5.12.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 337/1

(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,

5.12.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 337/3

(1)

The ozone-depleting substance carbon tetrachloride (CTC) is listed as a controlled substance in Group IV of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 and therefore use restrictions apply under this Regulation.

(2)

Taking account of new information and technical developments reported by the Process Agents Task Force of the Montreal Protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer in its progress report dated October 2004 (2), the Parties to the Montreal Protocol adopted Decision XVII/7 (3) at their 17th Meeting in December 2005. More specifically, Decision XVII/7 adds CTC to the revised Table A for Decision X/14 as the processing agent for the production of radio-labelled cyanocobalamin which is a medical drug used for the diagnosis of the likely causes of vitamin B12 deficiency.

(3)

At present, the use of CTC as processing agent for the production of radio-labelled cyanocobalamin is banned in the Community under Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000. In order for this particular use to be allowed, in accordance with the abovementioned Decision recently agreed upon under the Montreal Protocol, Annex VI of the Regulation should be amended.

(4)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 18(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000,

5.12.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 337/5

(1)

Regulation (EC) No 517/94 established quantitative restrictions on imports of certain textile products originating in certain third countries to be allocated on a first come, first served basis.

(2)

Under that Regulation it is possible, in certain circumstances, to use other allocation methods, to divide quotas into tranches, or to reserve a proportion of a specific quantitative limit exclusively for applications which are supported by evidence of the results of past import performance.

(3)

Rules for management of the quotas established for 2007 should be adopted before the quota year begins so that the continuity of trade flows is not affected unduly.

(4)

The measures adopted in previous years, such as those in Commission Regulation (EC) No 2038/2005 of 14 December 2005 laying down rules for the management and distribution of textile quotas established for the year 2006 under Council Regulation (EC) No 517/94 (2), proved to be satisfactory and it is therefore appropriate to adopt similar rules for 2007.

(5)

In order to satisfy the greatest possible number of operators it is appropriate to make the ‘first come, first served’ allocation method more flexible by placing a ceiling on the quantities which can be allocated to each operator by that method.

(6)

To guarantee a degree of continuity in trade and efficient quota administration, operators should be allowed to make their initial import authorisation application for 2007 equivalent to the quantity which they imported in 2006.

(7)

To achieve optimum use of the quantities, an operator who has used up at least one half of the amount already authorised should be permitted to apply for a further amount, provided that quantities are available in the quotas.

(8)

For the sake of sound administration, import authorisations should be valid for nine months from the date of issue but only until the end of the year at the latest. Member States should issue licences only after being notified by the Commission that quantities are available and only if an operator can prove the existence of a contract and can certify, in the absence of a specific provision to the contrary, that he has not already been allocated a Community import authorisation under this Regulation for the categories and countries concerned. The competent national authorities should, however, be authorised, in response to importers' applications, to extend by three months and up to 31 March 2008 licences of which at least one half has been used by the application date.

(9)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Textile Committee established by Article 25 of Regulation (EC) No 517/94,

(a)

proves the existence of a contract relating to the provision of the goods and,

(b)

certifies in writing that, in respect of the categories and countries concerned:

5.12.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 337/12

(1)

Regulation (EC) No 517/94 establishes the annual quantitative limits for certain textile products originating in Montenegro, Kosovo (2) and North Korea.

(2)

As from 1 January 2007, the European Union will include two new Member States, Romania and Bulgaria. Article 6(7) of the Act of Accession provides that the quantitative restrictions applied by the Community on imports of textile and clothing products are to be adjusted to take account of the accession of the new Member States to the Community. The quantitative restrictions applicable to imports of certain textile products from third countries into the enlarged Community should consequently be adjusted so as to cover imports into the two new Member States. This requires the amendment of certain Annexes to Regulation (EC) No 517/94.

