it is noted that the measure concerned is not intended to promote the execution of an important project of common European interest or to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State.
(45)
Nor is the aid intended or suitable for achieving the objectives referred to in Article 87(3)(d).
(46)
Aid to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas may be considered to be compatible with the common market under Article 87(3)(c) of the Treaty, where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest.
(47)
Since Holland Malt is not a small or medium-sized enterprise as defined by the Commission (16), Regulation (EC) No 1/2004 of 23 December 2003 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises active in the production, processing and marketing of agricultural products (17) does not apply. Whether investment aid for the processing of agricultural products is compatible with Article 87(3)(c) is assessed therefore on the basis of point 4.2 of the guidelines.
(48)
According to point 4.2.3 of the guidelines, eligible expenses may include construction, acquisition or improvement of immovable property, new machinery and equipment, including computer software. The aid rate may not exceed 50 % of eligible investments in Objective 1 regions and 40 % in other regions.
(49)
These conditions are met, as aid would be given for the construction of buildings, the purchase of plots for these buildings and machinery. In addition, the Netherlands has limited the notified aid to a maximum of 13,5 % of the eligible costs.
(50)
Point 4.2.3 of the guidelines states that aid for investments may only be granted to firms the economic viability of which can be demonstrated by an assessment of the prospects of the enterprise. The enterprise must comply with minimum Community standards regarding the environment, hygiene and animal welfare.
(51)
These conditions are satisfied. The Netherlands has given sufficient guarantees concerning the economic viability of both Bavaria NV and Agrifirm, which together form Holland Malt. In addition, it has been adequately shown that the malting plant complies with minimum Community standards regarding the environment, hygiene and animal welfare as laid down in the Dutch rural development programme.
(52)
Point 4.2.5 of the guidelines provides that no aid may be granted for investments in products for which normal market outlets cannot be found. This must be assessed at the appropriate level in relation to the products concerned, the types of investments, and existing and expected capacities. To this end, any restrictions on production or limitations of Community support under the common market organisation must be taken into account.
(53)
The procedure provided for under Article 88(2) of the Treaty was initiated, since, on the basis of the information available to the Commission at the time, could not be ruled out that the malt market showed overcapacity.
(54)
The Netherlands' and Holland Malt's comments on the opening of the procedure essentially concern three points. First, the issue of overcapacity on the malt market is challenged (the Netherlands and Holland Malt do not dispute, however, that the project creates additional capacity on the malt market). Second, it is stated that the investment in the Eemshaven plant will affect trade with third countries more than trade between Member States, since the export of malt constitutes a market segment separate from that in which inland malt suppliers operate. Third, different markets are assumed to exist for regular and premium malt.
(55)
The Commission has examined the situation concerning the production of and trade in malt at both world and Community levels. As Eurostat statistics on malt are incomplete due to missing or confidential data on the production and exports of several countries, the Commission has used the data of Euromalt, the International Grains Council and H.M. Gauger's report on the barley-malt market report.
(56)
As regards the situation on the world market, the Euromalt data indicate that the current world supply capacity of malting plants substantially exceeds demand and will do so for some years to come. The letter from Euromalt of August 2005 (18) contains the following table on world malt capacity.
Worldwide Malt Capacity
(1000 tonnes)
2004
Surplus
2006 (estimate)
Surplus
EU-15
7 500
7 600
EU-10
1 200
1 150
Total EU-25
8 700
2 500
8 750
2 700
Russia
850
-550
1 550
100
Ukraine
230
-50
330
120
Belarus
70
-6
70
-10
Central and Eastern Europe
460
-60
470
-60
Total Europe
10 130
1 834
11 170
2 850
NAFTA
3 600
3 900
South America
1 220
1 370
Oceania
770
950
Middle East and Central Asia
200
200
Africa
380
380
China
3 000
3 300
Far East
300
340
Total
9 470
-1 300
1 440
-900
World total
19 780
534
21 610
1 950
(57)
As can be seen from the table, in 2004 world malt production capacity exceeded demand by approximately half a million tonnes. Estimates for 2006 point to an increase in this overcapacity to approximately 2 million tonnes.
(58)
Euromalt in its letter mentions that world beer production is forecast to continue growing at an average minimum rate of between 1 % and 2 % a year. This average growth is a result of two-digit growth in some ‘new’ beer regions (South America, Africa, Russia, South-East Asia and China) and a decline in the ‘old’ regions (Western Europe and North America). At the same time however, the efficiency of the new brewery investments in the growth regions and the trend towards ‘lighter’ beers has resulted in a drastic decline in the use of malt per litre of beer. Euromalt therefore concludes that the rising demand for beer is not matched by an increase in worldwide malt demand for some years to come. In fact, the beer consumption growth pattern, and its predicted continuation, have overencouraged the building of additional malting capacity in the world, the result being that current world capacity on the supply side substantially exceeds demand, and will do so for some years to come. According to Euromalt, continuous investment in maltings is required, but Europe does not need additional new capacity while export markets decline.
(59)
The current situation of overcapacity worldwide seems to be confirmed by declining global trade figures for malt, as presented by the International Grains Council at the Malting Barley Seminar on 4 and 5 October 2005 in Brussels (19). According to the International Grains Council, global trade in malt declined for two years in a row from 5,621 million tonnes in 2002/2003 to 5,275 million tonnes in 2004/2005 (the latter figure is an estimate). For 2005/2006, the International Grains Council expects a further fall in the quantity of malt traded. This downward trend is also reflected in lower export certificates booked by EU malt exporters in 2004/2005 (2 219 661 tonnes) as compared with 2003/2004 (2 477 849 tonnes), with expectations for 2005/2006 being slightly lower than the figure for 2004/2005 (20). RM International's report on the malt market (21) would also seem to indicate global overcapacity: given the higher standard capacity for new malting plants and that world beer production has increased less quickly in recent years, new malt output would be absorbed less quickly by demand.
(60)
The Netherlands in its letter of 14 October 2005 states that world demand for malt is expected to rise by 10 % by 2010. Reference is made to the presentation by the International Grains Council at the Malting Barley Seminar in Brussels on 4 and 5 October 2005. It was also stated at this presentation, however, that as regards forecasts for 2010, global malting capacity was expected to rise by 10 %. It would not seem appropriate to use global malting capacity as an indicator of demand, as the Netherlands appears to do.
(61)
In the years ahead, the development of the global malt market would seem to be subject to two important developments. First, there is the increase in beer consumption in the ‘new’ beer regions. It remains to be seen however, to what extent the Community malting industry will be able to take advantage of this growth.
(62)
The growth of beer production in China has not led to a substantial increase in malt imports. According to the Rabobank report on the global malt industry (22), the imported volume of malt did not rise, even after the import tariff was significantly reduced in 2002, because China's huge processing industry favours the import of malting-barley.
(63)
Rising beer consumption and production in South-East Asia has been made possible to a large extent through higher malt imports from Australia due to the proximity of, and free-trade agreements, with that country.
(64)
Community maltings located at deep sea ports, such as Holland Malt, would seem to be in a good position to satisfy the growing demand for malt in South America and Africa. As regards South America, however, the new malting capacity currently being built in Argentina could partially absorb the rising demand for malt. In addition, Mercosur's expansion, with Venezuela and possibly other South American countries joining will probably lead to a higher intra-South American trade in malt.
(65)
Developments in Russia are a second important factor for the global malt market. Russia has a total malting capacity of 1 million tonnes, with a further 450 000 tonnes under construction. As the availability of good malting barley catches up with this capacity expansion, Russia will become self sufficient and probably a malt exporter.
(66)
In view of the above, the Commission has no evidence that the current overcapacity in the global malt market will disappear in the next few years. As far as worldwide trade in malt until 2010 is concerned, the International Grains Council seems to predict a relatively stable volume with the ‘decline in Russia being offset by South American growth’, as mentioned in the presentation at the Malting Barley Seminar in October 2005.
(67)
As regards malt production capacity and trade in the Community, it should be noted that Holland Malt's plant at Eemshaven became operational in April 2005. Euromalt in its letter of August 2005 mentions that, despite closures of several malting factories due to low profitability, the Community still has a surplus capacity in malt of at least 500 000-700 000 tonnes (capacity in the Community being 8 800 000 tonnes, consumption 5 900 000 tonnes and exports 2 250 000 tonnes).
(68)
According to Euromalt, the profitability of the Community malting industry in 2005/2006 will be at its lowest, with many companies making a loss and covering only part of their costs. Probably as a result of this low profitability, the largest German malt producer, Weissheimer in Andernach, filed for bankruptcy in spring 2006. In addition, other malt production plants have shut permanently, including four in the United Kingdom, two in Germany and one in France. These are older units of large companies. Other malt producers have decided to shut part of their capacity temporarily. In other cases, old malt production capacity has been replaced by new. The resultant total malt capacity in the Community in July 2006 is put by H.M. Gauger at 8 800 000 tonnes (23), the estimates of consumption in, and exports from, the Community being comparable with those in Euromalt's letter of August 2005. This would still leave an overcapacity of around 600 000 tonnes.
(69)
The Netherlands, in its letter of October 2005, claims that the figure of 500 000 - 700 000 tonnes mentioned by Euromalt as being the overcapacity of the Community malting industry is based on so-called ‘nameplate’ capacities, i.e. production 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. Periods when plants are at a standstill owing to maintenance, technical failures and overhaul are not taken into account, which makes it uncertain whether overcapacity actually exists.
(70)
The Commission has looked at actual capacity and production figures for the Community malt industry for the last few years. It has taken the following table from H.M. Gauger's statistical digest 2004/2005, which uses national statistics, Euromalt and Eurostat as sources.
Total malt capacity and production in the Community
Capacity (in tonnes)
Production (in tonnes)
2002
8 613 304
8 455 119
2003
8 632 525
8 595 156
2004
8 818 633
8 644 575
(71)
The figures in the table point to a utilisation of at least 98 % of total capacity during the years 2002-2004. The figures in the report by Frontier Economics (24) indicate a comparable level of utilisation. In 2005, the utilisation rate was lower, with malt production in the Community at 8,4 million tonnes and capacity at 8,8 million tonnes. For marketing year 2006/2007, total production is expected to be 8,0 million tonnes and capacity 8,8 million tonnes (25). These lower rates of utilisation appear, however, to reflect the reaction of malting plants to low profitability, i.e. their decision to produce less malt and temporarily to shut production capacity. For marketing year 2006/2007, part of the explanation is also provided by the poor harvest of malting barley. The figures for 2002 to 2004 show that it is technically possible to use at least 98 % of the total production capacity. This high percentage for the actual utilisation of total capacity does not seem to be a reason to doubt the existence of overcapacity in the Community malting industry.
(72)
As for the future, as mentioned in the Euromalt letter of August 2005, ‘small, old and inefficient capacity must be closed. This will be a slow process because of the very structure of the industry in certain Member States’. The process would appear to have accelerated in 2006. By mid-2006, production of malt in the Community appears to have been brought into equilibrium again with actual demand, as malt producers have learned to limit their production to possible sales volumes (26). However, even after the above-mentioned permanent closure of old malt production facilities, total malt production capacity in the Community still exceeds actual demand by some 600 000 tonnes. In addition, demand in the Community is not expected to increase due to stagnating beer consumption, while Community exports will face a global trade situation which is expected to remain relatively stable for the next few years. The Commission does not have clear evidence, therefore, that the current situation of overcapacity will change soon.
(73)
The Netherlands and Holland Malt take the view that the investment in the Eemshaven plant will affect trade with third countries rather than trade between Member States, since the export of malt is a separate market segment from that in which inland malt suppliers operate.
(74)
The Commission recognises that part of the malting capacity in the Community consists of inland, small family/privately-owned companies that produce mainly for domestic markets. However, part of their production can also be for export, in which case they would face competition from other malt companies in the Community mainly focused on exports (such as Holland Malt).
(75)
In addition, there are large groups in the Community malt industry which sell their malt both inside and outside the Community. Holland Malt falls into this category, being located at a deep sea port from which it can serve both the Community and non-Community markets. Community malt companies primarily focused on exports to other markets could therefore face competition from Holland Malt. The same applies to Community malt companies concentrating on selling in the internal market, since Holland Malt still expects to sell a considerable volume of malt to European countries. In its business plan of August 2003, Holland Malt mentioned that it expected to sell 71 540 tonnes to European destinations in 2005 (compared to expected sales of 28 100 tonnes to Asia, 40 600 tonnes to Latin America and 29 000 tonnes to Russia).
(76)
Situations may well occur in which malt companies concentrating primarily on exports to third countries (such as Holland Malt) may not be able to find buyers for the output intended for those destinations, in which case they might seek to sell it inside the Community. The opposite may also occur. The Commission therefore does not consider the segments inside and outside the Community to be completely separate. Linkages exist, with developments outside the Community having an effect on developments inside, and vice versa.
(77)
Given the above, the Commission does not share the conclusion of the report by Frontier Economics that there is no indication that the subsidy granted to Holland Malt will lead to a displacement of malt sales by other European producers over and above those which would occur in any event. The Commission cannot rule out such displacements in the sale of malt by other Community malt producers to customers within and outside the Community. It concludes, therefore, that the aid may well have an impact on trade and competition between the Member States.
(78)
The Commission has taken note of the information sent by the Netherlands and Holland Malt (including the letters from third parties) on the development of HTST malt (27). The Netherlands, Holland Malt and the interested parties describe HTST malt as having different characteristics from regular malt, which give the beer more taste and flavour, longer-lasting sparkle and an increased shelf life.
(79)
The Netherlands and Holland Malt state that HTST malt can be considered to be a premium malt. They also maintain that as a result of its unique physical characteristics, its perceived quality and its higher price range, it is very likely that there will be no or limited substitutability between HTST malt and regular malt. HTST malt is expected to create a demand and a market of its own.
(80)
The Commission acknowledges that HTST may well have particular characteristics and be of a high quality. It has to be established, however, whether or not a separate market exists for premium malt (which HSTS malt would serve) alongside a market for regular malt. The Court of First Instance has specified that in order to be considered the subject of a sufficiently distinct market,
‘it must be possible to distinguish the service or the good in question by virtue of particular characteristics that so differentiate it from other services or other goods that it is only to a small degree interchangeable with those alternatives and affected by competition from them. In that context, the degree of interchangeability between products must be assessed in terms of their objective characteristics, as well as the structure of supply and demand on the market, and competitive conditions.’ (28)
(81)
As regards the structure of supply and demand on the market and competitive conditions, the Commission has received comments from several parties (mostly national maltsters' associations) indicating that a clear distinction between regular and premium malt cannot be made. According to these, malt is, if anything, a product of a generic nature, with small variations in characteristics and subject to quality standards imposed by the brewing industry. The majority of maltsters' customers seem only to want high-quality malt that meets their specifications and satisfies all food safety requirements.
(82)
The degree of interchangeability between different malts from different malting companies would therefore not seem to be small, since all these companies have to produce malt of high quality to be able to satisfy their customers' demand.
(83)
This would seem to be confirmed by evidence that premium beer is not necessarily produced with another quality of malt than regular beer. According to the Netherlands, Holland Malt will produce its HTST malt primarily for the ‘premium’ segment of the beer market. The Netherlands states that for the production of these premium beers, raw materials of a high quality are required with characteristics that improve the flavour of these beers. Holland Malt in its letter mentions the ‘Just Drinks.com 2004 report’ (29), in which - according to Holland Malt - ‘major brewers state that premium beers are an inherently better liquid with a fuller, more distinctive taste’.
(84)
According to the Commission, however, this sentence in the report refers to consumers' perception of premium beer, and not to a statement of major brewers. On page 59 of the report it is stated that ‘Scottish & Newcastle on the other hand pointed to consumers' perception of higher quality and the status that is conferred by purchasing a premium brand. The key factors are: perception of higher quality - premium beers are an inherently better liquid with a fuller, more distinctive taste’.
(85)
In fact, the executive summary of the report as submitted by Holland Malt itself starts by saying that ‘interviews by just-drinks.com with a number of major international players in the global brewing industry revealed that premium beer is basically a marketing concept’. The report also mentions that a standard beer can become a premium beer in a given region or a particular country within a region and that the major international brewers adopt different marketing strategies for different markets. Brands recognised as premium in some regions are not necessarily recognised as such in others. The report furthermore states that ‘the reader must be aware that demand for premium beer looked at in terms of comparisons between years and trends over a number of years, is variable due to changes in consumer perceptions and not in product specification. As Interbrew points out, it is consumers who decide what is premium, not the industry’.
(86)
The fact that product specification is not an important factor in determining which beers are considered premium beers indicates that different malts, provided they meet (minimum) quality standards imposed by the brewing industry, are easily interchangeable. This interchangeability of malt is also referred to in the Hugh Baird/Scottish and Newcastle merger case (30). Concerning the relevant product market, the notifying parties (Hugh Baird and Scottish and Newcastle) state that it is at least as broad as the malt market. The decision mentions that ‘although the malt market may arguably be subdivided, e.g. into brewing malt and distilling malt, the parties do not believe that this is appropriate because of the high degree of supply-side substitutability’.
(87)
In addition, the Commission has not been able to detect a separate market for premium malt in studying the statistical sources for malt production. On the contrary, all these sources (Eurostat, Euromalt, International Grains Council) only provide data on the general malt market. The Netherlands and Holland Malt themselves have not provided data on existing capacities for, or the production of, premium malt. On the contrary, in the argument about overcapacity, they have referred to figures for malt (as a product), without making a distinction between regular and premium malt.
(88)
The Commission considers, therefore, that a clear dividing line between the two categories (regular and premium malt) cannot be drawn. There may perhaps be differences in quality, but they do not appear to be of such a nature that the interchangeability of types of malt or competition between maltsters is appreciably limited thereby.
(89)
Based on the above findings on overcapacity in the malt market, possible effects on trade between Member States of the aid measure in question and the lack of a clearly distinctive separate market for premium malt, the Commission considers the aid not to comply with point 4.2.5 of the guidelines, which provides that no aid may be granted for investments in products for which normal market outlets cannot be found.
(90)
Holland Malt points out that the situation on the global malt market did not prevent the Commission from authorising investment aid for a malting plant in Lithuania.
(91)
The Commission would like to stress that it has not authorised state aid for an investment in a malting plant in Lithuania after that country's accession to the Community on 1 May 2004. Before that date, no state aid rules applied in Lithuania for agricultural products. In any event, failings by other Member States to meet their obligations under Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty are irrelevant to whether the Member State against which the procedure in Article 88(2) of the Treaty has been initiated has granted (unlawful) aid (31).
(92)
The Commission also wishes to state in this respect that it initiated the formal investigation procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the Treaty after Spain had notified its intention to grant aid to a malt factory named Maltacarrión S.A (32). The procedure was initiated on the same grounds as in the present case, i.e. that it cannot be ruled out that the malt market shows overcapacity. After the procedure had been initiated, Spain withdrew its notification of the aid in question.
(93)
The Commission acknowledges and does not dispute the important regional development aspects of the aid for Holland Malt, as explained by the Netherlands and various interested parties. In this sense, the project would fit well with the IPR scheme.
(94)
The project must, however, meet all the requirements for investment aid for the processing and selling of agricultural products as laid down by the guidelines. As it does not fulfil at least one important condition, the Commission cannot authorise the state aid for the project, despite its positive regional development aspects.
VI. CONCLUSION
(95)
For the above-mentioned reasons, the Commission considers the aid to Holland Malt to be incompatible with Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty. The aid measure does not comply with point 4.2.5 of the guidelines, which provides that no aid may be granted for investments in products for which normal market outlets cannot be found.
(96)
In its letter dated 17 December 2004, the Netherlands declared that the aid was promised subject to approval by the Commission. If, despite this condition, any aid has actually been disbursed, it will have to be recovered,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
The state aid which the Netherlands has granted to Holland Malt BV in the form of a subsidy of EUR 7 425 000, subject to authorisation by the Commission, is incompatible with the common market.
Article 2
The Netherlands shall withdraw the state aid referred to in Article 1.
Article 3
1. The Netherlands shall take all necessary measures to recover from the recipient the aid referred to in Article 1 and unlawfully made available to the recipient.
2. Recovery shall be effected without delay and in accordance with the procedures of national law, provided that they allow the immediate and effective execution of this Decision. The aid to be recovered shall include interest from the date on which it was made available to the recipient until its actual recovery. Interest shall be calculated on the basis of the reference rate used for calculating the net grant equivalent under the regional aid rules.
Article 4
The Netherlands shall inform the Commission, within two months of notification of this Decision, of the measures taken to comply with it.
Article 5
This decision is addressed to the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
Done at Brussels, 26 September 2006. | [
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
*****
COMMISSION DECISION
of 22 August 1989
terminating the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of hydraulic excavators originating in Japan
(89/511/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 Community (1), and in particular Article 9 thereof,
After consultations within the Advisory Committee as provided for by that Regulation,
Whereas:
A. PROCEDURE
(1) In April 1988 the Commission received a complaint lodged by the Syndicat national des industries d'équipement (MTPS) on behalf of producers representing the majority of Community production of hydraulic excavators under six tonnes in weight. The complaint contained evidence of dumping of the product concerned originating in Japan and of material injury resulting therefrom, which was considered sufficient to warrant the opening of an investigation. The Commission accordingly announced, by notice published in the Official Journal of the European Communities (2), the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports into the Community of self-propelled excavators under six tonnes in weight with a 360° revolving superstructure falling within CN code ex 8429 52 00 originating in Japan, and commenced an investigation.
(2) The Commission officially notified the exporters and importers known to be concerned, the representatives of the exporting country and the complainant and gave the parties directly concerned the opportunity to make known their views in writing and to request a hearing. Most of the producers/exporters and importers known to be concerned made known their views in writing. Most of them requested and were granted hearings.
(3) The Commission sought and verified all the information it considered necessary for a determination of injury. On-the-spot investigations were carried out at the premises of the following companies:
(a) Community producers
- Ecomat SA, Belley, France and its sales company Pel Job, Alby sur Chéran, France,
- JC Bamford Excavators, Rochester, United Kingdom,
- Macmoter SpA, Modigliana, Italy,
- Vermeer Holland BV,. Hoofddorp, Netherlands;
(b) Importers/distributors
- Komatsu Baumaschinen Deutschland GmbH, Gross-Gerau-Dorheim, Germany,
- NV Komatsu Europe SA, Vilvoorde, Belgium,
- SA Kubota Europe, Argenteuil, France,
- Kubota (UK) Limited, Oxon, United Kingdom,
- NV Verbist, Breendonk, Belgium,
- Saville Tractors Limited, Stratford-upon-Avon, United Kingdom,
- Imer France, Vif, France.