(3)

In order to prevent the enlargement of the Community from having restrictive effects on trade, it is appropriate, when amending the quantities, to use a methodology which takes into account, for the purpose of adjusting the new quota levels, the traditional imports into the new Member States. A formula consisting of the average of the last three years’ imports into the two new Member States originating in third countries provides an adequate measurement of those historical flows. Due to the fact that Montenegro became independent on 3 June 2006, the Commission has no separate figures of the trade flow between Montenegro and Kosovo, on one hand, and the new Member States on the other hand. Therefore, the new quota levels have been established using the most appropriate criterion for doing so, namely the population ratios of the two new Member States. A growth rate has been added in both cases.

(4)

Annexes III B, IV and VI to Regulation (EC) No 517/94 should therefore be amended so as to list quota levels applicable for the year 2007. The detailed rules governing 2007 quota allocation are those contained in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1785/2006 (3) on the management of textile quotas established under Regulation (EC) No 517/94 for the year 2007.

(5)

All provisions of Regulation (EC) No 517/94 are to apply to imports into the new Member States. Regulation (EC) No 517/94 should therefore be amended accordingly.

(6)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Textile Committee established by Article 25 of Regulation (EC) No 517/94,

5.12.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 337/17

(1)

Regulation (EC) No 1606/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 July 2002 on the application of international accounting standards (2) requires companies governed by the law of a Member State, whose securities are admitted to trading on a regulated market of any Member State, to prepare their consolidated accounts in accordance with adopted international accounting standards, now commonly referred to as International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), for each financial year starting on or after 1 January 2005.

(2)

Regulation (EC) No 809/2004 of 29 April 2004 implementing Directive 2003/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards information contained in prospectuses as well as the format, incorporation by reference and publication of such prospectuses and dissemination of advertisements (3) requires that the historical financial information provided by third country issuers in prospectuses for offer of securities to the public or the admission of securities to trading on a regulated market be prepared in accordance with IFRS adopted pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1606/2002 or with the national accounting standards of a third country equivalent to these standards. If historical financial information was not drawn up in accordance with such standards it must be presented in the prospectus in the form of restated financial statements.

(3)

However, Article 35 of Regulation (EC) No 809/2004 contains transitional provisions which, in certain limited cases, exempt third country issuers from the obligation to restate historical financial information which was not drawn up in accordance with either IFRS or accounting standards of a third country equivalent to IFRS. Under those transitional provisions, the obligation to restate historical financial information does not apply to any prospectus filed before 1 January 2007 by a third country issuer which has either prepared its historical financial information in accordance with internationally accepted standards, or which has prepared its historical financial information in accordance with the national accounting standards of a third country and has securities admitted to trading on a regulated market before that date. In the latter case, if the historical financial information does not give a true and fair view of the assets and liabilities, financial position and profit and loss of the issuer, that information must also be supplemented by such more detailed or additional information as is necessary to ensure that a true and fair view is given.

(4)

Under Regulation (EC) No 809/2004 as currently drafted, those transitional exemptions will no longer apply in respect of prospectuses filed from 1 January 2007, and historical financial information which is not presented in accordance with either IFRS or equivalent third country accounting standards will have to be restated.

(5)

Since the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 1606/2002 many countries have adopted IFRS directly into their national accounting standards. This clearly demonstrates that one of the aims of this Regulation — namely to encourage the increasing convergence of accounting standards so that IFRS are accepted internationally and are truly global standards — is being fulfilled. Accordingly, it is appropriate that third country issuers should be exempt from the obligation to restate historical financial information prepared in accordance with national accounting standards, or to provide a narrative description of differences as referred to in Article 1(2)(5A) hereof, if, in accordance with IAS 1 Presentation of Financial Statements, they contain an explicit and unreserved statement that they comply with IFRS.

(6)

In its advice delivered in June 2005, the Committee of European Securities Regulators (CESR), established by Commission Decision 2001/527/EC (4), considered that the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) of Canada, Japan and the United States, each taken as a whole, are equivalent to IFRS adopted pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1606/2002, subject to remedies, such as additional disclosures and in some instances supplementary financial statements.