(4) The investigation period set pursuant to Article 7 (1) (c) of Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88 covered the period 1 April 1987 to 31 May 1988.
B. INJURY
(5) In order to determine whether or not the allegedly dumped imports caused material injury to the Community industry, the Commission took into consideration the following facts:
(a) Volume, market share and price of imports
(i) Volume
(6) Imports into the Community of small hydraulic excavators originating in Japan increased from 2 706 units in 1984 to 5 443 in 1986. The imports during the investigation period reached 6 733 units on a yearly basis. There were no imports of any importance from other third countries during the investigation period.
(ii) Consumption and market shares
(7) The Community consumption of the hydraulic excavators concerned has been calculated on the basis of the number of units exported from Japan by the exporters concerned and the sales by EEC producers. It was found that the consumption per annum of the product concerned, increased from 2 940 units in 1984 to 8 590 units during the investigation period, i. e. an increase of 192 %.
In terms of market share the Japanese exporters' market share decreased from 92 % in 1984 to 78,4 % during the investigation period,. while the Community producers increased their share of the market from 8 % to 21,6 % during the same period.
(iii) Prices
(8) The evidence available to the Commission shows that during the investigation period the prices of the imports were in certain cases lower than those charged by the Community producers. On the basis of a representative selection of sales during the investigation period and using the model comparison proposed by the EEC industry the price undercutting by the Japanese exporters amounted on average to 1,2 %.
(b) Effect on Community industry
(9) The Commission found that two companies, JC Bamford Excavators Ltd, and O & K Orenstein und Koppel Aktiengesellschaft, did not manufacture the product in question during the investigation period. A third company, Smalley Excavators Limited, did not reply to the Commission's questionnaire. The effect on Community industry has therefore only been examined for those companies which effectively manufactured the product which is the subject of the proceeding:
- Ecomat SA and its related sales subsidiary Pel Job SA,
- Macmoter SpA,
- Vermeer-Holland BV,
(i) Community production
(10) With regard to the production of the Community producers concerned, it was found that there was an increase from 292 units in 1984 to 2 068 units during the investigation period on a yearly basis.
(ii) Sales
(11) It was found that sales of Community producers increased from 234 units in 1984 to 1 857 units during the investigation period on a yearly basis.
(iii) Consumption and market share
(12) The development of the production and sales of the Community producers concerned was assessed in the light of the development of the consumption and market share of the Community industry as described above. The market share held by the Community producers was about 8 % in 1984, and increased to 21,6 % during the investigation period.
(iv) Capacity and capacity utilization
(13) The production capacity per annum increased from 600 units in 1984 to 3 400 units during the investigation period. Capacity utilization increased from 49 % to 60 % in the same period.
(v) Prices
(14) The sales prices of the Community producers concerned decreased initially during 1985 and 1986 to increase subsequently thoughout 1987 until the end of the investigation period on 31 May 1988.
(vi) Profits
(15) With regard to profitability it was found that all Community producers made profits during the investigation period representing an improvement from previous years when some producers were making losses.
(c) Conclusion on injury
(16) The above data indicate that, despite the growth in Japanese imports into the Community and the existence of some price undercutting, the European producers were able to increase production, capacity, capacity utilization and share of the Community market. They were able to sell at prices which allowed positive financial results to be achieved.
In the light of these findings it is considered that the Community producers concerned did not suffer material injury during the investigation period.
C. DUMPING
(17) In view of the above findings with respect to injury the Commission considered it unnecessary to investigate further the question of dumping with regard to the imports concerned.
D. CONCLUSION
(18) In these circumstances, given the actual market situation during the investigation period, protective measures are unnecessary and the proceeding should be terminated. This does not, of course, preclude the possibility of a new investigation being initiated if a new complaint were lodged showing evidence of changed circumstances,
HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Sole Article
The anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of hydraulic excavators originating in Japan is hereby terminated.
Done at Brussels, 22 August 1989. | [
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Council Decision
of 6 May 2003
appointing a member of the Committee of the Regions
(2003/340/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 French Government,
Whereas:
(1) On 22 January 2002 the Council adopted Decision 2002/60/EC appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions(1).
(2) The seat of a member of the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the resignation of Mr Jean-Paul DELEVOYE, of which the Council was notified on 14 February 2003,
HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Sole Article
Mr André ROSSINOT, Mayor of Nancy, is hereby appointed a member of the Committee of the Regions in place of Mr Jean-Paul DELEVOYE for the remainder of his term of office, which ends on 25 January 2006.
Done at Brussels, 6 May 2003. | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0
] |
COUNCIL DECISION of 23 November 1992 authorizing the French Republic to apply measures derogating from Article 17 and Article 22 (3), (4) and (5) of the Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes (92/544/EEC)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic 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 the aforementioned Directive, 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 or avoidance;
Whereas the French Republic, by letter received by the Commission on 12 March 1992, applied for authorization to introduce arrangements for the tax payable by authors to be withheld at source, with deductible input tax calculated on a flat-rate basis, and an option for authors to waive expressly their inclusion in this scheme;
Whereas these arrangements constitute a derogation from Article 17 of the aformentioned Directive concerning the origin and scope of the right to deduct and from Article 22 (3), (4) and (5) of the Directive concerning the obligations of persons liable for payment;
Whereas the other Member States were informed of the French Republic's application on 10 April 1992;
Whereas the proposed simplification of the arrangements for charging the tax will make it easier for authors to accept the status of taxable person;
Whereas the application may be granted on certain conditions;
Whereas the authorization should be temporary, so that the effects of application of the arrangements can be assessed;
Whereas the Commission will submit a report to the Council by 31 December 1996 on the application of the derogations, accompanied, where appropriate, by a proposal for a Decision to extend the authorization;
Whereas this derogation should have no effect on the Community's own resources accruing from value-added tax,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
By way of derogation from Article 17 and Article 22 (3), (4) and (5) of Directive 77/388/EEC, the French Republic is hereby authorized from 1 January 1992 to 31 December 1996:
- to introduce arrangements for withholding at source the tax payable by authors where the royalties they receive are paid publishers, royalty collection and distribution companies or producers,
- to calculate authors' deductable input tax by applying a flat rate of 0,80 % to their royalties. The amount determined in this way shall be exclusive of any other deduction.
Article 2
In the light of a report from the Commission on the application of the authorization referred to in Article 1, accompanied, where appropriate, by a proposal for a Decision, the Council, acting on the basis of that proposal, shall decide before 31 December 1996 whether the said authorization is to be extended.
Article 3
This Decision is addressed to the French Republic. Done at Brussels, 23 November 1992. | [
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 9/2010
of 23 December 2009
concerning the authorisation of the endo-1,4-beta-xylanase produced by Trichoderma reesei (ATCC PTA 5588) as a feed additive for chickens for fattening, laying hens, ducks and turkeys for fattening (holder of authorisation Danisco Animal Nutrition, Finnfeeds International Limited)
(Text with EEA relevance)
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition (1), and in particular Article 9(2) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition and for the grounds and procedures for granting such authorisation.
(2)
In accordance with Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, an application was submitted for the authorisation of the preparation set out in the Annex to this Regulation. That application was accompanied by the particulars and documents required under Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.
(3)
The application concerns the authorisation of the enzyme preparation of endo-1,4-beta-xylanase produced by Trichoderma reesei (ATCC PTA 5588) as a feed additive for chickens for fattening, laying hens, ducks and turkeys for fattening, to be classified in the additive category ‘zootechnical additives’.
(4)
The European Food Safety Authority (the Authority) concluded in its opinions of 12 and 19 September 2007 (2), of 22 November 2007 (3) and of 2 July 2009 (4) that the enzyme preparation of endo-1,4-beta-xylanase produced by Trichoderma reesei (ATCC PTA 5588) does not have an adverse effect on animal health, human health or the environment and that the use of that preparation improves the performance of the animals. The Authority does not consider that there is a need for specific requirements of post-market monitoring. It also verified the report on the method of analysis of the feed additive in feed submitted by the Community Reference Laboratory set up by Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.
(5)
The assessment of that preparation shows that the conditions for authorisation, provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, are satisfied. Accordingly, the use of that preparation should be authorised, as specified in the Annex to this Regulation.
(6)
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
The preparation specified in the Annex, belonging to the additive category ‘zootechnical additives’ and to the functional group ‘digestibility enhancers’, is authorised as an additive in animal nutrition subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex.
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, 23 December 2009. | [
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 1731/92 of 30 June 1992 fixing the weighting coefficients to be used in calculating the Community market price for pig carcases and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 2013/91
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Regulation (EEC) No 2759/75 of the Council of 29 October 1975 on the common organization of the market in pigmeat (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1249/89 (2), and in particular Article 4 (6) thereof,
Whereas the Community market price for pig carcases, as referred to in Article 4 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2759/75, must be established by weighting the prices recorded in each Member State by coefficients expressing the relative size of the pig population of each Member State; whereas these coefficients should be determined on the basis of the number of pigs counted at the beginning of December each year in accordance with Council Directive 76/630/EEC of 20 July 1976 concerning surveys of pig production to be made by the Member States (3), as last amended by Directive 86/83/EEC (4);
Whereas, in view of the results of the census of December 1991 the weighting coefficients fixed by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2013/91 (5) should be adjusted;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Pigmeat,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The weighting coefficients referred to in Article 4 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2759/75 shall be as specified in the Annex hereto.
Article 2
Regulation (EEC) No 2013/91 is hereby repealed.
Article 3
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
It shall apply from 1 July 1992.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 30 June 1992. | [
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
*****
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE
of 25 June 1987
amending Directive 71/316/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to common provisions for both measuring instruments and methods of metrological control
(87/355/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 Annex II to Council Directive 71/316/EEC of 26 July 1971 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to common provisions for both measuring instruments and methods of metrological control (4), as last amended by Directive 87/354/EEC (5), must be supplemented by drawings of the distinguishing letters E for Spain, EL for Greece and P for Portugal;
Whereas it is also necessary to amend the said Annex in order to replace the drawing of the distinguishing letters IR for Ireland by IRL,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:
Article 1
1. The drawings referred to in point 3.2.1 of Annex II to Directive 71/316/EEC are hereby supplemented by the distinguishing letters E, EL and P and the distinguishing letters IR are hereby replaced by IRL.
2. The models for these distinguishing letters are shown below:
Article 2
1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 31 December 1987. They shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof.
2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the provisions of national law which they adopt in the field governed by this Directive.
Article 3
This Directive is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Luxembourg, 25 June 1987. | [
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission decision
of 23 December 2002
on the State aid implemented by Germany for Klausner Nordic Timber GmbH & Co. KG, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania
(notified under document number C(2002) 5378)
(Only the German text is authentic)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2003/875/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
1.1. Stages of the procedure
(1) Following a series of complaints concerning State aid granted to Klausner Nordic Timber GmbH & Co. KG (hereinafter "KNT"), Germany was asked by the Commission in 1999 and 2000 to provide all relevant information that would enable it to examine whether the aid was compatible with the common market. The measures concerned State aid granted to KNT for the construction and expansion of a sawmill in Wismar (Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania). The information provided by Germany was deemed to be incomplete and did not allay the Commission's concerns as to whether the measures were compatible with previously approved aid schemes.
(2) By letter of 17 August 2000, Germany was required by the Commission in accordance with Article 10(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty(2) and with the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 5 October 1994 in Case 47/91 Italy v Commission(3) to present all the information necessary to assess whether the measures in favour of KNT were covered by aid schemes which had previously been approved by the Commission.
(3) By letter of 13 November 2000, the annexes to which were received by separate post on 16 November, Germany provided some of the information necessary to assess whether the aid recipient was to be regarded as an SME within the meaning of the Community guidelines on State aid for small and medium-sized enterprises(4) ("Community SME guidelines") and Commission Recommendation 96/280/EC of 3 April 1996 concerning the definition of small and medium-sized enterprises(5) and, therefore, as being eligible for aid in the assisted areas where the two projects are located, with a maximum gross aid intensity of 50 %.
(4) The Commission informed Germany by letter of 20 June 2001 of its decision to initiate the procedure under Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty and to require the provision of information in accordance with Article 10(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.
(5) Germany replied to the decision initiating the procedure and the information injunction by letter of 2 August 2001, the annexes to which were received on 12 November.
(6) The decision initiating the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Communities(6). At the same time, the Commission called on all interested parties to submit their comments.
(7) The Commission received comments from a number of third parties. The comments were forwarded to Germany, which replied by letter of 31 October 2001.
(8) On 15 January 2002, the Commission adopted Decision 2002/468/EC(7) terminating the formal investigation procedure. Some of the assistance for KNT was considered to be incompatible and was required to be repaid.
(9) On 27 March 2002, KNT lodged a complaint with the Court of First Instance of the European Communities to the effect that the Commission had not correctly interpreted an approved aid scheme. Together with the complainant, the Commission sought to have the procedure suspended so that it could withdraw its decision, which was unsound in law.
(10) Further details also came to light. On 9 and 11 September 2002, the Commission asked Germany for its views on the new particulars presented by KNT in a letter of 26 September 2002 (the annexes were received on 1 October).
1.2. Reasons for withdrawing Decision 2002/468/EC
(11) In Decision 2002/468/EC, the Commission had declared as incompatible with the common market a measure that had apparently been authorised by Germany on the basis of an approved aid programme. According to the Commission, the measure did not satisfy the conditions laid down in the Investment Allowance Law.
(12) The Commission took the view that the aid recipient, since it employed more than 250 workers at the time the measure was authorised, was not eligible for an aid intensity of more than 10 %. The authorised aid framework provides for an aid ceiling of 10 % for recipients with more than 250 workers. The Commission considered that the measure was covered by the aid programmes only up to 10 % of the eligible costs since the recipient, which was defined as an "economic unit", employed more than 250 workers at the time the aid was granted. According to the Commission, no other justification for the compatibility of the excess amount of aid with the common market could be found. Accordingly, it concluded that part of the aid did not satisfy the criteria determining compatibility with the common market.
(13) In its appeal to the Court of First Instance, the representatives of the recipient argued that, in interpreting the German Investment Allowance Law and the decision authorising it, the Commission had made a mistake in law, particularly as regards the definition of "recipient" within the meaning of the Community SME guidelines. The Investment Allowance Law provides for a tax exemption for the acquisition and production of capital goods and buildings by firms established in the new Länder. The representatives also claimed that the Law defined the recipient of the investment allowance as economically and organisationally separate operating units and not as a single economic unit. According to them, the Commission had misinterpreted its Decision authorising the Investment Allowance Law and its Decision 2002/468/EC was unsound in law in view of the measure authorised on the basis of the Law. Neither the Member State nor the recipient had any interest in maintaining in force a partly negative decision. Accordingly, the Commission has decided to withdraw Decision 2002/468/EC. Additional information and clarifications were needed in order to take a new decision and Germany has provided these. In the light of this new information, the Commission considers it appropriate and justified to carry out a new assessment, not only of the measure authorised under the Investment Allowance Law but also of the guarantee for a DEM 29750000 loan that had also been declared incompatible with the common market in Decision 2002/468/EC. No legitimate expectations or acquired rights of third parties stand in the way of a reassessment.
2. THE MEASURE
2.1. The aid recipient
(14) The legal person to which the aid was granted, KNT, was formed on 28 May 1997 and constructed a new sawmill in Wismar, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, in 1998. KNT processes coniferous timber. The business is conducted by the general partner(8) Klausner Nordic Timber GmbH ("KNT-GmbH"). The shares in the limited partnership KNT are owned by Fritz Klausner, a natural person, who also owns all the capital of KNT; he is the sole limited partner(9) of KNT.
(15) Fritz Klausner also holds shares in other companies.
(16) Klausner Holzindustrie GmbH ("KHI-GmbH") is an Austrian limited liability company responsible for the management of Klausner Holzindustrie GmbH & Co. KG ("KHI"), which operates a sawmill in St Johann (Tyrol). KHI-GmbH is the general partner of KHI.
(17) The shareholders of KHI-GmbH are:
(a) Fritz Klausner (25 %);
(b) Margarethe Klausner (Fritz Klausner's mother) (50 %);
(c) Anne Klausner (Fritz Klausner's sister) (25 %).
(18) The partners of KHI are:
(a) KHI-GmbH (general partner; no capital interest);
(b) Fritz Klausner (limited partner; capital interest of 75 %; no voting rights since 1 January 1997);
(c) Margarethe Klausner (limited partner; capital interest of 25 %).
(19) Klausner Holz Thüringen Geschäftsführung GmbH ("KHT-GmbH") is a German limited liability company which manages the business of Klausner Holz Thüringen GmbH & Co. KG ("KHT"). KHT operates a sawmill in Friesau (Thuringia). Fritz Klausner owns all the shares in KHT-GmbH; he managed the company until 19 June 1997.
(20) The partners of KHT are:
(a) KHT-GmbH (general partner; no capital interest; managing director);
(b) Fritz Klausner (limited partner; capital interest of 20 %);
(c) KHI (limited partner; capital interest of 80 %).
(21) KHT Hobelwerk Beteiligungs GmbH ("KHO-GmbH"), which is wholly owned by Fritz Klausner, was formed on 15 May 1997. It is the general partner of KHT Hobelwerk GmbH & Co. KG ("KHO"), which operates a planing mill in Thuringia.
(22) Klausner Nordic Services GmbH ("KNS"), which is wholly owned by Fritz Klausner, is a service company for local enterprises.
(23) Klausner Nordic Energie GmbH ("KNE"), which is wholly owned by Fritz Klausner, operated a power plant.
(24) The companies with which Fritz Klausner was involved from 1996 to 1999 are the following:
TABLE
TABLE
2.2. The measures
2.2.1. Measure for the construction of a new production plant in Wismar ("first aid package")
(25) The Economics Ministry of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania decided on 18 April 1997 (the decision was modified on 12 March 1998) to grant KNT investment aid for the construction of a sawmill in Wismar under the 27th outline plan for the joint Federal Government/Länder scheme for improving regional economic structures (1998 to 2002)(10). The sawmill is located in an assisted area under Article 87(3)(a) of the EC Treaty. The grant was equivalent to the ceiling of DEM 43818300 (EUR 22,4 million), corresponding to a gross intensity of 38,21 % of the eligible investment costs of DEM 114669000 (EUR 58,6 million). According to Germany, the aid was conditional on the creation of 115 jobs.
(26) By decision of 26 April 1998, which was modified on 25 July 1998, Germany also granted KNT an investment allowance for 1997 of DEM 2635086 (EUR 1,3 million) under the Investment Allowance Law 1996, an aid scheme approved by the Commission(11). The aid intensity amounts to 2,3 % of the eligible costs.
(27) By a decision of 1 September 1999, a further investment allowance was granted on the basis of the Investment Allowance Law amounting to DEM 2500000 (EUR 1,3 million), representing 2,18 % of the eligible investment costs.
(28) In 1997 Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania also assumed a guarantee to secure 80 % of a low-interest loan of DEM 30 million (EUR 15,3 million) under its guarantee guidelines which had been approved by the Commission(12). The aid element contained in this measure amounted to 0,5 %, according to the German authorities, who assumed that KNT ranked as an economically sound enterprise. This represents aid amounting to EUR 61355,03, equivalent to an intensity of 0,1 % of the eligible costs.
(29) According to Germany, the aid intensity of the measure mentioned amounted to 43,18 % of the eligible costs. The actual aid intensity is 42,79 % of the eligible costs.
(30) The enterprise argued that it had actually invested DEM 124401024 (EUR 63,6 million) and that, for this reason, the aid intensity should be lowered to 39,80 %. This information was not confirmed by Germany, however, and the Commission was not presented with any further evidence. The Commission is therefore basing itself on the decisions of the German authorities that granted the aid in which the eligible costs were specified and the aid amount determined and approved.
2.2.2. Measure for the extension of the Wismar mill and the construction of a second sawmill
(31) In Decision 2002/468/EC, the Commission pointed out that, even after two requests had been made, Germany had not provided full information on the aid granted to KNT in respect of the extension project. After additional information had been provided by KNT and following a request from the Commission for confirmation, Germany eventually provided all the particulars along with written documents concerning the extension project and the aid granted to it. The increase in the investment for the extension project was justified by the additional costs of acquiring and assembling a second saw and the associated investment in appropriate plant (dry hammer and sorting shed). Evidence for the realisation of these additional investments was provided in documents submitted by Germany.
(32) According to the most recent figures provided by Germany, the eligible costs for the extension of the Wismar mill and the installation of a second saw amount to DEM 61612000 (EUR 31501715,39). The following aid measures were granted for this project:
(a) an investment grant of DEM 8879000 (EUR 4,45 million) under the 27th outline plan for the joint Federal Government/Länder scheme (1998 to 2002), which had been approved by the Commission. The grant was made by the Land by decision of 8 September 1998 and the aid intensity amounts to 14,41 % of the eligible costs;
(b) investment allowances totalling DEM 11140587 (EUR 5696091,68): An initial tranche of DEM 7755095 (EUR 3965117,11) was granted for investment in 1999 and a second instalment of DEM 3385492 (EUR 1730974,57) for investment in 2000. The aid intensity represents 18,08 % of the eligible costs;
(c) a low-interest loan of DEM 8549999,60 (EUR 4371545,38) under the SME programme of the Reconstruction Loan Corporation (KfW), a scheme approved by the Commission(13): In accordance with Decision 2002/468/EC, the aid intensity of this loan is 1 % of the loan amount. This gives aid of DEM 85499,99 (EUR 43715,45), representing 0,14 % of the eligible costs;
(d) an 80 % guarantee granted jointly in 1999 by the Federal Government and the Land of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania to secure a loan of DEM 29750000 (EUR 15,21 million) on the basis of the Commission-approved Federal guarantee programme(14) for companies carrying out new projects in the new Länder and on the basis of the above guarantee guidelines of the Land of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania: The aid element of this measure amounts to 0,5 % of the guarantee, bearing in mind that KNT is to be regarded as an economically sound enterprise. Only part of this credit, i.e. DEM 12750000 (EUR 6518971,49)(15), is earmarked for financing investment. The remainder, i.e. DEM 17 million (EUR 8691961,98), is earmarked for financing operating assets. The aid amounts to 0,5 % of 80 % of the loan amount of DEM 12750000 (EUR 6518971,49), i.e. DEM 51000 (EUR 26075,89), equivalent to 0,08 % of the eligible costs.
(33) According to Germany, the project was also financed by equity amounting to DEM 33041513,02 (EUR 16893857,35). This amount comprises the loan of DEM 6949999,99 (EUR 3553478,57) under the KfW environmental programme; the aid element is DEM 186971,48 (EUR 95597) and is, according to Germany, to be classed as de minimis aid.
(34) These figures were confirmed by the decision of the Economics Ministry of the Land of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania dated 25 September 2002 and amending the grant decision of 20 August 1998, which had previously been amended by decisions of 22 October 1999 and 28 March 2002.
(35) In the 1999 decision, potential extraordinary depreciation was mentioned with an aid intensity of 1,42 %. This aid was ultimately not granted because it related to investments for 1999 and 2000. The Development Areas Law does not provide for depreciation on investments after 31 December 1998. In the amending decision of 25 September 2002, the German authorities assumed an overall aid intensity for the extension project of 33,99 %. The actual intensity amounts to 33,05 % of the eligible costs.
2.3. Grounds for initiating the procedure
(36) Despite the information provided by Germany in response to the information injunction, the Commission still had doubts as to whether the newly established sawmills could be regarded as SMEs and whether the aid as a whole was covered by approved aid schemes.
(37) KNT is eligible for these gross aid intensities for the construction and extension of the sawmill in Wismar only if it is a genuine SME. It must therefore meet the conditions laid down in the Community SME guidelines. One of the conditions in the decision approving the aid schemes under which public funds were granted or are still to be granted is compliance with the definition of an SME contained in Recommendation 96/280/EC and the Community SME guidelines.
(38) It had to be ascertained in particular whether the legal entity KNT, which had been granted various aid measures, could in itself be viewed as the aid recipient. The particular question was whether it constituted an "economic unit" within the meaning of Community legislation(16) or whether the "assisted enterprise" also encompassed other enterprises of the Klausner group. The doubts related in particular to the relations between KNT and KHT as well as to the degree of their economic integration. In this regard, the size of the enterprise to which the aid was granted had first to be determined before the Commission could assess whether the aid recipient met the definition of an SME.
(39) With the still incomplete information from Germany on the enterprises belonging to the Klausner group, the Commission was unable to make a determination on the SME status of the aid recipient and thus on the question of whether the aid granted to KNT is covered by a regional aid scheme previously approved by the Commission or is to be viewed as new aid. However, the Commission also had doubts regarding the compatibility of all the measures with the common market.
(40) Accordingly, the Commission decided to initiate the procedure under Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty and to issue an information injunction under Article 10(3) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.
3. COMMENTS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES
(41) After initiating the procedure, the Commission received comments from eight interested parties.
(42) Two competitors of the Klausner sawmills complained about not gaining access to the profit-and-loss statement and balance sheet of the Klausner group, which were not published. According to these competitors, taking the figures specified by the enterprise for raw materials consumption, the turnover and balance-sheet total for 1996 had to have exceeded the SME thresholds. Moreover, neither KNT nor KHT made an equity contribution towards the financing of the two projects. Given its scale, the project did not comply with the SME provisions from the outset. The large amount of aid conferred major advantages on KNT in relation to its competitors, most of whom had a turnover of less than EUR 1,5 million and an equity ratio of below 15 %. Since the start of operations in Wismar, large volumes of timber were sold at a price which would not be tenable under normal financial conditions and assuming the same raw material sources. Finally, both sawmill enterprises were of the opinion that KNT's argument that the raw material procurement and product sales by KNT and KHT occurred on two different markets was incorrect. They maintained that the raw timber from Russia and the Baltic region was also used in Austria and by KHT in Friesau. Moreover, a large part of KNT's production was sold in central and southern Germany as well as in Austria and Italy, where the Austrian timber industry is likewise very active.
(43) Both the Swedish Timber Association and the Association of the Swedish Forestry Industry sent in their comments after the procedure had been initiated. According to them, the investment aid and credit guarantees for KNT signified that, in addition to the related particle board and laminated wood plants in Wismar, one of Europe's largest sawmills had been constructed. No capacity shortage justifying such investments had been recorded in any of these market segments, however. Sawn timber is to be viewed as a mature product not in heavy demand and there is a strong need for consolidation in the industry. Substantial demand for product development aimed at increasing the use of timber also exists in various market segments. According to the ECE Timber Committee, the production and consumption of sawn timber were as follows in Europe between 1991 and 2000:
TABLE
TABLE
(44) The Swedish associations emphasised that the subsidised formation of KNT and other mills has contributed to the increase in overproduction which the European industry has been seeking intensively to bring under control for many years. This overproduction had led, among other things, to declining prices for sawn timber and increasing raw material costs. According to the KHT website, the production capacity of the Wismar plant is 1,3 million m3.
(45) Regarding the SME status of the enterprise, the Swedish industry was unable to comment on the question of whether KNT could be classified as a "small or medium-sized enterprise" in the various phases in which the State aid was granted. According to information in its possession, however, the plant in Wismar is 50 % larger than the largest Swedish sawmill built in the last three years. In conclusion, the associations pointed out that KNT was one of Europe's largest sawmills and, together with the corporate group to which it belongs, exerted a substantial influence on the market in which it is active.
(46) A German law firm reacted to the decision to initiate the procedure with the statement that KHT and KNT were active as individual enterprises on the market. Its letter stated that the SME criteria had not been met at the time the aid was granted, but no further details have been provided. Moreover, the law firm stated that the aid intensity of the guarantee was over 0,50 % since the enterprises KNT and KHT were unable to finance the doubling of the Wismar mill's capacity. The letter stated in conclusion that the State aid was granted to KNT to support economic development in the new Länder without any consideration for the provisions of Community law.
(47) The Austrian Chamber of the Timber Industry expressed its regret that the balance sheets of KNT and KHT could not be inspected. In its opinion, the aid was granted without the necessary equity bases. It confirmed that the Klausner group procured its raw materials from areas in which the Austrian industry traditionally made its raw timber purchases. Klausner production was able to compete with production from Austrian sawmills only as a result of low prices that did not reflect market conditions.
(48) The German Sawmill Association pointed out that KNT and KHT were described as production facilities on their websites. Even assuming that the family owners of all "Klausner companies" and the overlapping, only partially non-voting shares of Fritz Klausner in KHT, held via Klausner Holzindustrie GmbH & Co. KG in St. Johann, did not enjoy or offer the possibility of exerting control, KHT-GmbH, which Fritz Klausner owns, is still though responsible for the management of KHT.
(49) KNT likewise responded via its legal representatives to the decision to initiate the procedure. The previously missing information on the number of employees and the financial data of various group companies were supplemented and the aid intensity of the two projects was recalculated. With regard to the construction of the sawmill in Wismar, KNT distinguished between the total aid intensity calculated (as envisaged in the aid notice) on the basis of the investment expenditure (43,18 %) and an intensity calculated on the basis of the actual investments (39,80 %). For the extension project, the total aid intensity amounted to 49,82 % and the "de facto aid intensity" to 30,08 %. KNT also provided more detailed information on the investment allowance for the investments made in 1999, putting the total investment expenditure for the extension project at DEM 37891390. The aid intensity was also recalculated for the extension project on the basis of the total investment expenditure, resulting in a figure of 44,67 %. Finally, an aid intensity of 31,13 % was calculated for the investment totalling DEM 62032981 in 1999 and 2000.
(50) KNT also commented on its integration with other companies of the Klausner group. In its view, KNT must be considered as being independent of KHT, given that Fritz Klausner does not exercise joint control over KNT and KHT. KNT refers to Article 1(3) of the Annex to Recommendation 96/280/EC, whereby companies that are to be considered independent are those which are not owned as to 25 % or more of the capital or the voting rights by one enterprise, or jointly by several enterprises, falling outside the definition of an SME. According to KNT, the word "jointly" implies joint exercise of control, which is why the enterprises with one or more holdings must pursue a common interest. Although Fritz Klausner, according to KNT, holds shares in KNT and KHT, he has no possibility in corporate law to make decisions regarding the business operations of KHT.
(51) KNT furthermore argued that there are no joint economic interests and no economic integration of KNT and KHT. The concepts of the two enterprises are different, being based on different geographical and logistical features and different raw material and sales market conditions. For example, the mill in Wismar is located in an international Baltic Sea port and imports Nordic timber for the production of high-grade sawn timber. The production from Wismar is exported solely by the economically advantageous sea route. In contrast, given its geographical location, the mill in Thuringia has less favourable marketing options. It processes mainly German timber and distributes its lower-grade production to a neighbouring area because of high transport costs. Therefore, there is no close cooperation between the two enterprises, which also do not pursue any common economic interest. KNT and KHT do not, it is argued, have joint management or joint departments for administrative tasks. They also have different suppliers and buyers. Apart from certain product groups, the two enterprises did not compete with each other.
(52) KNT added that the independence of KNT and KHT is evident from the current websites of the two enterprises. The link between the websites of KNT and KHT was made to establish a timber cluster via which independent timber processors and suppliers were to be presented. Other companies were to be added, but the project failed. No other link existed between KNT and KHT. Finally, the fact that KHT appears in the aid applications as a contact person for KNT is because Fritz Klausner was the manager of KHT until mid-1997. Today the enterprises have nothing whatsoever in common administratively.
4. COMMENTS FROM GERMANY
(53) By letter of 2 August 2001, Germany commented on the decision to initiate the procedure. Firstly, it turned to the credit guarantee of DEM 29,75 million assumed by the Federal Government and the Land of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania by virtue of the decision of 6 April 1999. According to Germany, this guarantee served to finance the second saw line on condition that the investment cost increase for the first saw line be secured through an obligation on the part of the lending banks before the credits could be disbursed. The guarantee was a condition for the realisation of the investments and the related positive effects for the region. By letter of 11 November 1998, the Commission agreed that an aid intensity of 0,5 % should be set with respect to guarantees for sound enterprises. The legality and compatibility of the guarantee derived from the Commission decision approving the Federal Government's guarantee programme.
(54) Germany replied as follows to the Commission's questions set out in the information injunction. The Commission had requested copies of all the resolutions adopted at the general meetings of KHT and KNT partners since their formation. Germany informed the Commission that no written documents on the KHT partner resolutions existed. Regarding KNT, Germany presented a resolution of 7 April 1999 concerning a capital increase and a resolution of 28 December 2000 on the acceptance of a general partner in KNT GmbH & Co. KG. It also attached a copy of the agreements between KNT or KHT and three of their respective suppliers. These were not always the largest suppliers. No agreement existed between KNT and KHT, on the one hand, and the suppliers, on the other, because KNT and KHT were independent companies. A list of all persons with management duties was presented for KHT but not for KNT.
(55) Germany likewise discussed the comments of interested parties. Concerning access to the annual reports of KNT and KHT, it pointed out that no legal reporting requirement exists for limited partnerships with limited liability companies as general partners (GmbH & Co. KG) in accordance with Section 264a of the German Commercial Code. Concerning the equity share in the project financing, it stated that KNT's equity capital amounted to DEM [...]. Finally, it pointed out that the projects in Wismar met the conditions of the joint Federal Government/Länder scheme for regional economic development, under which it is necessary to strengthen the infrastructure and competitiveness of the region via investment. KNT was also having to contend with the difficulties stemming from mounting competition on the timber market.
(56) With respect to the annual reports, the Commission notes that, in fact, no reporting requirement existed under German law until 31 December 1999. Regarding the equity contribution, the Commission notes that such an obligation first existed in Germany as of 1 January 2000.
5. ASSESSMENT
(57) On the basis of the information provided by Germany, the Commission distinguished between two aid packages for KNT, one for the construction of the sawmill in Wismar and the other for its extension.
(58) The aid granted to KNT in 1997/98 for the construction of a sawmill in Wismar with a total gross aid intensity of 42,79 % was allegedly granted under regional aid schemes previously approved by the Commission(17).
(59) Regarding the aid granted in the period 1998 to 2000 for the extension of the sawmill in Wismar, it is evident from the latest set of documents sent to the Commission by Germany that the total amount of aid corresponded to an aid intensity of 33,99 %.
(60) Pursuant to Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty, any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts competition or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods is incompatible with the common market in so far as it affects trade between Member States. The aid for KNT was granted through State resources. It distorts or threatens to distort competition because it was granted to an individual undertaking in a branch of production and thus conferred on it an advantage over its competitors. Trade between Member States is affected in so far as KNT is active in a branch characterised by such trade. Germany has not disputed the fact that the measures constitute aid.
(61) The Commission notes that the measures were implemented in structurally weak areas under Article 87(3)(a) of the EC Treaty. It also notes that the maximum admissible gross aid intensity in these regions was 35 % and 50 % for large enterprises and SMEs respectively on the basis of the relevant schemes and the list of development areas applicable at the time the aid was granted(18). These rates represent ceilings which apply to the total aid granted if, for example, aid is granted under various regional schemes or from local, regional, national or Community resources.
(62) In light of the total aid intensity of the first aid package, the aid granted to KNT for the construction of the sawmill required that the aid recipient ranked as an SME within the meaning of the Community SME guidelines and Recommendation 96/280/EC.
(63) At the time that Decision 2002/468/EC was adopted, the total aid for the extension of the sawmill in Wismar was not fully known to the Commission even after institution of the formal procedure together with its information injunction. At the time, the total aid intensity of the second aid package obviously exceeded 35 %. This means that the aid recipient had to satisfy the SME definition given in Recommendation 96/280/EC and in the Community SME guidelines applicable at the time.
5.1. The SME status of the aid recipient
5.1.1. Definition of an SME
(64) Under Recommendation 96/280/EC, "small and medium-sized enterprises" are enterprises which have fewer than 250 employees and either an annual turnover not exceeding EUR 40 million or an annual balance-sheet total not exceeding EUR 27 million and which conform to the criterion of independence.
(65) "Independent enterprises" are enterprises which are not owned as to 25 % or more of the capital or the voting rights by one enterprise, or jointly by several enterprises, falling outside the definition of an SME or a small enterprise.
(66) In this connection, the Commission recalls its position on SMEs, which consists in providing this category of enterprises with special incentives and removing certain handicaps. Point 1.2 of the Community SME guidelines explains that one of the main such handicaps is the difficulty in obtaining capital and credit as well as access to information, particularly information concerning new technologies and potential markets, and the higher costs entailed by new regulatory arrangements.
(67) The bonus (i.e. the increase in the admissible amount of aid) for SMEs is therefore justified not only by the contribution which these enterprises make to the common good but also, in light of their positive role, by the necessary compensation for the handicaps they face. It must be ensured, however, that the bonus is, in fact, granted only to enterprises which have to contend with these handicaps. In particular, the definition of an SME must be so restrictive that only those enterprises which have the envisaged positive effect on third parties and are disadvantaged by the abovementioned handicaps are covered. The definition cannot, therefore, be extended to many larger companies which do not necessarily have a positive effect on third parties or which do not absolutely have to reckon with the handicaps typically faced by SMEs. Aid granted to such companies could lead to further distortions of competition and intra-Community trade.
(68) This principle is stated in the recital 22 of Recommendation 96/280/EC, which reads as follows:"Whereas, therefore, fairly strict criteria must be laid down for defining SMEs if the measures aimed at them are genuinely to benefit the enterprises for which size represents a handicap."
The Commission takes particular care to ensure that the independence criterion is not circumvented. In order to guarantee that only genuine SMEs benefit from a scheme, legal constructs of SMEs which constitute economic groupings with greater market power than that of an SME must be excluded.
5.1.2. Size of the relevant enterprise
(69) Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty relies on the definition of an undertaking when defining an aid recipient. As the Court of Justice confirmed(19), an undertaking need not constitute a separate legal entity but may consist of a group of companies. For purposes of implementing Community law, undertakings must be equated with "economic units". Consequently, it is necessary to distinguish between various factors, such as companies' shareholding patterns, the persons of the shareholders/partners and the degree of economic integration.
(70) The legal person benefiting from the two aid packages is KNT. When initiating the procedure, the Commission stated that there were indications that KNT was not to be regarded as the relevant enterprise. Various elements suggested that the aid recipient was possibly larger than the legal person KNT and might encompass other companies related to Fritz Klausner.
(71) Of the enterprises in which Fritz Klausner is present, three companies operate sawmills, namely KHI, KNT and KHT. The sawmill operations of KHI were discontinued in 1996, however. It must be investigated whether KNT itself constitutes a "single economic unit" or whether the two other sawmills KNT and KHT can be regarded as companies which together form a single economic unit.
- In terms of ownership relations
(72) Fritz Klausner possesses the entire capital of KNT and is also the sole shareholder in KNT-GmbH, the general partner of KNT. He therefore decides both on the normal and the extraordinary business transactions of KNT.
(73) Fritz Klausner owns all the shares in KHT-GmbH, the general partner of KHT. He owns only 20 % of the capital of KHT-KG. The other limited partner of KHT is KHI. Fritz Klausner owns 75 % of the capital of KHI, although he has not been entitled to vote at general meetings of partners since 1 January 1997. According to Germany, the management authority at KHT-GmbH has been restricted so that KHT-GmbH must now muster three quarters of the voting rights of KHT's partners. Fritz Klausner cannot therefore decide alone on the normal and extraordinary business transactions of KHT but requires the approval of his mother, Margarethe Klausner.
(74) The Commission notes, however, that all persons with shares in KHT-GmbH, KHT, KHI-GmbH and KHI belong to the same family.
(75) Further elements mentioned by the Commission when it instituted the procedure point to the fact that KNT and KHT have coordinated their activity.
- In terms of economic integration
(76) When initiating the procedure, the Commission presented the arguments deployed by Germany to prove that KNT and KHT should be considered as different economic units.
(77) According to Germany, KNT and KHT have different business concepts based on their geographical and logistical features. The two companies do not pursue the same interests and do not work together.
(78) The KNT sawmill is located in Wismar, a Baltic Sea port of international importance. It processes high-quality timber from the best regions in northern Europe. It obtains this high-quality timber with its small knots primarily from Scandinavia, Russia and the Baltic States. It exports its production by sea to the Netherlands, Belgium, France, the United Kingdom, Denmark, North Africa and Japan.
(79) The KHT sawmill is located in Friesau in the low mountain region of eastern Germany. It obtains its raw material from within a radius of 200 km, processing mainly German timber. This timber is of low quality and, because of high transport costs (rail and road), the mill's markets are limited to Germany, Italy and the USA.
(80) In addition, according to Germany, the two companies have their own management and personnel departments.
(81) When it instituted the procedure, the Commission specified several elements which suggested that the activities of KNT and KHT-KG are coordinated.
(82) At the time the procedure was initiated, there was a link on the KNT website(20) to that of KHT; the names of both companies appeared under the heading "Plant locations". They were described as being located in central Europe, from where they supplied customers all over the world. Both companies were described as enterprises producing high-quality wood whose customers came from the wood processing industry.
(83) For the rest, in contrast to Germany's statements, the two companies appeared to share certain management activities. According to the presentation on the websites, they had a joint sales manager, Anne Leibold, and a joint manager responsible for purchasing, Matthias Wittkemper. For such major business activities as material procurement and marketing, KNT and KHT therefore had the same manager and so appeared to the outside world as a single enterprise.
(84) Finally, KHT represented KNT in certain business tasks. The decisions of the Land of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania concerning the granting of investment aid to KNT for the construction of the sawmill were communicated to KNT "for the attention of" KHT.
(85) Germany did not comment specifically on any of these points. It merely presented a list of KNT and KHT managers which showed that the companies did not have joint management. It also provided the Commission with the agreements of KNT and KHT with three of their suppliers. Germany did not comment, however, on the specific questions raised.
(86) KNT reacted to these specific questions, as summarised in recitals 48 to 51. It stated that the two companies pursued different economic interests and did not share any management tasks.
(87) The Commission is still of the opinion that sufficient elements indicate some coordination of activities by KNT and KHT. After the procedure had been initiated, the websites of the companies were reorganised. KNT argues that the link which existed at the time was set up in connection with the formation of a timber cluster via which various independent producers and suppliers from the timber industry would be able to present their business activities. Following the failure of the project, the link between KNT and KHT was removed. The Commission notes, however, that on both KNT's and KHT's website the two companies were described as the two plant locations. Both were moreover described as companies which supplied their customers with high-quality sawn timber in Europe and worldwide. The comments by interested parties confirmed that both KNT and KHT are present in central Europe, in the Nordic countries and on all markets on which Nordic and Austrian sawmill enterprises are active. KNT and KHT obviously do not have any clearly separate procurement and supplier markets. Even if such a division existed, the fact that each location is specialised in a specific market segment does not rule out the possibility that they belong to the same economic unit.
(88) Regarding the management positions in the two companies, their websites were changed so that the names of Anne Leibold and Matthias Wittkemper still appear only on the KHT management list. They were removed from the KNT list on the companies' websites. Anne Leibold as sales manager and Matthias Wittkemper as purchasing manager do not appear on the overview of KNT management personnel which was presented by Germany for the period from 1 January 1998 to 31 December 1999, but only on that of KHT. This change was not justified to the Commission, which doubts that these changes can be sufficiently justified. It cannot therefore be concluded that KNT and KHT do not carry out joint management tasks.
(89) It is evident from the comments by interested parties that KNT and KHT are perceived as one and the same enterprise and as one of the market's largest participants.
(90) For the above reasons, the Commission has concluded that the legal person KNT cannot alone be regarded as the aid recipient. On the basis of the information available to it, it concludes that the relevant enterprise is larger and also encompasses KHT. KHT and KNT are actually linked to each other through one of their partners. They pursue the same economic activity; purchasing and marketing are carried out by the same managers; and the two enterprises appear on their respective websites under the heading "Plant locations".
5.2. Compatibility of the total amount of aid for the construction of the sawmill in Wismar
(91) When the procedure was initiated, the Commission had already come to the conclusion that there was no reason to institute proceedings in respect of the investment grant of DEM 43818000 (EUR 22403787,65), the investment allowance of DEM 2635086 (EUR 1347298) and the guarantee with an aid intensity of 0,5 % that had been made available for the construction of the mill in Wismar, which could be regarded as aid that had been granted previously.
(92) However, the Commission had doubts regarding the conformity of the investment allowance of DEM 2,5 million. This measure involved aid in the form of a tax benefit which is granted automatically if the legal conditions (i.e. the realisation of the investment) are met. The State does not have any discretion when granting this tax benefit; the decision of the tax authorities does not create a subjective right but merely constitutes an act to determine whether the conditions for a claim exist. Therefore, the moment an investment is realised is to be regarded as the date on which the benefit is granted. In the present case, 1998 is to be considered the year in which this measure was granted since it was granted for investments realised in that year.