(7)

In January 2005, the Accounting Standards Board of Japan (ASBJ) and the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) announced their agreement to launch a joint project to reduce differences between IFRS and Japanese GAAP and launched a joint work programme in March 2005 towards the convergence of Japanese GAAP with IFRS. In January 2006, the Accounting Standards Board of Canada publicly stated its objective to move to a single set of globally accepted high-quality standards for public companies and concluded that this objective is best accomplished by converging Canadian accounting standards with IFRS within five years. In February 2006, the IASB and the US Financial Accounting Standards Board published a memorandum of understanding which outlines a work programme for convergence between IFRS and US GAAP with a view to fulfilling one of the US Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) conditions that need to be met before it will lift the reconciliation requirement for foreign issuers using IFRS that are registered with the SEC, by 2009 at the latest.

(8)

It is important, however, that the quality of the principle-based IFRS financial reporting is preserved, that the IFRS standards are consistently implemented, that appropriate legal certainty is provided for companies and investors and that equal treatment of financial statements on a worldwide basis is offered to EU companies. The future assessment of equivalence should be based on a detailed technical and objective analysis of the differences between IFRS and third country accounting standards, as well as on the concrete implementation of these GAAPs compared to IFRS. The progress of the convergence process should be closely examined before any decision on equivalence is taken.

(9)

In light of the efforts of the accounting standard setters in Canada, Japan and the United States to converge with IFRS, it is appropriate to grant the transitional provisions provided for in Article 35 of Regulation (EC) No 809/2004 to exempt third country issuers from an obligation to restate historical financial information which was drawn up in accordance with the accounting standards of Canada, Japan or the United States, or (as the case may be) to provide a narrative description of differences, for a further maximum two year period while standard setters and regulators pursue an active dialogue, the convergence process continues and the progress report is completed.

(10)

Whilst many countries have adopted IFRS directly into their national GAAP, other countries are converging national GAAP to IFRS over a period of time. In the light of this, it is appropriate, for a maximum two year transitional period, also to exempt such third country issuers from restating historical financial information or (as the case may be) from providing a narrative description of differences, provided that the national authority responsible has made a public commitment to this effect and established a work programme. In order to ensure that the exemption is available only in cases where these conditions are satisfied, the third country issuer should be required to provide evidence that satisfies the competent authority that the national authority has made a public statement and established a work programme. To ensure consistency within the Community, CESR should coordinate the competent authorities' assessment as to whether those conditions are satisfied in respect of individual third country GAAPs.

(11)

During that two year period, the Commission should not only pursue an active dialogue with the relevant third country authorities but also closely monitor the progress in the convergence between IFRS and the GAAPs of Canada, Japan, the United States, and other third countries that have established a convergence programme, in order to ensure that it is in a position to take a decision on equivalence at least six months before 1 January 2009. In addition, the Commission will actively monitor ongoing progress in the work by the relevant third country authorities to eliminate any requirement for Community issuers accessing the financial markets of a third country to reconcile financial statements prepared using IFRS. At the end of the additional transitional period, the decision of the Commission will have to be such that community and non-EU issuers should be on equal footing.

(12)

The Commission should keep the European Securities Committee and the European Parliament regularly informed of the progress made towards the elimination of reconciliation obligations and of the process towards convergence. Accordingly, the Commission shall report to the European Securities Committee and the European Parliament before 1 April 2007 on the timetable envisaged by national accounting authorities of Canada, Japan and the United States for the convergence. In addition, before 1 April 2008 and after consulting CESR, the Commission should report to the European Securities Committee and the European Parliament on the evaluation of the GAAPs of third countries used by issuers which are not required to restate historical information or (as the case may be) to provide a narrative description of differences included in a prospectus filed with a competent authority before 1 January 2009. Lastly, before 1 January 2008, and after appropriate consultation with CESR, the Commission should ensure that there is a definition of equivalence which is used for the determination of the equivalence of third country GAAP, on the basis of an equivalence mechanism set up to that end.