(93) The Investment Allowance Law provides for a tax exemption for the acquisition and production of capital goods and buildings by enterprises in the new Länder. It defines those eligible for an allowance as economically and organisationally separate operating units. In the present case, KNT is the sole beneficiary of the aid within the meaning of the Investment Allowance Law. In 1998 KNT had fewer than 250 employees and was thus eligible for an investment allowance of 10 %. The investment allowance amounting to DEM 2,5 million (EUR 1278229,70) was, therefore, covered by an approved aid scheme and constitutes existing aid on condition that the cumulation rules are complied with.
(94) The Commission must ascertain whether the aggregate aid intensity is admissible and does not exceed the ceiling for regional aid. In 1998 the aggregate aid intensity for the project was 42,79 %.
(95) Recommendation 96/280/EC stipulates:"Where, at the final balance-sheet date, an enterprise exceeds or falls below the employee thresholds or financial ceilings, this is to result in its acquiring or losing the status of 'SME' only if the phenomenon is repeated over two consecutive financial years."
(96) The reference year to be considered is 1997 since this is the year of the last annual balance-sheet date. Although the aid recipient had 167 employees in 1997, it achieved a balance-sheet total of EUR [...] and turnover of EUR [...], exceeding the thresholds for the definition of an SME. However, this was not repeated over two consecutive financial years as the SME thresholds were not exceeded in 1996, when the aid recipient had 159 employees and a balance-sheet total of EUR [...].
(97) Accordingly, the recipient did not forgo its SME status in 1998 and was still an SME in that year, when the aid was granted. The establishment aid granted is thus compatible with the ceiling for regional aid. Other aid was granted under approved schemes and is existing aid.
5.3. Compatibility of the total amount of aid for the extension of the sawmill
(98) When the procedure was initiated, the Commission had already come to the conclusion that the investment grant of DEM 8879000 (EUR 4539760) for the extension of the project was existing aid. The procedure was thus initiated in respect of the other measures involved in the extension project.
(99) The low-interest loan of DEM 8549999,60 (EUR 4371545,98) with an aid intensity of 0,14 % was granted in 1999. Together with the aid already granted for the same project, the aid intensity of all the aid granted for the extension project amounts to 14,55 % of the eligible costs, i.e. below the ceiling of 35 % for large enterprises on the basis of the list of regional development areas. Irrespective of the size of the recipient, the low-interest loan is thus covered by an approved aid scheme and is to be regarded as existing aid on condition that the rules on aid cumulation are complied with.
(100) The loan of DEM 6949999,99 (EUR 3553478,57) granted under the KfW environmental programme with an aid element of DEM 186971,46 (EUR 95597) was also granted in 1999. Its aid intensity amounts to 0,3 % of the eligible costs. The low-interest loan has to be regarded as existing aid provided that the rules on aid cumulation are complied with since the aggregate intensity at that time was below 35 %.
(101) The investment allowance of DEM 7775095 (EUR 3965117,11) is regarded as aid granted in 1999 since the corresponding investment took place in that year. Its aid intensity amounts to 12,58 % of the eligible costs. The investment allowance has to be regarded as existing aid on condition that the rules on aid cumulation are complied with.
(102) The 80 % guarantee for aid of DEM 51000 (EUR 26075,89) was granted in 1999. It has an aid intensity of 0,08 % of the eligible costs. It has to be regarded as existing aid on condition that the rules on aid cumulation are met.
(103) The investment allowance of DEM 3385492 (EUR 1730974,57) was granted in 2000 since the corresponding investment was carried out that year. Its aid intensity is 5,5 % of the eligible costs. It has to be regarded as existing aid on condition that the rules on aid cumulation are complied with.
(104) The total aid intensity of the measures granted for the extension project amounts to 33,05 %. Consequently, irrespective of the size of the recipient, all the measures are compatible with the rules on cumulation. Moreover, the amount contributed by the aid recipient accounts for at least 25 % of the finance for the productive investments, as required by point 4.2 of the guidelines on national regional aid(21) with effect from 1 January 2000, when Germany implemented the appropriate measures proposed by the Commission. This was confirmed by Germany in its letter of 26 September 2002. The Commission has, therefore, come to the conclusion that the aid for the extension project constitutes existing aid.
6. CONCLUSION
(105) With Decision 2002/468/EC, the Commission misinterpreted the Investment Allowance Law. It has, therefore, decided to withdraw that Decision, which is based on a clear mistake in law. Moreover, after the Decision had been adopted, Germany provided new information on the aid granted for the investment project. On the basis of that information and the attached documents, the Commission has come to the conclusion that the aid granted to KNT in respect of the construction and extension projects is covered by existing schemes and thus constitutes existing aid,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
Decision 2002/468/EC is herewith withdrawn.
Article 2
The following aid which Germany has implemented for Klausner Nordic Timber GmbH & Co constitutes existing aid:
(a) the investment allowance of DEM 2500000 (EUR 1278229,70) for the construction of the Wismar plant;
(b) the low-interest loan of DEM 6949999,60 (EUR 3553478,52) granted under the KFW environmental programme for the extension of the Wismar plant;
(c) the investment allowance of DEM 7775095 (EUR 3975342,95) for the extension of the Wismar plant;
(d) the 80 % guarantee to secure a loan of DEM 12750000 (EUR 6518971,49) for the extension of the Wismar plant;
(e) the investment allowance of DEM 3385492 (EUR 1730974,57) for the extension of the Wismar plant.
Article 3
This Decision is addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany.
Done at Brussels, 23 December 2002. | [
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COUNCIL DECISION of 15 February 1993 authorizing the French Republic to extend the application of a measure derogating from Article 2 of the sixth Directive (77/388/EEC) on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes
(93/110/EEC)THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic 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 Council Decision 89/683/EEC of 21 December 1989 authorizing the French Republic to apply a measure derogating from Article 2 of the sixth Directive (77/388/EEC) on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes (2),
Having regard to the ensuing Commission proposal,
Having regard to the Commission report on the application of Decision 89/683/EEC,
Whereas, under 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 or extend special measures for derogation from that Directive in order to simplify the procedure for charging value added tax (VAT) or to prevent certain types of tax evasion or avoidance;
Whereas, by letter registered by the Secretariat-General of the Commission on 22 October 1992, the Government of the French Republic requested authorization to extend application of the derogation previously granted to it for a limited period by Decision 89/683/EEC on the basis of Article 27 of Directive 77/388/EEC;
Whereas the Commission report on the application of the said measure over the period 1991 to 1992 has demonstrated the latter's usefulness and effectiveness in the waste-recovery sector, which is particularly vulnerable to fraud; whereas the said report finds that there is no reason to oppose extension of the derogation provided that the derogation is clearly limited over time, and expires in the short term;
Whereas the other Member States were informed on 20 November 1992 of the request from the Government of the French Republic,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
By way of derogation from Article 2 of Directive 77/388/EEC, the French Republic is hereby authorized, until 31 December 1996 and in respect of fresh industrial waste and recuperable material, to exempt from VAT:
(a) on the one hand, supplies made by:
- undertakings whose annual turnover is less than FF 500 000,
- undertakings which do not have a permanent establishment or which, although they have a permanent establishment, have achieved in the previous year a turnover figure in respect of such products of less than FF 6 million, unless they are authorized to subject such transactions to VAT;
(b) on the other hand, imports and intra-Community acquisitions.
Article 2
By way of derogation from Article 10 (2) of Directive 77/388/EEC, the French Republic is hereby authorized until 31 December 1996 to introduce in respect of supplies to taxable persons of fresh industrial waste and recuperable material in the form of non-ferrous metals and their alloys, where these supplies are not exempt from VAT on the basis of Article 1, arrangements suspending payment of VAT relating to these transactions.
The taxable persons receiving these supplies shall pay VAT on them where these products are intended neither for the export as such nor for the manufacture or resale as such of products liable to VAT.
Article 3
In the light of a report from the Commission on the application of the authorizations referred to in Articles 1 and 2, accompanied, where appropriate, by a proposal for a Decision, the Council, acting on the basis of that proposal, shall decide, by 31 December 1996 at the latest, whether the said authorizations are to be extended.
Article 4
This Decision is addressed to the French Republic.
Done at Brussels, 15 February 1993. | [
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Council Decision
of 21 January 2002
on the conclusion of an Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of South Africa on trade in wine
(2002/51/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 of the Commission,
Whereas:
(1) The Council decided by Decision 1999/753/EC(1), that the Agreement on Trade, Development and Cooperation between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of South Africa, of the other part(2), would enter into force provisionally on 1 January 2000.
(2) An agreement between the European Community and the Republic of South Africa on trade in wine, hereinafter referred to as the "Agreement", has been negotiated. This Agreement was initialled on 30 November 2001 and should be approved.
(3) In order to facilitate the implementation of certain provisions of the Agreement, the Commission should be allowed to make the necessary technical adjustments in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 75 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine(3),
HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Article 1
The Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of South Africa on trade in wine together with the attached Annexes, Protocol and Declarations are hereby approved on behalf of the Community.
The texts referred to in the first subparagraph are attached hereto.
Article 2
The President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the persons empowered to sign the Agreement in order to bind the Community.
Article 3
For the purposes of applying Articles 7(8) and 18(2) of the Agreement the Commission is hereby authorised, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999, to conclude the instruments required to amend the Agreement.
Article 4
The Commission shall represent the Community in the Joint Committee set up by Article 19 of the Agreement.
Done at Brussels, 21 January 2002. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2205/2001
of 14 November 2001
amending Council Directive 70/524/EEC concerning additives in feedingstuffs as regards withdrawal of the authorisation of certain additives
(Text with EEA relevance)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Directive 70/524/EEC of 23 November 1970 concerning additives in feedingstuffs(1), as last amended by Directive 2001/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council(2), and in particular Article 9g(4) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) As provided for in Article 9g(1) of Directive 70/524/EEC, antibiotics and coccidiostats included in Annex I to that Directive before 1 January 1988 were provisionally authorised as from 1 April 1998 and transferred to Chapter I of Annex B with a view to their reevaluation as additives linked to a person responsible for putting them into circulation.
(2) New applications for authorisation had to be submitted for the abovementioned additives. Furthermore, Article 9g(4) of Directive 70/524/EEC required that the dossiers in respect of these applications be submitted, as provided for in Article 4 of that Directive and no later than 30 September 2000, with a view to reevaluation.
(3) Dossiers were submitted before 1 October 2000 for the coccidiostats meticlorpindol, meticlorpindol/methylbenzoquate, amprolium, amprolium/ethopabate, dimetridazole and nicarbazin and for the antibiotic flavophospholipol.
(4) In accordance with Article 4(4) of Directive 70/524/EEC, Member States checked the compliance of the dossiers with Council Directive 87/153/EEC of 16 February 1987 fixing guidelines for the assessment of additives in animal nutrition(3), as last amended by Commission Directive 2001/79/EC(4), within a period of 60 days from the date on which the dossiers were dispatched to them.
(5) After consultation of the Standing Committee on Feedingstuffs and in accordance with Article 4(5) of Directive 70/524/EEC, the applicants for authorisation of the abovementioned coccidiostats were notified by the Commission that the rules on administrative presentation of the dossiers had not been complied with, in so far as data ranging from substance identification to important toxicological information were missing.
(6) Similarly, after consultation of the Standing Committee on Feedingstuffs and in accordance with Article 4(5) of Directive 70/524/EEC, the applicant for authorisation of the abovementioned antibiotic was notified by the Commission that the rules on administrative presentation of the dossier had not been complied with for certain animal categories, in so far as efficacy data and data related to tolerance tests were missing for these categories.
(7) In order to ensure that the deficiencies in submitting the necessary data were not due to unforeseen delivery reasons, an extra time of three weeks was given to allow the above referred applicants to submit the missing information.
(8) For several substances, complementary information was submitted but this was not sufficient to comply with Directive 87/153/EEC, while for the other substances concerned, no complementary data were sent to the Commission within the extra time given.
(9) Since the requirements of Directive 70/524/EEC have not been met for the abovementioned coccidiostats, the authorisation granted to these additives should be withdrawn and their entries deleted from Chapter I of Annex B to the Directive.
(10) Since the requirements of Directive 70/524/EEC have not been met for the antibiotic flavophospholipol as regards certain animal categories, the entry of the antibiotic in Chapter I of Annex B to the Directive should be amended accordingly.
(11) It is appropriate to allow a limited period of time within which existing stocks of the coccidiostats and the antibiotic covered by this Regulation may be used.
(12) The Standing Committee for Feedingstuffs has not given an opinion, the Commission has therefore proposed these measures to the Council on 25 July 2001 in accordance with Article 23 of Directive 70/524/EEC, the Council being required to act within three months.
(13) The Council has not acted within the required time limit. The Council has not decided against the proposed measures by simple majority within the same time limit. These measures should now be adopted by the Commission,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Chapter I of Annex B to Directive 70/524/EEC shall be amended as follows:
1. The following substances belonging to the group of coccidiostats and other medicinal substances shall be deleted:
- meticlorpindol,
- meticlorpindol/methylbenzoquate,
- amprolium,
- amprolium/ethopabate,
- dimetridazole,
- nicarbazin.
2. The entries in relation to flavophospholipol are amended as follows:
(a) the animal category "Animals bred for fur, excluding rabbits" is deleted;
(b) the animal category "Other poultry, excluding ducks, geese, pigeons" is replaced by the animal category "Chickens for fattening".
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force six months after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 14 November 2001. | [
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1731/2006
of 23 November 2006
on special detailed rules for the application of export refunds in the case of certain preserved beef and veal products
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)
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2388/84 of 14 August 1984 on special detailed rules for the application of export refunds in the case of certain preserved beef and veal products (2) lays down the conditions under which preserved meat falling within CN codes 1602 50 31 and 1602 50 39 which is exported to third countries may be eligible for a special refund.
(2)
In particular, those preserved products must be manufactured 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 (3).
(3)
The rules and conditions for applying the advance payment of the refund on products processed under the arrangements provided for in Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 565/80 are laid down in Chapter 3 of Title II of Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 of 15 April 1999 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products (4).
(4)
The measures laid down by Regulation (EEC) No 565/80, the corresponding implementing measures laid down by Chapter 3 of Title II of Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 and Regulation (EEC) No 2388/84 have been repealed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1713/2006.
(5)
It is also laid down that, in order to benefit from an export refund, the abovementioned preserved products must be produced from beef and veal of Community origin and contain a minimum percentage of beef and veal, excluding offal and fat.
(6)
To guarantee that the preserved products eligible for export refunds are produced solely from beef and veal, and that the meat is of Community origin, such production must be kept under the control of the customs authority in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (5) and the payment of the refund must remain linked to compliance with those conditions.
(7)
To increase the transparency and effectiveness of those controls, particularly in the case of a post-clearance check, provision should be made for operators to keep up-to-date records of information allowing monitoring of the use of beef and veal in the production of preserved products according to the production batches of preserved products.
(8)
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
Scope
Without prejudice to Regulation (EC) No 800/1999, the payment of an export refund on preserved products falling within CN codes 1602 50 31 9125, 1602 50 31 9325, 1602 50 39 9125 and 1602 50 39 9325 (hereinafter ‘the preserved products’) shall be subject to compliance with the conditions laid down by this Regulation.
Article 2
General conditions
1. The preserved products may benefit from an export refund only if they are manufactured under supervision by the customs authorities and under customs control within the meaning of Article 4(13) and (14) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.
2. Production and export must be carried out during the period of validity of the export licence with advance fixing of the refund.
Article 3
Specific conditions relating to production
1. Operators shall submit to the customs authority a declaration stating their intention to place meat under customs control with a view to manufacturing preserved products and exporting them with a refund.
This declaration shall indicate in particular the quantities involved, the identification details and the types of meat to be used as raw materials, and the places of storage.
The meat shall be presented in boxes and labelled in a manner which ensures it is clearly identifiable and can be easily associated with the accompanying declaration.
2. Once the declaration referred to in paragraph 1 has been accepted, the meat and the processing operation shall be placed under customs control. This control shall be based on documentary and physical checks, which may be performed on the meat when it enters the procedure, or during storage or production and on the corresponding documents, particularly those referred to in paragraphs 7 and 8.
Article 3 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 386/90 (6) and Articles 2(2), 3, 4, 5, 6, 8(1), 8(2) and the first subparagraph of Article 11 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2090/2002 (7) and Annex I thereto shall apply mutatis mutandis.
3. Pending production, the meat referred to in paragraph 1 shall be kept permanently separate from all other beef and veal.
4. Operators shall keep a separate record of entries of beef and veal intended for the production of preserved products.
5. Operators shall inform the customs authorities of the places and dates of production of the preserved products and shall also notify the quantity, identification details and type of beef and veal to be used to this end.
6. During the production of the preserved products only the beef and veal referred to in paragraph 1 may be present in the production area.
7. For each batch of preserved products produced, operators shall keep an up-to-date record indicating:
(a)
the nature, identification details and quantities of meat used as a raw material, and
(b)
the number, identification details, quantity and type of preserved products produced from that meat.
The information referred to in point (b) shall be entered on each of the declarations referred to in Article 3(1) under customs control.
For the purposes of this paragraph, ‘batch of preserved products’ shall mean all preserved products produced at the same time and under practically identical circumstances.
8. Detailed recipes covering the various production processes and products for which refunds are applied for under this Regulation shall be kept at the place of production. These documents, and those referred to in paragraph 7, shall be kept by operators for at least three calendar years following the year of production. The customs authorities shall have access to these documents as required for control purposes.
9. The preserved products produced shall remain under customs control until they leave the customs territory of the Community or reach one of the destinations provided for in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 800/1999.
Article 4
Characteristics of preserved products
The preserved products shall:
-
be produced from beef and veal of Community origin,
-
contain not less than 80 % beef and veal, excluding offal and fat, and
-
be put in tins of a unit weight of not more than 2 500 grams net.
In addition, the name of the Member State in which the product was manufactured shall be stamped in relief, uncoded, on each of the tins, clearly visible, in an official language of that Member State.
Article 5
Additional control measures
The Member States shall lay down more detailed measures for controlling production of the preserved products and inform the Commission thereof. In particular, they shall take all necessary steps to exclude any possibility of substitution of the raw materials used or of the products in question.
Article 6
Export formalities
1. Once the customs formalities for the export of the preserved products have been completed, the customs authority shall indicate the number of the declaration(s) referred to in Article 3(1) on the export declaration(s) referred to in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 together with the quantities and identification details of the preserved products exported corresponding to each declaration.
2. Once the customs formalities for export have been completed, the declaration(s) referred to in Article 3(1), with the additional information added in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 3(7), and the copy of the export declaration(s) shall be sent through administrative channels to the body responsible for paying the export refunds.
Article 7
Entry into force
This Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
It shall apply from 1 January 2007.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 23 November 2006. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1035/2003
of 17 June 2003
amending Regulation (EC) No 2316/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1251/1999 establishing a support system for producers of certain arable crops
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1251/1999 of 17 May 1999 establishing a support system for producers of certain arable crops(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1038/2001(2), and in particular Article 9 thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2316/1999(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 335/2003(4), lays down detailed rules for applying Regulation (EC) No 1251/1999 with respect to the conditions for granting area payments for certain arable crops and lays down the conditions for set-aside.
(2) Under Community policy to improve quality, the eligibility of claimants of area payments for rape and colza seed is limited to those who have used quality seed of the specified varieties. To determine the eligible varieties, reference is made to the common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species established by Council Directive 2002/53/EC(5). The time limit for continued eligibility of varieties removed from the common catalogue should be specified.
(3) New varieties of flax grown for fibre may be considered eligible. These should be included in the list of varieties eligible for the support system in Annex XII to Regulation (EC) No 2316/1999.
(4) Regulation (EC) No 2316/1999 should therefore be amended accordingly.
(5) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Regulation (EC) No 2316/1999 is hereby amended as follows:
1. Article 4(1) is replaced by the following:
"1. The Member States shall apply a quality policy in respect of colza and rape seed by limiting areas eligible for area payments to those sown with certified seed of double-zero (00) varieties of colza and rape seed notified and entered as such in the common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species established by Council Directive 2002/53/EC(6) prior to any payment. Where a variety is removed from the common catalogue, it shall continue to be eligible until 30 June of the third year following that in which it was included at the latest. Double-zero varieties shall be those producing seed with a maximum glucosinolate content of 25 μmol/g at a moisture content of 9 %, as determined by method EN ISO 9167-1: 1995, and an erucic acid content of not more than 2 % of the total fatty acid content, as determined by method EN ISO 5508: 1995."
2. The flax varieties "Alizée" and "Drakkar" grown for fibre are inserted in point 1 of Annex XII.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Article 1(2) shall apply from the 2003/04 marketing year.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 17 June 2003. | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 793/2003
of 8 May 2003
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 1163/2002(4), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1324/2002(5).
(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 9 May 2003.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 8 May 2003. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1247/97 of 30 June 1997 amending Regulation (EEC) No 865/90 laying down detailed rules for the application of the special arrangements for imports of grain sorghum and millet originating in the African, Caribbean and Pacific States (ACP) or in the overseas countries and territories (OCT) in order to implement the agreement on agriculture concluded during the Uruguay Round of negotiations
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 3290/94 of 22 December 1994 on the adjustments and transitional arrangements required in the agriculture sector in order to implement the Agreements concluded during the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1161/97 (2), and in particular Article 3 (1) thereof,
Whereas in order to take account of the existing import arrangements in the cereals sector and those resulting from the Agreement on Agriculture concluded during the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations, transitional measures are needed to adjust the preferential concessions in the form of exemption from the import levy on certain cereal products from the ACP States and the OCT;
Whereas the period for the adoption of transitional measures was extended until 30 June 1998 by Regulation (EC) No 1161/97; whereas, pending the adoption by the Council of definitive measures, application of the measures provided for by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 865/90 (3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1226/96 (4), should be extended until 30 June 1998;
Whereas Commission Regulation (EEC) No 865/90 lays down detailed rules for the application of the preferential conditions reducing the import levy for quotas of shorghum and millet; whereas, given that the levies were replaced by customs duties and the advance fixing of the import charge was abolished on 1 July 1995, the transitional adjustment of those provisions should be extended;
Whereas the rates of duties of the customs tariff within the abovementioned quotas are those applicable on the day that the declaration of release for free circulation of the import is accepted;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Regulation (EEC) No 865/90 is hereby amended as follows for the marketing year 1997/98:
1. 'levy` is replaced by 'duty` each time that it appears;
2. the last sentence of Article 2 (b) and the last sentence of Article 4 (b) are deleted;
3. Article 3 (b) is replaced by the following:
'(b) the letters "ACP" or "OCT" as the case may be in Section 8.
The licence shall oblige to import from the countries specified. The import duty shall not be increased or adjusted.`
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
It shall apply from 1 July 1997 to 30 June 1998.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 30 June 1997. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1
] |
COMMISSION DECISION of 22 May 1992 approving measures to set up pilot projects for the control of rabies with a view to its eradication or prevention presented by the Federal Republic of Germany (Only the German text is authentic) (92/303/EEC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Decision 89/455/EEC of 24 July 1989 introducing Community measures to set up pilot projects for the control of rabies with a view to its eradication or prevention (1), and in particular Article 4 thereof,
Whereas, conforming to Article 1 of Decision 89/455/EEC the Federal Republic of Germany shall set up large-scale pilot projects in accordance with Article 3 for the eradication or prevention of rabies in the wild life of the Community using vaccines for the oral immunization of foxes;
Whereas the pilot projects as presented by the Federal Republic of Germany include the adjacent border areas of Czechoslovakia, Austria and Poland;
Whereas the pilot project is part of a cross border cooperation with Czechoslovakia, Austria and Poland;
Whereas by letters dated 20 August 1991 the Federal Republic of Germany notified the Commission of pilot projects for the control of rabies with a view to its eradication or prevention;
Whereas, after examination the pilot project was found to comply with Decision 89/455/EEC whereas the conditions for financial participation by the Community are therefore met;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
The pilot projects in April and May 1992 for the eradication and prevention of rabies, presented by the Federal Republic of Germany are hereby approved.
Article 2
The Federal Republic of Germany shall bring into force by 1 April 1992 the laws, regulations and administrative provisions for implementing the pilot projects referred to in Article 1.
Article 3
This Decision is addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany. Done at Brussels, 22 May 1992. | [
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION of 12 December 1991 on the small-scale fisheries zonal plan (1991 to 1992) submitted by Spain in accordance with Regulation (EEC) No 4028/86 (Only the Spanish text is authentic) (92/29/EEC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 4028/86 of 18 December 1986 on Community measures to improve and adapt structures in the fisheries and aquaculture sector (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3944/90 (2), and in particular Article 4 (4) thereof,
Whereas the Spanish Government submitted to the Commission, on 29 May 1991, a small-scale fisheries zonal plan, hereinafter referred to as the 'plan'; whereas it has since submitted additional information on this plan;
Whereas it is necessary to examine whether the plan fulfils the conditions laid down in Article 2 (5) and (6) of Regulation (EEC) No 4028/86 and can constitute a framework for Community and national financial measures in the small-scale fisheries sector;
Whereas, particularly in view of respecting a reduction in the overall capacity of the fishing fleet provided for in Regulation (EEC) No 4028/86, it is necessary to limit Community aid to final cessation of vessels and the modernization of the small fleet, while meeting the needs of the sector for small-scale fisheries as set out in the plan presented to the Commission with Community participation for part of the necessary finances;
Whereas the Standing Committee for the Fishing Industry has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its chairman,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
The small-scale fisheries zonal plan (1991 to 1992) submitted by Spain on 29 May 1991 and supplemented by it at a later date is hereby approved subject to the limits and conditions laid down in this Decision.
Article 2
For guidance, Community aid for 1991 is divided as follows:
(in ecus)
1. Modernization 285 000 2. Final cessation 689 500
Article 3
For the submission and examination of applications for Community aid for measures concerning modernization included in the indicative financing plan referred to in Article 2, the corresponding provisions of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 894/87 (3) and Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1116/88 (4) and Decision No 88/163/EEC (5) shall apply.
Article 4
Modernization measures provided for in the zonal plan must not result in an increase in the fishing capacity of the fleet (grt or kW).
Article 5
By 31 July 1993 at the latest, Spain shall provide the Commission with information on the number, tonnage and power of the vessels entering and leaving service during the period covered by the plan for each category of vessels defined in the zonal plan.
Article 6
This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Spain. Done at Brussels, 12 December 1991. | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Directive 2002/74/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 23 September 2002
amending Council Directive 80/987/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer
(Text with EEA relevance)
THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 137(2) thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission(1),
Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee(2),
Having consulted the Committee of the Regions,
Acting in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 251 of the Treaty(3),
Whereas:
(1) The Community Charter of Fundamental Social Rights for Workers adopted on 9 December 1989 states, in point 7, that the completion of the internal market must lead to an improvement in the living and working conditions of workers in the European Community and that this improvement must cover, where necessary, the development of certain aspects of employment regulations such as procedures for collective redundancies and those regarding bankruptcies.
(2) Directive 80/987/EEC(4) aims to provide a minimum degree of protection for employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer. To this end, it obliges the Member States to establish a body which guarantees payment of the outstanding claims of the employees concerned.
(3) Changes in insolvency law in the Member States and the development of the internal market mean that certain provisions of that Directive must be adapted.
(4) Legal certainty and transparency also require clarification with regard to the scope and certain definitions of Directive 80/987/EEC. In particular the possible exclusions granted to the Member States should be indicated in the enacting provisions of the Directive and consequently the Annex thereto should be deleted.
(5) In order to ensure equitable protection for the employees concerned, the definition of the state of insolvency should be adapted to new legislative trends in the Member States and should also include within this concept insolvency proceedings other than liquidation. In this context, Member States should, in order to determine the liability of the guarantee institution, be able to lay down that where an insolvency situation results in several insolvency proceedings, the situation be treated as a single insolvency procedure.
(6) It should be ensured that the employees referred to in Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC(5), Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by the ETUC, UNICE and CEEP(6) and Council Directive 91/383/EEC of 25 June 1991 supplementing the measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of workers with a fixed-duration employment relationship or a temporary employment relationship(7) are not excluded from the scope of this Directive.
(7) In order to ensure legal certainty for employees in the event of insolvency of undertakings pursuing their activities in a number of Member States, and to strengthen workers' rights in line with the established case law of the Court of Justice, provisions should be introduced which expressly state which institution is responsible for meeting pay claims in these cases and establishes as the aim of cooperation between the competent administrative authorities of the Member States the early settlement of employees' outstanding claims. Furthermore it is necessary to ensure that the relevant arrangements are properly implemented by making provision for collaboration between the competent administrative authorities in the Member States.
(8) Member States may set limitations on the responsibility of the guarantee institutions which should be compatible with the social objective of the Directive and may take into account the different levels of claims.
(9) In order to make it easier to identify insolvency proceedings in particular in situations with a cross-border dimension, provision should be made for the Member States to notify the Commission and the other Member States about the types of insolvency proceedings which give rise to intervention by the guarantee institution.
(10) Directive 80/987/EEC should be amended accordingly.
(11) Since the objectives of the proposed action, namely the amendment of certain provisions of Directive 80/987/EEC to take account of changes in the activities of undertakings in the Community, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore be better achieved at Community level, the Community may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective.
(12) The Commission should submit to the European Parliament and the Council a report on the implementation and application of this Directive in particular as regards the new forms of employment emerging in the Member States,
HAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:
Article 1
Directive 80/987/EEC is hereby amended as follows:
1. the title shall be replaced by the following: "Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer";
2. Section I shall be replaced by the following: "SECTION I
Scope and definitions
Article 1
1. This Directive shall apply to employees' claims arising from contracts of employment or employment relationships and existing against employers who are in a state of insolvency within the meaning of Article 2(1).
2. Member States may, by way of exception, exclude claims by certain categories of employee from the scope of this Directive, by virtue of the existence of other forms of guarantee if it is established that these offer the persons concerned a degree of protection equivalent to that resulting from this Directive.
3. Where such provision already applies in their national legislation, Member States may continue to exclude from the scope of this Directive:
(a) domestic servants employed by a natural person;
(b) share-fishermen.
Article 2
1. For the purposes of this Directive, an employer shall be deemed to be in a state of insolvency where a request has been made for the opening of collective proceedings based on insolvency of the employer, as provided for under the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of a Member State, and involving the partial or total divestment of the employer's assets and the appointment of a liquidator or a person performing a similar task, and the authority which is competent pursuant to the said provisions has:
(a) either decided to open the proceedings, or
(b) established that the employer's undertaking or business has been definitively closed down and that the available assets are insufficient to warrant the opening of the proceedings.
2. This Directive is without prejudice to national law as regards the definition of the terms 'employee', 'employer', 'pay', 'right conferring immediate entitlement' and 'right conferring prospective entitlement'.
However, the Member States may not exclude from the scope of this Directive:
(a) part-time employees within the meaning of Directive 97/81/EC;
(b) workers with a fixed-term contract within the meaning of Directive 1999/70/EC;
(c) workers with a temporary employment relationship within the meaning of Article 1(2) of Directive 91/383/EEC.
3. Member States may not set a minimum duration for the contract of employment or the employment relationship in order for workers to qualify for claims under this Directive.
4. This Directive does not prevent Member States from extending workers' protection to other situations of insolvency, for example where payments have been de facto stopped on a permanent basis, established by proceedings different from those mentioned in paragraph 1 as provided for under national law.
Such procedures shall not however create a guarantee obligation for the institutions of the other Member States in the cases referred to in Section IIIa.";
3. Articles 3 and 4 shall be replaced by the following: "Article 3
Member States shall take the measures necessary to ensure that guarantee institutions guarantee, subject to Article 4, payment of employees' outstanding claims resulting from contracts of employment or employment relationships, including, where provided for by national law, severance pay on termination of employment relationships.
The claims taken over by the guarantee institution shall be the outstanding pay claims relating to a period prior to and/or, as applicable, after a given date determined by the Member States.
Article 4
1. Member States shall have the option to limit the liability of the guarantee institutions referred to in Article 3.
2. When Member States exercise the option referred to in paragraph 1, they shall specify the length of the period for which outstanding claims are to be met by the guarantee institution. However, this may not be shorter than a period covering the remuneration of the last three months of the employment relationship prior to and/or after the date referred to in Article 3. Member States may include this minimum period of three months in a reference period with a duration of not less than six months.
Member States having a reference period of not less than 18 months may limit the period for which outstanding claims are met by the guarantee institution to eight weeks. In this case, those periods which are most favourable to the employee are used for the calculation of the minimum period.
3. Furthermore, Member States may set ceilings on the payments made by the guarantee institution. These ceilings must not fall below a level which is socially compatible with the social objective of this Directive.
When Member States exercise this option, they shall inform the Commission of the methods used to set the ceiling.";
4. the following Section shall be inserted: "SECTION IIIa
Provisions concerning transnational situations
Article 8a
1. When an undertaking with activities in the territories of at least two Member States is in a state of insolvency within the meaning of Article 2(l), the institution responsible for meeting employees' outstanding claims shall be that in the Member State in whose territory they work or habitually work.
2. The extent of employees' rights shall be determined by the law governing the competent guarantee institution.
3. Member States shall take the measures necessary to ensure that, in the cases referred to in paragraph 1, decisions taken in the context of insolvency proceedings referred to in Article 2(1), which have been requested in another Member State, are taken into account when determining the employer's state of insolvency within the meaning of this Directive.
Article 8b
1. For the purposes of implementing Article 8a, Member States shall make provision for the sharing of relevant information between their competent administrative authorities and/or the guarantee institutions mentioned in Article 3, making it possible in particular to inform the guarantee institution responsible for meeting the employees' outstanding claims.
2. Member States shall notify the Commission and the other Member States of the contact details of their competent administrative authorities and/or guarantee institutions. The Commission shall make these communications publicly accessible.";
5. in Article 9 the following paragraph shall be added: "Implementation of this Directive shall not under any circumstances be sufficient grounds for a regression in relation to the current situation in the Member States and in relation to the general level of protection of workers in the area covered by it.";
6. in Article 10 the following point shall be added: "(c) to refuse or reduce the liability referred to in Article 3 or the guarantee obligation referred to in Article 7 in cases where the employee, on his or her own or together with his or her close relatives, was the owner of an essential part of the employer's undertaking or business and had a considerable influence on its activities.";
7. the following Article shall be inserted: "Article 10a
Member States shall notify the Commission and the other Member States of the types of national insolvency proceedings falling within the scope of this Directive, and of any amendments relating thereto. The Commission shall publish these communications in the Official Journal of the European Communities.";
8. the Annex shall be deleted.
Article 2
1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive before 8 October 2005. They shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof.
They shall apply the provisions referred to in the first subparagraph to any state of insolvency of an employer occurring after the date of entry into force of those provisions.
When Member States adopt these measures, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such reference on the occasion of their official publication. The methods of making such a reference shall be laid down by the Member States.
2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.
Article 3
This Directive shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
Article 4
By 8 October 2010 at the latest, the Commission shall submit to the European Parliament and the Council a report on the implementation and application of this Directive in the Member States.
Article 5
This Directive is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 23 September 2002. | [
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0
] |
COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 1115/89 of 27 April 1989 amending Regulation (EEC) No 986/68 laying down general rules for granting aid for skimmed milk and skimmed-milk powder for use as feed
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 of the Council of 27 June 1968 on the common organization of the market in milk and milk products (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 763/89 (2), and in particular Article 10 (2) thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission (3),
Whereas Article 2a (3) of Regulation (EEC) No 986/68 (4), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 548/87 (5), lays down a margin within which the aid for skimmed-milk powder may be fixed; whereas, in view of the criteria set out in Article 2a (1), the limits of that margin should be adjusted,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1 The first subparagraph of Article 2a (3) of Regulation (EEC) No 986/68 is hereby replaced by the following:
´3. The amount of aid for skimmed-milk powder shall be fixed within a range of ECU 50 to 80 per 100 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 from the beginning of the 1989/90 milk year.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Luxembourg, 27 April 1989. | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION of 1 August 1990 authorizing the Member States to institute intra-Community surveillance of the importation for home use of certain iron and steel products originating in certain third countries and covered by the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community and in free circulation in the Community (90/459/ECSC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community, and in particular the third paragraph of Article 71 thereof,
Having regard to the requests made by the Member States,
Whereas under the provisions of the ECSC Treaty the principle of freedom of movement necessarily applies to products originating in third countries which are in free circulation in the Community;
Whereas these provisons preclude, in the case of intra-
Community trade, any requirement, even of a purely formal nature, to submit import to licences or any similar procedure;
Whereas the Commission, in response to the crisis in the iron and steel sector, has adopted measures with both internal and external effects; whereas, in this context, measures have been adopted in respect of imports of certain products originating in certain third countries with a view to ensuring adherence to traditional trade flows between the Community and these countries, including at regional level;
Whereas the combined effect of these measures is not, however, such as to eliminate the risk of deflections of trade in the case of the products in question;
Whereas under these circumstances it is important to ensure that full information is available on prospective imports of
products originating in third countries in free circulation
in certain Member States and the terms under which the products concerned are imported; whereas the Member States ought accordingly to be authorized to institute prior surveillance of these imports by making them subject to the issue of an import document;
Whereas it is necessary to maintain, for a transitional period, the arrangements for the provision of information thereby established; whereas, however, the scope of the surveillance should be limited to take account of the reduction, fixed for 1990, of the range of products and countries of origin covered by the measures with external effects;
Whereas the import document must be issued automatically, within a fixed time limit and for all the quantities applied for; whereas the fact that it is issued automatically excludes the use of the system in circumstances which would extend its restrictive effects beyond that which is necessary to attain the desired objective;
Whereas application of these surveillance measures must be of strictly limited duration;
Whereas, so that checking the origin of imports does not act as a barrier to intra-Community trade, the Member States ought as a general rule to be obliged, as part of the formalities for the importation of a product from another Member State, to confine themselves to asking the importer for a simple declaration on the origin of the product, on the basis of what he may reasonably be expected to know of it;
Whereas it is important that the Member States should keep the Commission regularly informed of the results of the surveillance,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
1. Each of the Member States mentioned in the Annex
is hereby authorized to to make imports for home use (hereinafter referred to as 'imports') of the iron and steel products covered by the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community listed in the Annex, originating
in the third countries mentioned in the Annex and in
free circulation in the other Member States, subject to presentation to the relevant authorities of an import document.
2. The import document shall be issued or countersigned by the Member States, without charge and for all the quantities applied for, upon receipt of the relevant application and at the very latest within 10 working days of the date on which application was lodged, without prejudice to such protection measures as may have been authorized under Article 71, third indent, of the Treaty.
3. The period of validity of the import document shall be three months.
4. Import documents which have been completely used up shall be returned immediately to the department which issued them. Unused or partly used documents shall be returned to the department which issued them within five working days following expiry of their period of validity.
Article 2
1. The importer's application shall provide the following particulars:
(a) the country of origin and the Member State from which the goods are being imported;
(b)
a description of the goods and the relevant CN code;
(c)
the quantity of the goods in tonnes;
(d)
the name, address, telephone number and telex number of the applicant;
(e)
documentary evidence of release for free circulation; falling such evidence, the import document's validity shall be limited to one month from the date of its issue;
(f)
the characteristics of any seconds or substandard products;
(g)
the reference data of any previous application for an import document in respect of the same products.
The Member States may not request any additional particulars.
2. The importer must attest to the accuracy of his application and submit as supporting evidence two duplicate copies either of the related sales contract or contracts or of the seller's confirmation of the order or orders.
Article 3
1. As part of the formalities for the importation of products of a kind covered by intra-Community surveillance measures, the relevant authorities of the importing Member State may request the importer to indicate the origin of the goods on the customs declaration or on the application for an import document.
2. Supporting documentation may not be requested except in cases where serious, justified doubts exist rendering such documentation indispensable in order to establish the true origin of the goods in question. Nevertheless, the request for such documentation may not, of itself, constitute an impediment to the importation of the goods.
Article 4
1. The Member States shall notify the Commission during the first 10 days of each month of:
(a) the tonnages in respect of which import documents were issued during the preceding month;
(b)
the tonnages in respect of which import documents expired during the preceding month without having been used totally or partially by the importers;
(c)
the tonnages in respect of which import documents issued previously were totally or partially renewed during the preceding month.
2. The Member States' notifications shall include:
(a) a breakdown by product, itemized by CN code;
(b)
a breakdown by Member State of consignment and by country of origin.
Article 5
This Decision is addressed to the Member States. It shall apply until 31 December 1990.
Done at Brussels, 1 August 1990. | [
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION of 23 November 1984 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty (IV/30.907 - Peroxygen products) (Only the English, French and German texts are authentic) (85/74/EEC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation No 17 of 6 February 1962, First Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty (1), as last amended by the Act of Accession of Greece, and in particular Articles 3 and 15 thereof,
Having regard to the Commission Decision of 9 September 1983 to open a proceeding on its own initiative pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation No 17,
Having given the parties concerned the opportunity to make known their views on the objections raised by the Commission, pursuant to Article 19 (1) of Regulation No 17 and Commission Regulation No 99/63/EEC of 25 July 1963 on the hearings provided for in Article 19 (1) and (2) of Council Regulation No 17 (2),
After consulting the Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions,
Whereas:
I. THE FACTS
The relevant products
(1) The products which are the subject of this Decision are hydrogen peroxide and its derivatives sodium perborate and persulphates. Together with other products which are not the subject of this decision (organic and inorganic peroxides), these collectively form the "peroxygen" sector. Hydrogen peroxide, the basic product, is a powerful oxidant and besides its important captive use (for the production of sodium perborate and other derivatives) it is used in the paper, textile and chemical industries as a bleach and for the treatment of waste. Sodium perborate, the principal downstream product, is used as a bleaching agent in synthetic detergents and washing powders. Persulphates are inorganic compounds used primarily as polymerization initiators in the plastics industry.
The parties
(2) The undertakings which participated in the agreements and/or concerted practices concerned in the present decision are: - Solvay et Cie, Brussels (Solvay),
- Laporte Industries (Holdings) PLC, London (Laporte), (1) OJ No 13, 21.2.1962, p. 204/62. (2) OJ No 127, 20.8.1963, p. 2268/63.
- Degussa AG, Frankfurt (Degussa),
- L'Air Liquide SA, Paris (L'Air Liquide),
- Produits Chimiques Ugine Kuhlmann (now Atochem), Paris (PCUK).
The worldwide interests of Solvay and Laporte in the peroxygen sector have since 1970 been coordinated and grouped in a series of jointly-owned companies under the name Interox.
(3) There is however no holding company, board of directors or chief executive for the Interox activities. Overall policy is determined by a Committee drawn equally from senior directors of Solvay and Laporte which has no formal powers of management or control. Liaison between the various Interox companies on marketing, financial and technical matters is effected by a staff known as Interox Co-Ordination and based in the parent companies' offices in London and Brussels. At a day-to-day level the production and marketing activities of each Interox company in the various Member States are carried out by the appropriate Solvay or Laporte subsidiary, the Interox companies in the EEC generally having no working staff but paying for the services of employees of the parent companies.
In October 1983 PCUK was split up and its peroxygen business transferred to Atochem, part of the Elf-Aquitaine group.
L'Air Liquide and Atochem operate joint hydrogen peroxide production facilities (Oxysynthese) but produce sodium perborate independently and have separate sales departments for both products.
Markets and prices
(a) HYDROGEN PEROXIDE
(4) The market in the EEC and elsewhere is characterized by the particularly small number of producers.
The total third-party market (i.e. excluding captive use and sales to other producers) for hydrogen peroxide in the EEC is around 90 000 tonnes (worth some 75 million ECU in 1981).
The Interox grouping holds over half this market, Degussa is in second place with ... % (1) and the two French producers each account for some ... %.
In Western Europe the only other producers are Montedison, Eka-Bohus (Sweden) and Foret (Spain). The only other producers of any appreciable scale outside Europe are in the United States and Japan, and imports to the Community are minimal.
(5) Prices for the product vary widely not only between the Member States but also inside each national market according to the sector of utilization : inside the same Member State the price paid by the smallest customers can be up to four times that charged to major users.
The chemical industry, which orders in bulk, tends to pay the lowest prices overall and can negotiate large discounts off list price. Inside each national market there is a very broad price spread with some large chemical customers paying only 40 % of the price paid by other large users. Moreover, price levels in one Member State can be up to twice those applicable in another : the average price in France is generally only half the level prevailing in neighbouring countries.