(13)

Accordingly, it is appropriate to amend Article 35 of Regulation (EC) No 809/2004 so that third country issuers are not required to restate historical financial information or (as the case may be) to provide a narrative description of differences in the cases described during a maximum period of two years so that further dialogue can take place. In all other cases, third country issuers should be subject to the obligation to restate their historical financial information in accordance with adopted IFRS, or (in appropriate cases) to provide a narrative description of differences, in any prospectus filed with a competent authority on or after 1 January 2007.

(14)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the European Securities Committee,

1.

Paragraph 5 is replaced by the following:

‘5.   Subject to paragraph 5A, from 1 January 2007, third country issuers referred to in paragraphs 3 and 4 shall present their historical financial information in accordance with international accounting standards adopted under Regulation (EC) No 1606/2002 or a third country's national accounting standards equivalent to those standards. If such historical financial information is not in accordance with any such standards, it must be presented in the form of restated financial statements.’.

2.

The following paragraphs 5A, 5B, 5C, 5D and 5E are inserted:

‘5A.   Third country issuers are not subject to a requirement, under Annex I, item 20.1; Annex IV, item 13.1; Annex VII, item 8.2; Annex X, item 20.1 or Annex XI, item 11.1, to restate historical financial information or to a requirement under Annex VII, item 8.2.bis; Annex IX, item 11.1; or Annex X, item 20.1.bis, to provide a narrative description of the differences between international accounting standards adopted under Regulation (EC) No 1606/2002 and the accounting principles in accordance with which such information is drawn up, included in a prospectus filed with a competent authority before 1 January 2009, where one of the following conditions is met:

5B.   By 1 April 2007, the Commission shall present to the European Securities Committee and the European Parliament a first report on the work timetable of the authorities responsible for national accounting standards in the US, Japan and Canada for the convergence between IFRS and the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles of those countries.

The Commission shall closely monitor, and regularly inform the European Securities Committee and the European Parliament about the amount of progress in the convergence between International Financial Reporting Standards and the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles of Canada, Japan and the United States of America and of progress on the elimination of reconciliation requirements that apply to Community issuers in those countries. In particular, it shall inform the European Securities Committee and the European Parliament immediately if the process is not proceeding satisfactorily.

5C.   The Commission shall also regularly inform the European Securities Committee and the European Parliament about the development of regulatory discussions and the amount of progress in the convergence between International Financial Reporting Standards and the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles of third countries mentioned in paragraph 5A(c) and progress towards the elimination of any reconciliation requirements. In particular, the Commission shall inform the European Securities Committee and the European Parliament immediately if the process is not proceeding satisfactorily.

5D.   In addition to the obligations under paragraphs 5B and 5C, the Commission shall engage in and maintain a regular dialogue with third country authorities and, before 1 April 2008 at the latest, the Commission shall present a report to the European Securities Committee and to the European Parliament on the progress in convergence and progress towards the elimination of any reconciliation requirements that apply to Community issuers under the rules of a third country covered by paragraph 5A (b) or (c). The Commission may request or require another person to prepare the report.

5E.   At least six months before 1 January 2009, the Commission shall ensure a determination of the equivalence of the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles of third countries, pursuant to a definition of equivalence and an equivalence mechanism that it will have established before 1 January 2008 in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 24 of Directive 2003/71/EC. When complying with this paragraph, the Commission shall first consult the Committee of European Securities Regulators on the appropriateness of the definition of equivalence, the equivalence mechanism and the determination of the equivalence that is made.’

5.12.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 337/21

(1)

Operations involved in shipments of radioactive waste or spent fuel are subject to a number of requirements under Community and international legal instruments regarding in particular the safe transport of radioactive material and the conditions under which radioactive waste or spent fuel is disposed of or stored in the country of destination.

(2)

Further to these requirements, the health protection of workers and the general public requires that shipments of radioactive waste or spent fuel between Member States and into and out of the Community be subject to a compulsory and common system of prior authorisation.

(3)

As stated in Council Resolution of 22 May 2002 on the establishment of national systems for surveillance and control of the presence of radioactive materials in the recycling of metallic materials in the Member States (3), it is important to minimise the radiological risk deriving from the presence of radioactive materials among metallic materials destined for recycling.