Details of prices obtained by the Commission show (for instance) that in the first quarter of 1982 the spread of prices for the five largest chemical customers in the United Kingdom was 915 to 1435 ECU per tonne, and in France, 354 to 737 ECU.
In the paper and textile industries there are a large number of customers often with only small annual offtakes and prices are higher than in the chemical sector. The same phenomenon of substantial differences in average prices between Member States and wide price variations among individual customers is also apparent in these sectors.
The product is homogeneous and all the major producers in Europe employ the same process route (the "AO" or auto-oxydation process) so that there is no great difference in their cost structures. (1) In the published version of the Decision, some figures have hereinafter been omitted, pursuant to the provisions of Article 21 of Regulation No 17 concerning non-disclosure of business secrets.
It is significant that in an internal Interox memorandum the product is described as "effectively a commodity product (0,5 m tpa) ... (selling) at specialty prices and markups" with a "dauntingly high entrance fee in development costs for would-be producers". Figures obtained by the Commission show gross profit margins in hydrogen peroxide of typically ... % of sales value.
(b) SODIUM PERBORATE
(6) Western Europe accounts for the major part of world production and consumption of sodium perborate. Again the total number of manufacturers in the EEC is small : besides the hydrogen peroxide producers, which all have downstream production of sodium perborate, only two other chemical concerns manufacture the product and are dependent on bought-in feedstock.
The total EEC market in 1981 was around 450 000 tonnes (value 225 million ECU) of which the Interox grouping had ... % Degussa ... % and the French producers ... % each.
Customers are relatively few in number and consist mainly of the multinational detergent and washing powder producers. Consequently price variations, though not insignificant, are less marked than in the case of hydrogen peroxide.
(c) PERSULPHATES
(7) In the EEC persulphates market the main producer is the Interox company Peroxid-Chemie. Other EEC producers are Degussa and L'Air Liquide. Interox holds about two-thirds of the total market which is around 12 000 tonnes per annum.
Position of EEC producers
(8) The European producers between them account for some three-quarters of world hydrogen peroxide output if their overseas operations are included : the Interox grouping, Degussa and Oxysynthese are respectively the three largest world producers of hydrogen peroxide.
In sodium perborate the Western European producers account for some 80 % of world production, and the Interox group is again the world's largest producer.
The European producers between them account for about half the world output of persulphates.
Summary of the infringements
(9) The investigations carried out by the Commission under Article 14 (3) of Regulation No 17 on 9 and 10 December 1980 and subsequent enquiries under Article 11 of the Regulation showed that: (a) from at least 1961 the above-named producers have conducted their commercial operations in hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate in the EEC on the basis of an agreement or understanding that each national market was to be reserved for those producers which manufacture inside the territory in question (the "home market rule");
(b) on the basis of an agreement originally made in 1958 by which the market share of Solvay in France for both hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate was to rise to and then remain at one-third of the total national market, the Solvay/Laporte Interox group, L'Air Liquide and PCUK divided the French market between them in equal shares;
(c) on the basis of an agreement in writing made in or about 1969 between Solvay and Degussa, the business of major customers for hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate in the Benelux was allocated between Degussa and the Solvay/Laporte Interox group in agreed proportions and percentage quotas were fixed for the remaining business ("Benelux agreement");
(d) on the basis of an agreement in writing made in or about 1970 the market for hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate in Germany was divided between Degussa and the Solvay/Laporte Interox group in the respective proportions of 62 : 38 for hydrogen peroxide and 72 : 28 for sodium perborate and continuous contact took place to ensure that list prices were being respected ("Germany agreement");
(e) on the basis of an agreement made in 1973 the Solvay/Laporte Interox group and Degussa maintained their world-wide sales of persulphates in the agreed proportion of 70 : 30 and coordinated their pricing policy ("Persulphates agreement").
Details of the arrangements made by the parties to which the Commission takes objection are set out in the paragraphs which follow.
A. THE HOME MARKET RULE
Participants : Solvay, Laporte, Degussa, L'Air Liquide, PCUK (now Atochem)
Separation of national markets
(10) The EEC markets for both hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate are strictly divided on national lines. Each producer limits its sales to end-users in those Member States where it possesses production facilities.
Thus in Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg, the Interox group and Degussa are at the same time the only producers and the only suppliers of hydrogen peroxide. L'Air Liquide and Atochem (formerly PCUK) which manufacture in France only (Oxysynthese) do not sell any hydrogen peroxide whatever in these territories.
In France, Interox, L'Air Liquide and Atochem, but not Degussa, operate hydrogen peroxide production plant. The market is equally divided between the first three but Degussa has never sold in France.
In the United Kingdom the Laporte side of Interox is the only producer and enjoys a 100 % monopoly of supply.
The strict separation of the national markets and the absence of intra-Community exchanges is all the more remarkable given the very considerable price differences, particularly as between France and the neighbouring Member States.
(11) A similar market division is apparent in sodium perborate, the only difference being that Degussa, while concentrating on the Benelux and German markets where it owns production facilities, does supply some minor customers with small quantities (less than 1 % of the market) in France, Italy and the United Kingdom.
There is also evidence that Interox at least discourages trading across national borders by its customers. Traders in Belgium selling to the German market in 1975 and 1980 were required to cease this activity. The producers also have arrangements of long standing to limit imports of hydrogen peroxide into the EEC particularly from Austria where Alpine is the local producer. This small hydrogen peroxide manufacturer is required to declare to the major producers its EEC sales. It is supposed to limit sales to Belgium to 200 tonnes per annum. When sales by Alpine to France exceeded the "forecast" it had given the other producers of 70 tonnes per month this resulted in complaints from L'Air Liquide. Interox appears to have believed that this activity could be controlled by an approach to Alpine through Degussa.
The "home market principle"
(12) Documentation found at Solvay shows that as early as 1961 the producers accepted the principle of respect for "home markets" as the basis for the organization of the European market.
In 1959 the major producers had formed an association known as "Bitop" (Bureau International Technique de l'Eau Oxygénée et du Perborate de Soude). This body was supposedly concerned only with technical matters of common interest but it is apparent that it was considered the appropriate forum for reaching agreement on the division of the market between the producers. When Solvay planned in 1961 to expand outside its traditional "home markets" of Belgium and the Netherlands by setting up new factories in France, Germany and Italy, the established producers in those territories wanted to be "compensated" for accepting Solvay's presence. At the time Bitop was planning an export quota system for hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate - to include "exports" inside the EEC - and the proposal was made to compensate the producers who would have to make room for Solvay on their "home markets" by giving them an increased share in the export cartel. Those producers who would not be affected by Solvay's plans - i.e. those located in Austria, Switzerland and the United Kingdom - would give up a third of their exports outside their "home markets" to those producers which were concerned by Solvay.
(13) At the foundation of the adjusted export quota system, but independent of it, lay the principle of respect for home markets. The export quota system was thus described "accessory to a geographical sharing (home markets)" (accessoire d'une répartition géographique (home markets)). The same document continues : "The protection of home markets is applicable in all common market countries." ("La protection des home-markets vaut pour tous les pays du marché commun"). It is apparent that there were only limited exceptions to the rule : the Austrian producer Alpine had been allocated a small quota for delivery to other European markets. The document observes : "The Bitop proposal assumes that the home market rule is applied strictly on the Belgian H202 market. However by virtue of a bilateral arrangement between Solvay and Alpine, the latter retains a certain right to deliver in Belgium (200 t telles quelles)".
The whole tenor of the documentation is that there already existed a consensus of opinion between the producers that the European market was to be organized on the basis of the protection of home markets.
(14) In its reply to a request for information under Article 11 of Regulation No 17, Solvay described the home market rule as "the old principle whereby it makes good sense for each producer to supply the major part of its output in the country where it produces ... this "rule" existed well before Solvay made its entry into the business independently of the agreements to share export markets". In their replies to the statement of objections however both Solvay and Laporte deny that Solvay had thereby impliedly admitted the existence of any understanding to this effect between the producers.
(15) A sodium perborate export cartel was set up in 1962 but no details of how the quotas were calculated are available. In the same year Bitrop changed its name to "CIPP" (Centre d'Information de Peroxydes d'Hydrogène et de Perborate de Soude).
While the manufacturers claim as far as the organization of markets was concerned that CIPP was involved only with quotas to non-EEC countries it is apparent that the "home market principle" continued to govern their relations with each other in the European market which accounted for 90 % of their business. In 1968 Degussa (which had hitherto manufactured only in Germany) planned to expand by building a new plant in Antwerp. Solvay's reaction to this proposed expansions was to boycott CIPP for 18 months : it clearly considered that Degussa was trespassing on its territory. Their differences were resolved with the conclusion of agreements on the division of both the Benelux and German markets in 1969/70 and Solvay returned to CIPP. In a memorandum of 23 March 1970 a Laporte executive observed : "The home market principle emerged through this period more or less unscathed". In a further comment it is made clear that the rôle of CIPP was not confined to third markets : "it should be borne in mind that the observable activities of CIPP at plenary sessions, both formal and informal, are a very small part of actual achievements. The arguments surrounding and the heat generated on third markets is (sic) no more than a safety valve, tending to disguise the fact that they probably account for a mere 10 % of turnover and even less in terms of profitability". The implication is that the more serious work of CIPP concerned the stability and organization of the European market.
(16) The abolition of CIPP was already mooted in the memorandum which concluded by observing that as only three producers of any importance were left in Europe - Solvay/Laporte, Degussa, and L'Air Liquide/PCUK - "there may therefore be scope for advocating the abolition of CIPP and the formation of a smaller but possibly more powerful arrangement consisting of the three producers".
CIPP was indeed dissolved in 1972 but collaboration between the three major groups continued. An ad hoc committee met to administer quotas in third markets but there was also collusion on tendering for capital projects. Generally these would involve the construction of a turnkey plant in a non-EEC country to be operated under licence by a local producer or a joint company. An internal Laporte minute (of unknown date) reads : "Meet in Paris to discuss common terms. Greece. We should withdraw. Degussa will not offer. Check with the French." On the one known occasion when an opportunity arose inside the EEC for a new capital project (for a major chemical producer in Germany in 1979) Degussa expected the "home market" rule to apply and when told by Laporte that the French producers had been approached said it would like the French to "protect" i.e. quote a deliberately uncompetitive price to allow Degussa as local producer to obtain the business. (The actual tenders submitted are difficult to compare but in the event the project was abandoned).
(17) A Laporte memorandum dated 18 April 1979 of a meeting with Degussa indicates that the major groups at that time still had a precise understanding on how the European market was to be divided between them and in which countries each was to supply. (The memorandum was headed "Strictly confidential - do not file" and marked "RED" in capital letters across the first page. The term "red note" was apparently used in Laporte to denote documents relating to market sharing agreements which were to be kept secret.) Degussa was planning to abandon production of the hydrogen peroxide substitute sodium peroxide, a product in which it had a monopoly in the EEC. It supplied customers not only in the Benelux and Germany but also in other countries such as France and the United Kingdom. Giving up production would mean that these customers would be in the market for an equivalent quantity of hydrogen peroxide. It is significant that the basic assumption on both sides was not that the producers would compete for the new business, or even that Degussa would in future supply its sodium peroxide customers with hydrogen peroxide, but that the business would normally fall to be divided up in each market in accordance with a pre-existing formula. Thus Degussa would be totally excluded from the United Kingdom and from France, where Interox would gain 100 % and 33 % respectively of the new business. It is significant that the Interox "normal gain" in Germany and France corresponded with the quotas it had been given under the original market sharing agreements for those countries. Degussa wanted however to have half of all the new business in hydrogen peroxide that would arise, and it is apparent that both parties anticipated that without much difficulty the other producers (particularly the French) could be persuaded to give up some of the benefit they would have gained "as a reward for the Interox initiative". It is also significant that Europe is divided into Germany on one hand and "Interox" markets on the other, and those where other producers are present are referred to as "those markets where there is sharing", and the producers are described as "partners". The assumption that in the United Kingdom Interox's "normal gain" would be 100 % of the business indicates that it was accepted by the producers that this market was normally reserved for Laporte. Again it is significant that Degussa, while eager to take part of any increased quota in the United Kingdom, assured Laporte that such supplies would be "fully controllable".
(18) Laporte and Solvay claim the proposal was never implemented. Whether it was or not is irrelevant : the significance of the proposals is the underlying assumption that any new business would in the normal course of events have to be divided so as to maintain the status quo on each market.
The arguments of the producers
(19) The producers all deny that there exists or existed a general understanding or arrangement between them regarding the division of the EEC market according to a "home market" principle.
They all contend that the rigidity of the pattens of trade and the confinement by each producer of its sales to particular markets is accounted for not by any agreement or understanding to that effect but by natural market forces. The establishment of the EEC (it is said) has not served to overcome invisible barriers to trade such as the desire of customers for security of supply, their preference for local suppliers, currency fluctuations and transport problems and costs.
(20) It is argued by Solvay that on the demand side the market division results as far as Interox is concerned from the geographical location of its production units and for the other producers from a variety of factors including production capacities and technical problems of transport. Solvay goes on to contend that the rules of competition do not compel a producer to follow an active policy of trade between Member States : restriction of sales to home markets is only unlawful if it results from collusion which, it is argued, has not been proved. The phenomenon observed by the Commission is said to be the natural result of the oligopoly in hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate : in such a market there is a natural tendency for prices to stabilize which involves a corresponding equilibrium in market shares.
Unless they enter into a counter-productive price war which will benefit no-one, the producers are thus - according to Solvay - obliged to accept such an equilibrium in the market. Nevertheless for its part Solvay says it adopted at specific moments a policy of attacking particular markets by installing new capacity : such was the case in 1956 when it expanded to France, Germany and Italy. The same situation arose at the end of the 1960's when Degussa set up its Antwerp plant. In order to achieve market penetration producers are obliged to set up plant in the market concerned which will give the other producers reason to fear a real "war" unless they make room for the new arrival.
(21) Degussa also recognizes that a "home market" principle exists but claims it results not from collusion but from the independent commercial judgement of the producers in an oligopolistic market. The reason why the French producers did not enter the German market was fear of retaliation from Degussa in France. With regard to its own expansion to the Benelux in 1970 it did so without any prior arrangement with Solvay. Degussa however had assumed that no retaliation would occur because the main customer for its new plant was to be Henkel, its oldest client, to which Solvay could not object.
(22) Laporte admits that the use of the terms "home market rule" or "home market principle" was not confined to the documents found by the Commission nor indeed that they were unknown outside Solvay and Laporte. However it argues that the specific references to the "home market rule" are not inconsistent with the operation of natural market forces and says that the Commission has placed "undue weight" on the documents and the prejudicial circumstances of their discovery.
Factual conclusions
(23) The Commission does not accept that the strict market separation on national lines which is a characteristic of both the hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate sectors in the EEC results from natural market forces or the independent commercial judgment of the producers.
It considers that the market separation is the result of an arrangement or understanding of long duration (from at least 1961) between the producers, originally based on an acceptance of the "home market principle", i.e. that the national markets would be reserved for domestic producers. Where a producer did expand by installing or planning to instal production facilities in a national market previously not within its sphere of operations (as Degussa did in 1968 to 1970) this would be regarded as a disloyal or hostile action : hence Solvay's boycott of CIPP for 18 months. Nevertheless the difference between the two groups concerned was resolved by the conclusion of a detailed market-sharing quota agreement between them on the division of the Benelux market and the maintenance of the status quo in Germany ; hence the remark that the principle had emerged "more or less unscathed". There was also an agreement for sharing the French market equally between three producers. The Commission does not consider that these bilateral agreements were isolated or discrete arrangements : they formed part of a wider organization of the market based on the allocation of territories to each producer. The whole rationale of these agreements is that the available market is divided between certain producers and they would not have been practicable unless the participants had the certainty that their arrangements on the division of the business, the allocation of customers and on pricing would not be disturbed by incursions from other producers.
The "red note" of 18 April 1979 shows not only that there were close contacts between Degussa, Interox and the French producers but also that the EEC market was the subject of a detailed understanding on how business was to divided between the producers. This document, together with the earlier references in 1961 and 1970 provides the necessary evidence of collusion between the producers on the organization of the European market.
(24) The opportunity for monitoring the maintenance of the agreed market divisions was provided for in Bitop, then in CIPP, and latterly in the ad hoc contacts between the producers. These meetings were clearly not concerned only with technical matters or even the export quotas for third markets as is made clear from the withdrawal of Solvay in protest at Degussa's Benelux expansion and the observations made by Laporte on their activities.
The expression "home market rule" or "home market principle" was used by the producers themselves in relation to the partitioning of the market and is not the creation of the Commission. Contrary to the argument of Laporte, it does not consider that it should overlook or ignore the implications of the documentation found at the premises of the producers and expressly referring to such a principle.
While it is correct that hydrogen peroxide (but not sodium perborate) requires special care in handling and shipping, such transport problems do not - as the manufacturers claimed - prevent the product from being supplied across national frontiers. Degussa for instance supplies a considerable part of the German market from its Antwerp site, while certain concentrations sold in France by Interox are produced in Belgium. Even the English Channel is not a great obstacle, as is demonstrated by Degussa's expressed readiness to take part of any increased quota in the United Kingdom.
(25) The Commission therefore considers that the evidence shows: (i) the major part of the EEC market is partitioned on strict national lines with each producer supplying only in those territories where it has production facilities;
(ii) this market division results from and is referable to an understanding or arrangement between the producers;
(iii) the various market-sharing agreements (for Germany, the Benelux and France) are not isolated or fragmented cases but constitute part of a general cartel formed by the producers by which the market is organized.
B. MARKET SHARING AGREEMENT IN FRANCE
Participants : Solvay, Laporte, L'Air Liquide, PCUK (now Atochem)
The 1958 agency agreement
(26) In or about 1958 Solvay constructed a new plant for hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate at Tavaux in France. At the same time the two French producers formed their joint subsidiary Oxysynthese to produce hydrogen peroxide.
By an agreement in writing made in 1958 (and reproduced in its essential terms by a second agreement in 1967) Solvay appointed the two French producers as agents for the sale and distribution of its peroxygen products in France. The contract provided that at the beginning of each year the parties would determine by mutual agreement the tonnage of each product to be sold on Solvay's behalf.
The producers however admit that at the same time the contract was signed the producers agreed that each producer would cover one-third of the French market in hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate. The arrangement continued after the setting up of Interox in 1970 and regular meetings were held to review the market situation and supervise the administration of the quotas.
(27) In 1973 the chemical producer Rhône-Poulenc constructed a new hydroquinone plant at St-Fons with an annual requirement of several thousand tonnes of hydrogen peroxide. Solvay (Interox) claimed that the market-sharing agreement entitled it to a one-third share of this new business but the French producers demurred and concluded a total requirements contract with Rhône-Poulanc for this new application. The three producers never reached agreement on the question of the division of the Rhône-Poulenc business. The St-Fons factory takes all its requirement from the French producers (± 5 000 tpa).
At the beginning of the 1970's Solvay was setting up its own sales network in France and becoming less dependent on the agency arrangements. This agreement was terminated by notice to end on 1 January 1975 and from that date Interox made its own arrangements for the sale and marketing of peroxygen products in France.
Continuation of the market-sharing arrangements
(28) While the agency agreement was terminated according to the legal requirements the quota agreement was never formally cancelled and the participants have produced no documentation to show that it was brought to an end.
Solvay claims that the quota arrangements lapsed at the same time as the agency agreement. The evidence obtained however shows that not only did the quota arrangements continue to produce their effects - in the sense that the agreed division of the market into three was maintained - but also that this was referable to a continuing collusion between the three producers.
Maintenance of the agreed market division
(29) The one-third market share allocated to Solvay for France has been maintained since the termination of the agency agreement in 1975. The Rhône-Poulenc requirement had not been contemplated by the parties when the original market share had been agreed and it is apparent from the documentation that it was treated as a new application quite separate from the general hydrogen peroxide market. Solvay appears to have tacitly accepted that Rhône-Poulenc St-Fons should be treated as a special case.
Excluding St-Fons, the average market shares of the three producers in hydrogen peroxide in France between 1975 and 1980 were in the proportion AL 32,3 % ; PCUK 33,3 % ; Interox 34,4 %. The French hydrogen peroxide market in 1980 (excluding Rhône-Poulenc St-Fons) was some 15 000 tonnes.
In sodium perborate as well the same division into three almost equal parts also remained : over the same five years the average was AL 32 % ; PCUK 34 % ; Interox 34 %. The market in 1980 was estimated at 83 000 tonnes.
Exchange of information on deliveries
(30) The three producers which supplied the French market continued after 1975 to exchange detailed information on their respective production and sales figures of the same kind as they had done previously. Now however it was effected every month through a body known as the "Chambre Syndicale de l'Eau Oxygénée et des Persels". This body collects statistics from each of the producers and issues them with composite figures for the whole French market. The limited number of producers (effectively only two in hydrogen peroxide) means that each producer is automatically informed of the production and sales of the other group and can also check that its own market share remains at approximately one-third of the total.
In fact, besides the monthly statistics issued by the "Chambre Syndicale" the producers exchanged further and more detailed information on matters not covered by the "official" exchange. The data available through the Chambre Syndicale do not include details of sales to individual customers, nor can these be discovered by any analysis of the figures. The producers also deny exchanging any information other than via the "official" association. Nevertheless documentation obtained from Solvay for 1978 to 1981 shows that it was precisely and correctly informed of the sales made by L'Air Liquide, PCUK and Oxysynthese to individual customers.
(31) Thus Solvay knew exactly to the tonne the quantity of hydrogen peroxide supplied in 1978, 1979 and 1980 by the producers to the two major chemical industry customers as well as the exact quantities sold by Oxysynthese to Rhône-Poulenc for the hydroquinone plant at St-Fons. On this basis it was able to check its market share in each of the principal sectors (paper ; chemical industry excluding Rhône-Poulenc hydroquinone ; textiles). For 1979 and 1980 it was also aware of the precise tonnage supplied by the French producers to each customer in the chemical and the paper sectors, including those which were not its own customers (which indicates that it must have obtained the information from PCUK and/or L'Air Liquide). These documents also confirm that the producers treat Rhône-Poulenc's St-Fons requirement for hydroquinone as a special case.
(32) Similarly Solvay knew the exact sales of sodium perborate by the French producers to each of the four main detergent producers for 1978, 1979 and 1980, and could check that it had roughly one-third of the business of each ; although the breakdown by customers is not apparent from the composite monthly figures from the Chambre Syndicale.