(4)

Council Directive 92/3/Euratom of 3 February 1992 on the supervision and control of shipments of radioactive waste between Member States and into and out of the Community (4) established a Community system of strict control and prior authorisation for shipments of radioactive waste that has proved satisfactory. It needs, nevertheless, to be amended in the light of experience in order to clarify and add concepts and definitions, to address situations that had been omitted in the past, to simplify the existing procedure for the shipment of radioactive waste between Member States and to guarantee consistency with other Community and international provisions, and in particular with the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management (hereinafter referred to as Joint Convention), to which the Community acceded on 2 January 2006.

(5)

In the framework of the Fifth Phase of the SLIM (Simpler Legislation for the Internal Market) initiative, a working group of representatives of Member States and of users was set up in order to address a number of concerns expressed by users of Directive 92/3/Euratom, while bringing it into line with current international rules and instruments.

(6)

The procedure laid down in Directive 92/3/Euratom has been applied in practice only to shipments of spent fuel for which no further use is intended, considered thus as ‘radioactive waste’ for the purposes of that Directive. From a radiological point of view, excluding the application of such supervision and control procedure to spent fuel where it is intended for reprocessing is not justified. It is therefore appropriate that this Directive cover all shipments of spent fuel, whether it is intended for disposal or for reprocessing.

(7)

Each Member State should remain fully responsible for the choice of its own policy on the management of the nuclear waste and spent fuel within its jurisdiction, some choosing reprocessing of spent fuel, others aiming at final disposal of spent fuel with no other use foreseen. This Directive should therefore be without prejudice to the right of Member States to export their spent fuel for reprocessing and nothing in this Directive should imply that a Member State of destination has to accept shipments of radioactive waste and spent fuel for final treatment or disposal except in the case of reshipment. Any refusal of such shipments should be justified on the basis of the criteria set out in this Directive.

(8)

Simplification of the existing procedure should not hamper the existing rights of the Member States to object to, or impose conditions in relation to, a shipment of radioactive waste which require their consent. Objections should not be arbitrary and should be founded on relevant national, Community or international law. This Directive should be without prejudice to rights and obligations under international law, and in particular to the exercise, by ships and aircraft, of maritime, river and air navigation rights and freedoms, as provided for under international law.

(9)

The possibility for a Member State of destination or of transit to refuse the automatic procedure for granting consent to shipments imposes an unjustified administrative burden and generates uncertainty. The mandatory acknowledgement of receipt of the application by the authorities of the countries of destination and transit, together with the extension of the period for granting consent, should allow tacit approval to be assumed with a high degree of certainty.

(10)

The ‘authorisations’ for shipments in the sense of this Directive should not replace any specific national requirements for the shipments such as transport licences.

(11)

To protect human health and the environment against the dangers arising from radioactive waste, account should be taken of risks occurring outside the Community. In the case of radioactive waste and spent fuel leaving the Community, the third country of destination should not only be informed of the shipment, but should also give its consent to it.

(12)

The competent authorities of the Member State of destination should cooperate and liaise with the other competent authorities involved in order to avoid undue delays and to ensure a smooth operation of the consent procedure laid down by this Directive.

(13)

The requirement that the person responsible for the shipment take corrective safety measures where necessary in case of shipment failure should not prevent the application of mechanisms established by the Member States at national level.

(14)

The requirement that the holder be liable for costs arising in case of shipment failure should not prevent that mechanisms established by the Member States at national level or any contractual arrangement between the holder and any other person involved in the shipment, apply.

(15)

While radioactive waste should, as far as is compatible with the safe management of such material, be disposed of in the State in which it was generated it is recognized that Member States should promote agreements between themselves in order to facilitate the safe and efficient management of radioactive waste or spent fuel from Member States that produced it in small quantities and where the establishment of appropriate facilities would not be justified from a radiological point of view.

(16)

When an arrangement between a consignee in a third country and a holder in a third country has been concluded pursuant to Article 27 of the Joint Convention, the same arrangement could be used for the purpose of this Directive.