The Commission has under Article 11 of Regulation No 17 checked the sales of each producer to the major individual customers and the figures obtained confirm the accuracy of those recorded by Solvay : they were not therefore simply estimates but constituted correct information which could only have been obtained from the other suppliers.
From 1981, that is, following the investigations made by the Commission in December 1980, the documents no longer showed any information on individual customers.
Arguments of the producers
(33) The producers all deny that the agreement dividing the market into thirds survived the termination of the agency agreement in 1975. They point to the variations from year to year in the relative percentage market shares of the three suppliers and claim that these are inconsistent with a system of fixed quotas. It is also argued that in relation to hydrogen peroxide it is illogical to exclude the supplies to Rhône-Poulenc St-Fons and that if these were included Interox would only have around 25 % of the market.
(34) They also argue that there is no evidence of collusion : the exchange via the "Chambre Syndicale" was not intended (they say) to provide a check on the maintenance of the three-part market division. Solvay claims that the documents showing detailed knowledge to the last tonne of the quantities supplied to each major customer - which cannot be discovered from the official "Chambre Syndicale" statistics - are not conclusive proof of any exchange of additional information. While the other producers can provide no explanation of how this information came into Solvay's possession Solvay claims that it could have come from customers who have an interest in communicating their annual requirement to a potential supplier. It provided the Commission with reports of visits to customers which it claimed supported its contention.
Factual conclusions
(35) The Commission considers that the arrangement to divide the French hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate market equally between the three suppliers was independent of the formal agency agreement which was terminated in 1975 and continued in practice until at least the date of the Commission's investigations in December 1980.
Although it is correct that the shares of the producers relative to one another fluctuated, their average market shares for both products during the six years in which the Commission considers the sharing arrangement to have remained in force was almost exactly one-third each, the division which had originally been agreed. The argument that there is no reason for excluding Rhône-Poulenc St-Fons from the general third-party hydrogen peroxide market for France is disproved by the parties' own documentation : it is apparent that it is treated as a special case. In any event the argument does not apply to the sodium perborate sector where the equal sharing is also apparent.
(36) The exchange of information went far beyond the official "Chambre Syndicale" scheme which even on its own permits the market behaviour and market share of individual producers to be identified. The detail and accuracy of the total sales made to individual customers by the French producers shown in the Interox documents is such that it could only have been ascertained by contact between the suppliers themselves. The Commission does not accept that such detailed and accurate information on competitors' sales was obtained from consumers. The visit reports supplied by Solvay to support its argument that it may have obtained these details from customers generally do not even relate to the customers of whose consumption it was informed in precise detail and even where they do concern a customer listed in the documents give only general estimates of monthly or annual requirements which do not correspond with the precise figure as set out in the tables on which the Commission relies. The Commission concludes that the producers systematically exchanged details of their sales to each major customer. By exchanging detailed figures each producer could not only check that its market share was being maintained at one-third but could also ascertain the source of any imbalance or deviation.
C. BENELUX AGREEMENT
Participants : Solvay, Laporte, Degussa
(37) To accommodate the new production capacity of Degussa in Antwerp which was due to come on stream in 1970, an agreement was reached at the end of 1969 between Solvay and Degussa on the division of business and the allocation of major customers in both hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate.
Degussa's plans had originally been resisted by Solvay which had reacted by boycotting CIPP meetings for 18 months.
In hydrogen peroxide, the Netherlands market was to be divided equally between the two producers. For Belgium, special arrangements were made for the business of the two major customers : UCB was allocated to Solvay and AKZO was to be shared equally between them. As regards the rest of the Belgian market Degussa was to be permitted to build up its share progressively to one-third.
In sodium perborate the Benelux was treated as a single unit to be divided between Solvay and Degussa in the proportion of 80 : 20, with the exception of Henkel, Degussa's oldest customer, where the proportions of the share were to be reversed (i.e. Degussa was to get 80 %).
(38) These arrangements were summarized in writing in the form of so-called "gentleman's agreements" which were still in existence and were being referred to in secret internal memoranda as late as April 1979. In spite of repeated requests made to both parties during the investigation and subsequently no copies have ever been provided to the Commission and it has had to rely on the account given in response to requests under Article 11 by Laporte.
After Solvay and Laporte set up the Interox grouping the arrangement was continued. Meetings were held three times each year to review the operation in practice of the agreements and to correct deviations from the quotas. Imbalances would be corrected by the producer whose market share was below quota reducing his selling prices or offering special terms in order to increase his sales in the next quarter. There was also some telephone communication between the producers to ensure the agreement was being kept. Over the years the original agreement was subject to some modification and practices developed which had not been envisaged at the outset. Nevertheless as Solvay admits the parties met regularly until at least the end of 1980 and had reached a consensus on their respective positions in the market.
(39) In 1978 a proposal was made (apparently by Degussa) to "simplify" the Benelux agreement (and the "Germany" agreement) and reduce contact to a minimum. There was however no intention on either side of altering the status quo as outlined in the agreements. The essential key to any successful simplification of the agreements was said to be the willingness of individuals "at the highest level" to exert their influence on the national managements to ensure that quotas were rigorously adhered to, with any deviations to be the subject of criticism. The plan, which was agreed in a meeting between Degussa and Interox on 17 April 1979 for submission to more senior company officials would involve central management informing the national managements (incorrectly) that any detailed arrangements which may have existed between the two groups were being revoked but that "common sense" would prevail in the future. Contact was to be reduced to a minimum and was to take place only through certain named executives on each side.
Solvay, and Laporte claim the proposal to "simplify" the agreements was never implemented : if that is so, the arrangements must have continued as before.
Solvay, Laporte and Degussa admit their participation in the Benelux agreement until December 1980.
D. GERMANY AGREEMENT
Participants : Solvay, Laporte, Degussa
(40) A related but separate agreement was reached in 1970 between Degussa and representatives from Solvay and Laporte on the division of the German market. The purpose of this agreement, which was also made in writing, was to maintain the "status quo" based on the respective average sales of the two groupings in Germany over the preceding three years in both hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate.
This gave the Interox grouping 38 % of the market in hydrogen peroxide to Degussa's 62 %. For sodium perborate the agreed percentage quotas were 28 to 72 %. The size of the market for these products in Germany in 1980 was respectively 23 000 and 130 000 tonnes. Copies of this agreement were provided to the various national managements but again the parties declined to provide copies.
Meetings took place three or four times each year to supervise the detailed execution of the quota agreement. In one document dating from 1974 and found at Solvay the "Soll" (or quota) of the two producers is calculated to two decimal places : 38,64 % : 61,36 %. This document also indicates that particular arrangements, not disclosed by the producers, were made in respect of the division of the business of the major customers AKZO, Ciba Geigy and Henkel : the note of the 1979 Degussa-Interox meeting also indicates that special quotas had been set for different customers.
It is not clear in what detail the original agreement covered the fixing of prices. In practice the two groups were in telephone contact several times each week to ensure that their list prices - which were identical - were being respected.
(41) In 1979 the parties were also anxious to simplify the "Germany" agreement which involved a far closer degree of contact - and hence a greater risk of discovery - than the Benelux agreement. It was agreed in principle that in future there should be less concern to check prices at individual customers provided there was no risk to maintaining the basic price structure. The quota arrangements for different customers or in different sectors were also to be simplified in such a way that the status quo was not disturbed. On price, if either side wished to apply below-list prices for a new application, the initial contact was to be made via Interox-coordination (i.e. Solvay or Laporte head office). These points were to be summarized in a draft annex to be attached to the original Germany agreement. Again it is claimed the proposed amendments were never implemented.
The parties have also admitted their participation in the Germany agreement until December 1980.
The claim however in relation to both the Germany and Benelux agreements that they were intended only to facilitate the maintenance of an "equilibrium" already existing in fact by reason of the oligopolistic structure of the market.
E. PERSULPHATES AGREEMENT
Participants : Solvay, Laporte. Degussa
(42) In 1979, following anti-trust proceedings in the United States in the persulphates sector, involving among others Solvay and Laporte, the Commission carried out an investigation into the possible extension of the alleged arrangements on the United States market to the EEC. The representatives of Laporte denied categorically that there had ever been any restrictive agreements concerning the European market and the enquiry was closed.
The evidence obtained during investigations in the present case shows however that in or about 1974 the Interox grouping and Degussa agreed to fix their respective sales of persulphates on the world market (including the EEC) in the proportion of 70 : 30 based on their respective sales in the period 1971 to 1973.
Arrangements were also made between Peroxid-Chemie (the Interox company primarily concerned with persulphates) and Degussa to share the new business which arose when the Dutch producer AKZO ceased production in 1977.
Total sales figures were periodically exchanged and steps taken to redress any imbalance in the quotas. The collaboration in the persulphates field also extended to discussions on the coordination of pricing policy.
II. LEGAL ASSESSMENT
A. ARTICLE 85 OF THE EEC TREATY
Article 85 (1)
(43) Article 85 (1) of the EEC Treaty prohibits as incompatible with the common market all agreements between undertakings or concerted practices which may affect trade between Member States and which have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the common market, and in particular those which: (a) directly or indirectly fix purchase or selling prices or any other trading conditions;
(b) limit or control production, markets, technical development or investment;
(c) share markets or sources of supply;
(d) ...
(e) ...
Agreements and concerted practices
The general cartel : home market rule
(44) The Commission does not consider that the strict separation of the EEC market and the confinement by each producer of its activities to certain markets arose from natural market forces or the independent judgment of the producers. The documentation which was found for 1961 made frequent reference to a "home market rule" which, as Solvay stated, already existed and was distinct from any accessory agreement on third market quotas. The evidence shows that the "home market rule" was accepted by the producers on the basis of reciprocal cooperation on which the industry was organized. The "home market principle" was again mentioned in 1970, being said to have "emerged more or less unscathed" from the period of differences between Solvay and Degussa, which were resolved with the conclusion of status quo and quota agreements in Germany and the Benelux. The 1979 document ("red note") shows that the close collaboration between the producers and a reciprocated community of interest continued at that time with the division of the EEC market forming the basis of a general consensus between all the producers.
(45) It is not necessary, for the establishment of a concerted practice, for the parties to have agreed a precise or detailed plan in advance. (Judgment of the Court of Justice in Re the European Sugar Cartel : Suiker Unie and Others v. Commission, Cases 40-48/73 ; 50/73 ; 54-56/73 ; 111/73 ; 113-114/73 Judgment of 16 December 1975 (1), paragraphs 173 to 174.) The criteria of coordination and cooperation laid down in the case law of the Court must be understood in the light of the concept inherent in the provisions of the Treaty relating to competition that each economic operator must determine independently the policy which he intends to adopt on the common market. This requirement of independence does not deprive undertakings of the right to adapt themselves intelligently to the existing and anticipated conduct of their competitors, but it does strictly preclude any direct or indirect contact between them, the object or effect of which is either to influence the conduct on the market of an actual or potential competitor or to disclose to such a competitor the course of conduct which they themselves have decided to adopt or contemplate adopting on the market.
The documents show that the decision by each producer of its markets and customers was not the subject of independent commercial judgment. The "home market rule" is expressly and consistently mentioned as the basis on which they conducted their activities first in "BITOP" and then in "CIPP". The 1979 "red note" of the Degussa-Interox meeting shows that there was close contact, direct and indirect, between all the producers on their future conduct and plans as well as a general consensus on how any new business was to be divided between them on each national market.
(46) In the present case the evidence shows that: (a) the producers accepted and intended that their commercial conduct in the EEC should be governed by the principle of protection of traditional home markets, (1) ECR 1975, p. 1663. the restriction by each producer of sales to those territories where it possessed production facilities, and the division of business in those markets where several producers were present according to specific market sharing agreements;
(b) in accordance with this rule they confined their activities to particular defined markets;
(c) as a result the division of the EEC market on national lines was maintained.
The Commission therefore considers that the factual separation of national markets in the major part of the EEC results from and is referable, if not to an agreement properly so called, at least to a concerted practice between Solvay, Laporte (acting as Interox), Degussa, L'Air Liquide and PCUK (now Atochem).
The Germany, Benelux and Persulphates agreements
(47) The particular arrangements concluded in 1969/70 between Degussa and the Solvay-Laporte Interox grouping setting up market sharing quotas and collusion on pricing for hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate in Germany and the Benelux, as well as the 1974 "Persulphates" agreement covering the whole world including the EEC, constitute "agreements" for the purposes of Article 85. The market division and the conduct of the producer groupings formed the subject of precise and detailed agreements between the parties which were reduced to writing and formed the basis for their market behaviour in those sectors.
Market sharing agreement in France
(48) The original division of the French market in hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate by which each producer took a one-third share constituted an "agreement" in terms of Article 85.
The Commission considers that, contrary to the submission of the producers, the convergent behaviour of the parties and the maintenance after 1974 of their respective market shares in the proportion originally agreed resulted from their continuing to act in collusion.
The mutual disclosure by the three producers of business details on their deliveries to major customers not only through the "official" information exchange but also by further contacts must have been intended enable each to check that the agreed market division was maintained. This arrangement indicates that the producers were still united by an express or implied agreement to divide the market. The continuation of the agreed market division was therefore the result of an agreement or at least a concerted practice.
Undertakings
(49) For the purpose of the present proceedings the Commission does not consider the Interox grouping as an undertaking possessing an identity sufficiently distinct from that of its two parent companies so as to absolve Solvay and Laporte themselves (as opposed to Interox) from liability under EEC competition rules. The Interox operation is simply the framework in which the activities of Solvay and Laporte in the peroxygen sector are coordinated and profits shared and all major policy decisions are taken by the parent companies. The Interox companies do not determine their market behaviour autonomously but in essentials follow directives issued by the parent companies.
The Commission in its statement of objections has expressly reserved the right to examine in future proceedings the applicability of Article 85 of the Treaty to the Interox arrangements. Solvay and Laporte contend that Interox is a separate undertaking constituting a merger falling outside Article 85 (1), but for the purpose of these proceedings have accepted that the parent companies are liable for any infringements referable to the Interox operation.
The fact that L'Air Liquide and PCUK operated a joint manufacturing facility for hydrogen peroxide (Oxysynthese) does not affect their separate identity as undertakings.
At all relevant times, the other French supplier besides L'Air Liquide was PCUK, part of the Pechiney-Ugine-Kuhlmann conglomerate. In 1983 the French chemical industry was reorganized and the peroxygen business of PCUK was transferred to Atochem part of the Elf-Aquitaine group. The Commission considers that as the present owner of the business entity which was involved in the infringements, and having taken over the assets and adopted the economic objectives of PCUK in this sector, Atochem must be the addressee of any decision and responsible for the payment of any fines imposed in respect of the infringements committed by PCUK.
This decision is therefore addressed to Solvay, Laporte, Degussa, L'Air Liquide and Atochem.
Restriction upon competition
(50) The overall market division and sharing arrangement, and the individual agreements covering particular geographical areas and products, together regulate almost all trade in the products concerned in a major part of the common market, and involved all the principal producers in the European market for a major industrial sector.
The "home market" arrangement, enunciated in 1961 and later refined to accommodate Degussa's expansion plans to the Benelux in 1970, delineated the territories in which each producer was to supply and consolidated the established positions of those producers to the detriment of effective freedom of movement in the common market.
As regards the individual agreements (Benelux, Germany, France, "Persulphates") these were intended to, and did, eliminate all effective competition between the parties on the markets and in the products concerned.
The argument made by the parties that the structure of the market, the position of the producers and the nature of the producers are such that conditions of competition would have been no different if they had not had the agreements, is irrelevant. Article 85 applies just as well to oligopolistic markets as to more fragmented markets. The very fact that the parties considered it necessary to enter into agreements which either maintained the status quo or limited the market penetration of a particular supplier to a given percentage, shows that market conditions might well have been different had the free play of competition been permitted.
Effect upon trade between Member States
(51) The complex of arrangements made on a European (and world) level between the major producers of peroxygen products had the effect of excluding virtually all trade between Member States except through channels subject to control by restrictive agreement. The "home market" rule involved producers refraining from supplying on the territory of others or confining their activities to particular markets where restrictive market sharing agreements had been made. The only movement of products between Member States thus occurred in the context of the agreed market organization or as coproducer deliveries.
The restrictive arrangements on the different national markets were designed to implement and reinforce the general market division between the producers and cannot be separated therefrom. However, even if they are considered individually, the market sharing arrangements for the Benelux, Germany and France have an appreciable effect upon trade between Member States.
The Benelux agreement covers trade in three Member States. In the case of the other arrangements, the agreements by dividing each national market between two or three producers effectively contribute to the preservation of barriers to trade. Further, both Degussa and the Interox grouping are established in several Member States and product supplied on one national market under the terms of a market sharing arrangement may well have been produced in another Member State : for example, Interox supplies certain products in France from its factory in Belgium.
The persulphates agreement fixed the respectives shares of the two major producers in the whole of the EEC and by its very nature affected trade between Member States.
Conclusion
(52) The Commission therefore considers that: (a) the agreement or concerted practice between all the producers by which the EEC market was organized on the basis of the respect of home markets and the confinement by producers of their sales to particular territories;
(b) the agreement dating from 1958 by which the French market in hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate was to be equally divided between Solvay (later Interox), L'Air Liquide and PCUK;
(c) the "Benelux" agreement of 1969 by which the respective shares of Solvay (later Interox) and Degussa in Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg for hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate were fixed according to agreed quotas;
(d) the "Germany" agreement of 1970 by which the respective shares of Degussa and the Interox grouping in the German hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate markets were fixed on the basis of the status quo and continuous contact took place to ensure list prices were respected:
(e) the "Persulphates" agreement of 1974 by which the respective shares of Degussa and Interox in the EEC persulphates market were fixed and their price policy coordinated;
constituted infringements of Article 85 (1) of the EEC Treaty.
Article 85 (3)
(53) Under Article 85 (3) of the EEC Treaty, the Commission may on the fulfilment of certain conditions grant undertakings an exemption from the prohibition of Article 85 (1). In order for the Commission to consider any exemption, however, it is a necessary pre-requisite that the agreements or concerted practices in question be notified in proper form, which was not the case in the present proceedings.
Even if the agreements or concerted practices had been properly notified there would be no possibility of any exemption being granted. Market sharing and price fixing arrangements of the type under consideration in an important industrial sector where there are a limited number of producers, virtually all of which are involved, are fundamentally contrary to the basic objectives of the Treaty. The agreements cannot be said to improve the production or distribution of goods, and their result is to eliminate any possibility of effective competition in respect of the products in question. Any benefit that could be said to result from the agreements (i.e. stability of market shares and high prices) accrue only to the participants.
B. REGULATION No 17
Fines
(54) The Commission may, by Article 15 of Regulation No 17, impose fines of from 1 000 to 1 000 000 ECU, or a sum in excess thereof not exceeding 10 % of the turnover in the preceding business year of each of the undertakings participating in the infringement where either intentionally or negligently, they infringe Article 85 (1) of the EEC Treaty. In fixing the fine, regard shall be had to both the gravity and the duration of the infringement.
In the present case the only view the Commission can take of the agreements and concerted practices is that they are of extreme gravity and were of long duration.
The gravity of the infringements lies in the fact that over a long period the producers of hydrogen peroxide, sodium perborate and persulphates effectively eliminated all possibility of effective competition in a market worth several hundred million ECU annually, and would no doubt have continued their secret arrangements indefinitely but for the discovery of the relevant evidence by the Commission.
The division of markets on national lines and the series of market sharing and quota agreements together constituted a cartel which jeopardized inter-State trade in a way which is contrary to one of the fundamental objectives of the EEC Treaty, namely the creation of a single market between the Member States.
The cartel involved deliberate and wide-ranging infringements of EEC competition law and was persisted in even after the Commission had carried out investigations concerning the persulphates sector in 1979 under Article 14 (2).
(55) As regards duration, the "home market" arrangement dated from almost the very establishment of the common market while in the case of the individual agreements these ran from 1958 for France, from 1969/70 for the Benelux and Germany, and from 1974 in persulphates.
In so far as the "home market" arrangement and the French market-sharing agreement were already in effect before Regulation No 17 came into force on 6 February 1962, the Commission will assess fines only in respect of their operation after that date. While the home market agreement was in operation from 1961, the Commission considers that for the purposes of Article 15 of Regulation No 17, its most serious aspects were manifested from about 1970 onwards with the formation of Interox, the concentration of the producers effectively into only three major groupings, and the arrangements made to accommodate Degussa's expansion to the Benelux.
The parties claim that the infringements admitted were terminated immediately after the Commission's investigations in December 1980. Although there is no substantive evidence that this was in fact the case, the Commission will assess any fines on the assumption that the infringements were not continued after this date.
(56) In assessing fines however, some distinction can be drawn between the respective responsibility of Solvay, Laporte and Degussa on the one hand and the French producers on the other. The Solvay-Laporte Interox grouping and Degussa are the major world producers of the products in question and played a dominant role in the conception and operation of the cartel. Degussa is the second largest world producer and was involved in the detailed agreements for the Benelux and Germany : the reason it did not sell in France or the United Kingdom was the "home market rule" of which it was a major beneficiary, Germany being the largest individual EEC market.
(57) In 1980, the last year in which the cartel was definitely known to have been in operation, the turnover of the Interox grouping in the products concerned in the EEC amounted to some ... million ECU.
Although after the formation of the Interox grouping Solvay and Laporte as joint owners are both responsible for its activities, the Commission is imposing separate fines. In recognition of the fact that Solvay is the larger of the parent companies of Interox, and the peroxide sector forms a far greater proportion of Laporte's total turnover than of Solvay's, the Commission will make some distinction between them.
It also takes into account that Laporte's responsibility for the French and Benelux agreements dates from 1970 when the Interox grouping was formed, both these agreements having originally been negotiated with the other participants by Solvay.
Degussa's EEC turnover for the products concerned in the year ending 30 September 1980 was ... million ECU.
The French producers had a somewhat lesser role which reflects their smaller part of the EEC market compared with Interox and Degussa. While they were not participants in the Benelux or Germany agreements, their confinement of their activities to their domestic market however ensured the effectiveness of the restrictive arrangements on other markets between Interox and Degussa, particularly as regards the maintenance of price differentials between the Member States.
In 1980 their EEC sales of hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate to third parties (excluding co-producers) came to ... million ECU for L'Air Liquide and ... million for PCUK.