(17)

For the purposes of this Directive and in the light of past experience it is appropriate to adapt the existing standard document. For the sake of clarity the obligation to establish the new standard document by the date of transposition of this Directive should be laid down. However, should this deadline not be met, transitional provisions should provide for the use of the existing standard document. Moreover, clear rules on the use of languages should allow for legal certainty and prevent unjustified delays.

(18)

Periodical reporting from Member States to the Commission and from the Commission to the European Parliament, to the Council and to the European Economic and Social Committee should provide a useful overview of authorisations given Community-wide and should identify possible difficulties encountered in practice by the Member States and solutions applied.

(19)

Council Directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 May 1996 laying down basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionising radiation (5), applies, inter alia, to the transport, import to and export from the Community of radioactive substances and provides for a reporting and authorisation system of practices involving ionising radiation. Those provisions are therefore relevant to the field covered by this Directive.

(20)

In the light of the foregoing, it is necessary, for reasons of clarity, to repeal and replace Directive 92/3/Euratom. This Directive should not prejudice the obligations of the Member States concerning the deadlines for transposition into national law and application of the repealed Directive.

(21)

In accordance with paragraph 34 of the interinstitutional agreement on better law making (6) Member States are encouraged to draw up, for themselves and in the interest of the Community, their own tables which will, as far as possible, illustrate the correlation between this Directive and the transposition measures and to make them public,

(a)

the country of origin or the country of destination or any country of transit is a Member State of the Community; and

(b)

the quantities and concentration of the consignment exceed the levels laid down in Article 3(2) points (a) and (b) of Directive 96/29/Euratom.

(a)

radioactive waste is to be shipped for processing; or

(b)

other material is to be shipped with the purpose to recover the radioactive waste,

(a)

shipments of radioactive waste and spent fuel which fall under the scope of this Directive but which were not duly authorised in accordance with this directive; and

(b)

radioactively contaminated waste or material containing a radioactive source where this material has not been declared as radioactive waste by the country of origin.

1.

‘radioactive waste’ means radioactive material in gaseous, liquid or solid form for which no further use is foreseen by the countries of origin and destination, or by a natural or legal person whose decision is accepted by these countries, and which is controlled as radioactive waste by a regulatory body under the legislative and regulatory framework of the countries of origin and destination;

2.

‘spent fuel’ means nuclear fuel that has been irradiated in and permanently removed from a reactor core; spent fuel may either be considered as usable resource that can be reprocessed or be destined for final disposal with no further use foreseen and treated as radioactive waste;

3.

‘reprocessing’ means a process or operation, the purpose of which is to extract radioactive isotopes from spent fuel for further use;

4.

‘shipment’ means the whole of operations involved in moving radioactive waste or spent fuel from the country or the Member State of origin to the country or the Member State of destination;

5.

‘intra-community shipment’ means a shipment carried out where the country of origin and the country of destination are Member States;

6.

‘extra-community shipment’ means a shipment carried out where the country of origin and/or the country of destination are third countries;

7.

‘disposal’ means the emplacement of radioactive waste or spent fuel in an authorised facility without the intention of retrieval;

8.

‘storage’ means the holding of radioactive waste or spent fuel in a facility that provides for its containment, with the intention of retrieval;

9.

‘holder’ means any natural or legal person who, before carrying out a shipment of radioactive waste or spent fuel is responsible under the applicable national law for such materials and plans to carry out a shipment to a consignee;

10.

‘consignee’ means any natural or legal person to whom radioactive waste or spent fuel is shipped;

11.

‘country or Member State of origin’ and ‘country or Member State of destination’ respectively means any country or Member State from which a shipment is planned to be initiated or is initiated, and any country or Member State to which a shipment is planned or takes place;

12.

‘country or Member State of transit’ means any country or Member State other than the country or the Member State of origin or the country or the Member State of destination, through the territory of which a shipment is planned or takes place;

13.

‘competent authorities’ means any authority which, under the law or regulations of the countries of origin, transit or destination, are empowered to implement the system of supervision and control of shipments of radioactive waste or spent fuel;

14.