Termination of infringements
(58) By Article 3 of Regulation No 17, the Commission may, on finding that there is an infringement of Articles 85 or 86 of the EEC Treaty, require the undertakings concerned to terminate the said infringement.
The Commission is not satisfied that the infringements have in fact ever been terminated. Even where Solvay and Laporte have admitted the existence of specific market-sharing agreements they state that these were not considered "appropriate for formal termination". Degussa for its part while admitting that employees "may have participated" in such arrangements, denied that its senior management was aware of the existence of the agreements. The Commission does not consider that the French agreement lapsed at the end of 1974 as claimed by the participants. As a result, it is uncertain whether or not the parties have terminated all the infringements established in this decision. It is therefore necessary, pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation No 17, to require the parties to the agreements and concerted practices to bring them immediately to an end.
The parties must also be prohibited from any agreement or concerted practice having equivalent effect, in particular any exchange of price lists or of information, whether of composite figures or details of sales to particular customers, which will enable them to check that the market shares or allocation of customers as originally agreed are being maintained, or which will provide them, either directly or indirectly, with normally confidential information on such matters as the costs of other producers, their prices, investment and production plans or requests for tendering for capital projects received by them.
Inasmuch as any information exchange system provides the participants with such details, it will have to be modified or abandoned,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
1. Solvay et Cie, Laporte Industries (Holdings) plc, Degussa AG, L'Air Liquide SA, and Produits Chimiques Ugine Kuhlmann infringed Article 85 of the EEC Treaty by participating until at least 13 December 1980 in an agreement or concerted practice dating from 1961 by which the producers confined their sales of hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate to their home markets or to certain national markets where restrictive quota agreements were in force.
2. Solvay et Cie, Laporte Industries (Holdings) plc, L'Air Liquide SA, and Produits Chimiques Ugine Kuhlmann infringed Article 85 of the EEC Treaty by participating from 1958 (in the case of Laporte from after the formation of Interox in 1970) in an agreement or concerted practice by which until at least 13 December 1980 the French market for hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate was shared in three equal parts between Solvay (later the Interox grouping), L'Air Liquide and PCUK.
3. Solvay et Cie, Laporte Industrie (Holdings) plc and Degussa AG infringed Article 85 of the EEC Treaty by participating from 1969 (in the case of Laporte from after the formation of Interox in 1970) in agreements or concerted practices by which until at least 13 December 1980 the market for hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate in the Benelux was shared between Solvay (later the Interox grouping) and Degussa according to agreed quotas and the business of particular major customers in the Benelux was allocated in agreed proportions.
4. Solvay et Cie, Laporte Industries (Holdings) plc and Degussa AG infringed Article 85 of the EEC Treaty by participating in agreements or concerted practices by which from 1970 until at least 13 December 1980 the market for hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate in Germany was shared between the Interox grouping and Degussa according to agreed quotas and continuous contact took place to ensure that their price lists (which were identical) were being respected.
5. Solvay et Cie, Laporte Industries (Holdings) plc and Degussa AG infringed Article 85 of the EEC Treaty by participating from 1974 until at least 13 December 1980 in an agreement by which the respective shares of the Interox grouping and Degussa of the EEC persulphates market were agreed and their price policy coordinated.
Article 2
Solvay et Cie, Laporte Industries (Holdings) plc, Degussa AG, L'Air Liquide SA and Atochem (as successor of PCUK) shall forthwith bring to an end the said infringements (if they have not already done so) and shall refrain from any agreement, concerted practice or measure which may have equivalent effect, including any organized exchange of price lists or of commercial information of the kind normally covered by trade secrecy and by which the participants are informed directly or indirectly, of individual data from other individual producers concerning quantities produced or sold, costs selling prices, discounts, tenders, or production or investment plans, or by which they might be able to monitor adherence to any market-sharing or price fixing agreement or arrangement covering the EEC or any national market thereof.
Article 3
The following fines are imposed on the undertakings named herein in respect of the infringements found in Article 1 in so far as they were applied after the coming into force of Regulation No 17: (a) Solvay et Cie, Brussels, a fine of 3 000 000 ECU, that is Bfrs 134 775 300;
(b) Laporte Industries (Holdings) plc, London, a fine of 2 000 000 ECU, that is £ 1 206 254;
(c) Degussa AG, Frankfurt, a fine of 3 000 000 ECU, that is DM 6 687 120;
(d) L'Air Liquide SA, Paris, a fine of 500 000 ECU, that is FF 3 418 005;
(e) Atochem, Paris, (as successor of PCUK), a fine of 500 000 ECU, that is FF 3 418 005.
Article 4
The fines imposed under Article 3 shall be paid to the following bank accounts of the Commission within three months following the date of notification of this Decision: (a) Solvay : Banque Bruxelles-Lambert, Brussels, No 310.0231000-32;
(b) Laporte : Lloyds Bank plc, London, No 108.63.41;
(c) Degussa : Sal. Oppenheim & Cie, Cologne, No 260/00/64910;
(d) and (e) L'Air Liquide and Atochem : Société Générale, Paris, No 5.770.006.5.
Article 5
This Decision is addressed to: - Solvay et Cie, 33 Rue du Prince Albert, 1050 Brussels,
- Laporte Industries (Holdings) plc, 14 Hanover Square, London W1R OBE,
- Degussa AG, Weißfrauenstraße 9, 6000 Frankfurt-am-Main 11,
- L'Air Liquide SA, 75 Quai d'Orsay, 75131 Paris,
- Atochem, La Défense 5, 92091 Paris-La Défense.
This Decision is enforceable pursuant to Article 192 of the EEC Treaty.
Done at Brussels, 23 November 1984. | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2728/2000
of 14 December 2000
opening crisis distillation as provided for in Article 30 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 in certain wine-growing regions of Germany
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine(1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1622/2000(2), and in particular Articles 30 and 33 thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Article 30 of Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 provides for the possibility of opening crisis distillation in the event of exceptional market disturbance caused by major surpluses. Such measures may be limited to certain categories of wine and/or certain areas of production and may apply to quality wines psr at the request of the Member State.
(2) By letter of 2 November 2000 the German Government requested that crisis distillation be triggered for white wine of all vine varieties grown in the Mittelrhein, Mosel-Saar-Ruwer, Nahe, Pfalz and Rheinhessen wine-growing regions. The measure is to apply to white quality wines psr of all those regions too.
(3) Wine production in those regions was less than 6 million hl per year in 1995, 1996 and 1997. It amounted to 7,07 million hl in 1998 and 8,02 million hl in 1999. At the same time, white wine's share of total wine consumed in Germany declined from 54 % in 1995 to 47 % in 1999, while there was an increase in consumption of red wine, most of which is imported. White wine exports fell by 13 % between 1993 and 1999.
(4) Prices for white wines in those regions are considerably down on 1998. In Rheinhessen, Pfalz and Nahe, prices for wines of the Müller-Thurgau and Silvaner vine varieties fell from DEM 120-160/hl to around DEM 60/hl while those for wine of the Riesling vine variety in Mosel-Saar-Ruwer dropped from DEM 200-230/hl to DEM 80/hl. Prices for table wine are currently around DEM 40/hl and those for quality wines range from DEM 55/hl to DEM 80/hl depending on the vine variety and the region.
(5) Despite these low prices, consumption of white wine has not risen significantly in 2000. Even the low figures forecast for the 2000 grape harvest have not bumped prices up. White wines stocks in those regions stand currently at 7,5 million hl, while around 6 million hl would suffice to ensure regular supplies to the market.
(6) The producers concerned have delivered wine for distillation in accordance with Article 29 of Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999, but those provisions only concern table wine and the measure accordingly does not fully meet the needs of these regions. A crisis distillation measure is therefore required to solve the serious problems of these wine-growing regions of Germany.
(7) Since the conditions laid down in Article 30(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 are satisfied, crisis distillation covering a maximum of 1 million hl should be triggered in these German wine-growing regions for a limited period with a view to maximum effectiveness. No ceiling should be set on the quantity that individual producers can have distilled because wine stocks may vary substantially from one producer to another and they depend on sales to a greater extent than on the individual producer's annual output.
(8) The mechanism to be introduced is provided for in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1623/2000 of 25 July 2000 laying down detailed rules for implementing Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine with regard to market mechanisms(3), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2409/2000(4). In addition to the articles of that Regulation referring to the distillation measure provided for in Article 30 of Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999, other provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1623/2000 are applicable, and in particular those on the delivery of the alcohol to the intervention agency and on payment of advances.
(9) The buying-in price to be paid by the distiller to the producer should provide a solution to the problems while allowing producers to take advantage of the possibility afforded by this measure. That price should not, however, be such that it adversely affects the application of distillation as provided for in Article 29 of Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999.
(10) The product of crisis distillation must be raw alcohol or neutral alcohol for compulsory delivery to the intervention agency in order to avoid disturbing the market for potable alcohol, which is supplied largely by distillation under Article 29 of Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999.
(11) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Wine,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Crisis distillation as provided for in Article 30 of Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 is hereby opened for a maximum of 1 million hl of white table wine and white quality wines psr of all vine varieties grown in the Mittelrhein, Mosel-Saar-Ruwer, Nahe, Pfalz and Rheinhessen wine-growing regions of Germany.
Article 2
In addition to the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1623/2000 referring to Article 30 of Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999, the following provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1623/2000 shall also apply to the measure covered by this Regulation:
- Article 62(5) on payment of the price by the intervention agency as referred to in Article 6(2) of this Regulation,
- Articles 66 and 67 as regards the advance as referred to in Article 6(2) of this Regulation.
Article 3
Producers may conclude contracts as provided for in Article 65 of Regulation (EC) No 1623/2000 from 16 December 2000 to 31 January 2001. Such contracts shall entail the lodging of a security equal to EUR 5 per hl. Such contracts may not be transferred.
Article 4
1. The Member State shall determine the rate of reduction to be applied to the abovementioned contracts where the overall quantity covered by contracts presented exceeds that laid down in Article 1.
2. The Member State shall adopt the administrative provisions needed to approve the abovementioned contracts by 15 February 2001, shall specify the rate of reduction applied and the quantity of wine accepted per contract and shall stipulate that the producer can cancel the contract where the quantity to be distilled is reduced. The Member State shall notify the Commission before 20 February 2001 of the quantities of such wine covered by contracts approved.
3. The wine shall be delivered to the distilleries by 30 June 2001 at the latest. The alcohol obtained may be delivered to the intervention agency by 30 November 2001 at the latest.
4. Securities shall be released in proportion to the quantities delivered where the producer provides proof of delivery to the distillery.
5. The security shall be forfeit where no delivery is made within the time limit laid down.
6. The Member State may limit the number of contracts that individual producers can conclude under the distillation operation in question.
Article 5
The minimum buying-in price for wine delivered for distillation under this Regulation shall be EUR 2,1054 per % vol per hl.
Article 6
1. Distillers shall deliver the product obtained from distillation to the intervention agency. That product shall be of an alcoholic strength of at least 92 % vol.
2. The price to be paid to the distiller by the intervention agency for raw alcohol delivered shall be EUR 2,4726 per % vol per hl. The distiller may receive an advance on that amount equal to EUR 1,3136 per % vol per hl. The advance shall in that case be deducted from the price actually paid.
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 from 16 December 2000.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 14 December 2000. | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1548/2002
of 29 August 2002
concerning tenders notified in response to the invitation to tender for the export of rye issued in Regulation (EC) No 900/2002
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 7 thereof,
Whereas:
(1) An invitation to tender for the refund for the export of rye to all third countries excluding Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia was opened pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 900/2002(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 23 to 29 August 2002 in response to the invitation to tender for the refund for the export of rye issued in Regulation (EC) No 900/2002.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 30 August 2002.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 29 August 2002. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 35/94 of 7 January 1994 on the issuing of import documents for preserved tuna and bonito of certain species from certain third countries
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3759/92 of 17 December 1992 on the common organization of the market in fishery and aquaculture products (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1891/93 (2),
Having regard to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3900/92 of 23 December 1992 laying down the special rules of application for the Community import arrangements for certain species of preserved tuna, bonito and sardines and fixing the quantities of those products which may be imported during 1993 (3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 3602/93 (4), and in particular Article 4 (2) thereof,
Whereas Article 3 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 3900/92 has allocated 17 099 tonnes of the available quantity of 113 990 tonnes to new importers; whereas Article 4 (2) of that Regulation provides that if the quantities for which import documents have been applied for exceed the available quantities, the Commission is to fix a single percentage figure by which the quantities applied for are to be reduced;
Whereas on 3 and 4 January 1994 the quantities applied for by new importers exceed the quantities available; whereas the extent to which import documents may be issued should accordingly be determined;
Whereas the quantities for which import documents have been issued have reached the amount of 17 099 tonnes; whereas the issuing of these documents to new importers should accordingly be suspended,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Import documents for preserved tuna of the genus Thunnus, skipjack or stripe-bellied bonito (Euthynnus pelamis) and other species of the genus Euthynnus falling within CN codes ex 1604 14 11, ex 1604 14 19 and ex 1604 20 70, from the third countries referred to in Article 1 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 3900/92, applied for pursuant to Article 3 (1) (b) of that Regulation on 3 and 4 January 1994 and forwarded to the Commission on 5 January 1994, shall be issued for up to 2,98 % of the quantities applied for.
The issuing of import documents for the products referred to in the first subparagraph is hereby suspended for applications pursuant to Article 3 (1) (b) of Regulation (EEC) No 3900/92 lodged from 5 January 1994.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 10 January 1994.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 7 January 1994. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2222/2003
of 18 December 2003
fixing the export refunds on cereal-based compound feedingstuffs
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 of 30 June 1992 on the common organisation of the market in cereals(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1104/2003(2), and in particular Article 13(3) 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 within the Community may be covered by an export refund.
(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1517/95 of 29 June 1995 laying down detailed rules for the application of Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 as regards the arrangements for the export and import of compound feedingstuffs based on cereals and amending Regulation (EC) No 1162/95 laying down special detailed rules for the application of the system of import and export licences for cereals and rice(3) in Article 2 lays down general rules for fixing the amount of such refunds.
(3) That calculation must also take account of the cereal products content. In the interest of simplification, the refund should be paid in respect of two categories of "cereal products", namely for maize, the most commonly used cereal in exported compound feeds and maize products, and for "other cereals", these being eligible cereal products excluding maize and maize products. A refund should be granted in respect of the quantity of cereal products present in the compound feedingstuff.
(4) Furthermore, the amount of the refund must also take into account the possibilities and conditions for the sale of those products on the world market, the need to avoid disturbances on the Community market and the economic aspect of the export.
(5) The current situation on the cereals market and, in particular, the supply prospects mean that the export refunds should be abolished.
(6) The Management Committee for Cereals has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its chairman,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The export refunds on the compound feedingstuffs covered by Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 and subject to Regulation (EC) No 1517/95 are hereby fixed as shown in the Annex to this Regulation.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 19 December 2003.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 18 December 2003. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Council Regulation (EC) No 149/2003
of 27 January 2003
amending and updating Regulation (EC) No 1334/2000 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports of dual-use items and technology
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 133 thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,
Whereas:
(1) Regulation (EC) No 1334/2000(1) requires dual-use items (including software and technology) to be subject to effective control when they are exported from the Community.
(2) In order to enable the Member States and the Community to comply with their international commitments, Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1334/2000 establishes the common list of dual-use items and technology referred to in Article 3 of that Regulation, which implements internationally agreed dual-use controls, including the Wassenaar Arrangement, the Missile Technology Control Regime, the Nuclear Suppliers Group, the Australia Group and the Chemical Weapons Convention.
(3) Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 1334/2000 provides for Annex I and Annex IV to that Regulation to be updated in conformity with the relevant obligations and commitments, and any modification thereof, that each Member State has accepted as a member of the international non-proliferation regimes and export control arrangements, or by ratification of relevant international treaties.
(4) In order to take account of changes adopted by the Wassenaar Arrangement, the Australia Group and the Missile Technology Control Regime during the years 2001 and 2002, Annexes I, II and IV to Regulation (EC) No 1334/2000 should be modified.
(5) In order to ease references for export control authorities and operators, it is necessary to publish an updated and consolidated version of the Annexes to Regulation (EC) No 1334/2000, taking into account all the amendments accepted by the Member States in international forums during the years 2001 and 2002.
(6) Regulation (EC) No 1334/2000 should therefore be amended accordingly,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The Annexes to Regulation (EC) No 1334/2000 shall be replaced by the text in the Annex to this Regulation.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the thirtieth 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, 27 january 2003. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 882/2001
of 3 May 2001
derogating from certain provisions of Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes, as a consequence of foot-and-mouth disease and of exceptional weather conditions
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 of 27 November 1992 establishing an integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes(1), as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 495/2001(2), and in particular Article 12 thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Veterinary measures taken to combat and prevent the spread of foot-and-mouth disease may include regional restrictions on the movement of persons and animals. This may lead to a situation where Member States are no longer able to comply with some of their obligations under 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(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2721/2000(4).
(2) It is therefore necessary to allow Member States to deviate from the control practice to be applied under normal circumstances. Where it is not possible to comply with the normal rates of on-the-spot-checks, Member States should be allowed to reduce those rates. In that case ex post, on-the-spot checks should, where appropriate, be increased in the following control period. Any such deviation should be limited to that which is strictly necessary in order to preserve the effectiveness of the veterinary measures in question.
(3) Alternative means for submission of claims and other notifications should be made possible. Provision should be made for the possibility to replace female animals after the lifting of animal movement restrictions.
(4) The outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease may, for the regions affected, result in the prohibition to sow seeds or have the effect that areas originally foreseen as forage areas be declared as set-aside areas after the "area" aid-application has been submitted. Moreover, due to bad weather conditions, it is in certain regions no longer economically viable for a large number of producers to sow seeds.
(5) In order to relieve producers of the burdens resulting from such special agronomic and veterinary circumstances, it is appropriate, for the 2001/02 marketing year, to derogate from certain provisions of Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 by allowing amendments to be made to area aid applications that have already been submitted or by withdrawing areas declared as being used for "arable crops" and adding them to the set-aside areas. It should also be allowed that areas may be added to such areas that have been declared as forage, in certain cases even after the latest date for sowing. Under certain conditions, Member States should be given the possibility to derogate from the provision in Article 2(1)(c) of Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 setting the minimum period of the availability of forage land for rearing animals.
(6) The Commission should regularly be informed by the Member States of the situation and the measures they have taken.
(7) In view of the situation facing the competent authorities for the integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes, this Regulation should enter into force immediately. Because of the exceptional character of the measures, the application of the Regulation should be limited in time.
(8) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for the Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
To the extent necessary to preserve the effectiveness of veterinary measures taken in conformity with Community legislation to combat and prevent the spread of foot-and-mouth disease, Member States shall be permitted to act in derogation from Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 under the conditions set out in this Regulation.
Article 2
1. By way of derogation from Article 6 of Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92, Member States may modify their control programmes for on-the-spot checks. Such modifications may include, in particular:
(a) postponing on-the-spot-checks in the regions concerned until such time that access to the holdings selected for on-the-spot checks is possible;
(b) de-selecting holdings in the regions concerned that were initially selected for on-the-spot checks;
(c) decreasing the number of on-the-spot checks in the regions concerned while, at the same time, increasing the number of such checks in other regions;
(d) extending checks via means of databases and/or any other documentary means, including veterinary records and documents;
(e) where appropriate, carrying out checks in conjunction with veterinary measures on holdings where those measures are applied;
(f) increasing ex post documentary checks, which may include such checks to be conducted on the spot, in the regions concerned once the veterinary restrictions have been lifted.
2. Where, after applying the measures provided for in paragraph 1, it is still not possible to achieve the rates of on-the-spot checks required under Article 6(3), (5) and (6a) of Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 by the end of the control period in question, Member States may reduce those rates for the regions concerned. Where appropriate, ex post, on-the-spot checks should be increased in the following control period.
3. The measures provided for in this Article shall be limited to those which are strictly necessary to preserve the effectiveness of the veterinary measures taken to combat and prevent the spread of foot-and-mouth disease.
Article 3
By way of derogation from Article 5a of Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92, Member States may provide that applications may also be submitted by telephone. In this case, the accompanying documents shall be transmitted to the competent authority as soon as possible. Under the same condition, Member States may allow other notifications provided for in Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 to be transmitted by telephone or electronic means.
Article 4
By way of derogation from Article 10a(5) of Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92, a remplacement as referred to in that provision may be made within 60 days of the end of animal movement restrictions applied as a result of veterinary measures in the region concerned.
Article 5
1. By way of derogation from the first subparagraph of Article 4(2)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92:
(a) "area" aid applications submitted in respect of the 2001/02 marketing year in regions affected by foot-and-mouth disease or by bad weather conditions, may be amended by withdrawing areas declared as being "arable crops" and/or forage, and adding them to the set-aside areas, provided that the conditions for the recognition of such areas as set-aside are being met.
In regions affected by foot-and-mouth diesease, areas may, moreover, be added to areas declared as forage;
(b) where the veterinary measures taken in conformity with Community legislation in respect of regions affected by foot-and-mouth disease, reduce the time period for which forage areas are available for rearing animals and delay the date at which the areas become available, Member States may, for the 2001/02 marketing year, allow areas to be added to areas declared as forage even after the latest date for sowing provided that the same area had not already been declared in any "area" aid declaration.
2. By way of derogation from Article 2(1)(c) of Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92, Member States may, under the same conditions as set out in paragraph 1(b), determine a later starting date and a shorter period of availability.
Article 6
Member States shall regularly inform the Commission of the situation and the measures taken on the basis of this Regulation.
Article 7
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
It shall apply from 20 February to 31 December 2001.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 3 May 2001. | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
1,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
of 23 October 2007
on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, in application of point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management
(2007/726/EC)
THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (1), and in particular point 28 thereof,
Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 establishing the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2),
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,
Whereas:
(1)
The European Union has created a European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (the ‘Fund’) to provide additional support to redundant workers who suffer from the consequences of major structural changes in world trade patterns and to assist their reintegration into the labour market.
(2)
The Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the Fund within the annual ceiling of EUR 500 million.
(3)
Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 contains the provisions whereby the Fund may be mobilised.
(4)
France submitted applications to mobilise the Fund, concerning two cases of redundancies in the automobile sector: Peugeot SA and Renault SA,
HAVE DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Article 1
For the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2007, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund shall be mobilised for a total amount of EUR 3 816 280.
Article 2
This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Done at Strasbourg, 23 October 2007. | [
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0
] |
Subsets and Splits