‘sealed source’ has the meaning given to it by Directive 96/29/Euratom and includes the capsule, where applicable, enclosing the radioactive material as an integral part of the source;

15.

‘disused source’ means a sealed source which is no longer used or intended to be used for the practice for which authorisation was granted;

16.

‘recognised installation’ means a facility located in the territory of a country authorised by the competent authorities of that country in accordance with national law for the long-term storage or disposal of sealed sources or an installation duly authorised under national law for the interim storage of sealed sources;

17.

‘duly completed application’ means the standard document that complies with all the requirements, as established in accordance with Article 17.

(a)

the radioactive waste or the spent fuel to which it relates essentially has the same physical, chemical and radioactive characteristics; and

(b)

the shipments are to be made from the same holder to the same consignee and involve the same competent authorities, and

(c)

where shipments involve transit through third countries, such transit is via the same frontier post of entry to and/or exit from the Community and via the same frontier post(s) of the third country or countries concerned, unless otherwise agreed between the competent authorities concerned.

(a)

for Member States of transit, on the relevant national, Community or international legislation applicable to the transport of radioactive material;

(b)

for the Member State of destination, on relevant legislation applicable to the management of radioactive waste or spent fuel or on relevant national, Community or international legislation applicable to the transport of radioactive material.

(a)

when the initial consent concerned material being shipped for treatment or reprocessing purposes, if the reshipment concerns radioactive waste or other products equivalent to the original material after treatment or reprocessing, and all relevant legislation is respected;

(b)

under the circumstances described in Article 12, if the reshipment is undertaken on the same conditions and with the same specifications.

(a)

notify the competent authorities of the country of destination of the planned shipment and ask their consent; and

(b)

send the application referred to in paragraph 1 for consent to the competent authorities of the Member States of transit, if any.

(a)

to a destination south of latitude 60° south; or

(b)

to a State which is party to the Partnership Agreement between the members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part, (Cotonou ACP-EC Agreement) which is not a Member State, without prejudice to Article 2, or

(c)

to a third country which does not, in the opinion of the competent authorities of the Member State of origin, in accordance with the criteria referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article, have the administrative and technical capacity and regulatory structure to manage the radioactive waste or spent fuel safely, as stated in the Joint Convention. In coming to an opinion on this issue, Member States shall take duly into account any relevant information from other Member States. In this respect, Member States shall inform the Commission and the Advisory committee, as set up under Article 21 on a yearly basis.

(a)

the name(s) and address(es) of the competent authority or authorities of each Member State;

(b)

the languages acceptable to the competent authorities of each Member State; and

(c)

all general conditions and additional requirements, if any, necessary for the competent authorities of each Member State to authorise a shipment.

(a)

the planned time schedule for carrying out all shipments covered by the same application;

(b)

the justification for including all shipments in the same application;

(c)

the appropriateness of authorising a number of shipments lower than that covered by the application.

5.12.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 337/33

(1)

The Europe Agreement establishing an Association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and Romania of the other part (1), entered into force on 1 February 1995.

(2)

Article 75 of the Europe Agreement provides that cooperation in the fields of standardisation and conformity assessment procedures shall seek to achieve the conclusion of agreements on mutual recognition.

(3)

The Protocol to the Europe Agreement on Conformity Assessment and Acceptance of Industrial Products has been negotiated by the Commission on behalf of the Community.

(4)

Subject to its possible conclusion at a later date, the Protocol to the Europe Agreement establishing an Association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and Romania, of the other part, on Conformity Assessment and Acceptance of Industrial Products (PECA) initialled in Brussels on 18 April 2006 should be signed,

5.12.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 337/43

(1)

The Europe Agreement establishing an Association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and Romania of the other part (1), entered into force on 1 February 1995.

(2)

Article 75 of the Europe Agreement provides that cooperation in the fields of standardisation and conformity assessment procedures shall seek to achieve the conclusion of agreements on mutual recognition.

(3)

Article 110 of the Europe Agreement provides that the Association Council may delegate to the Association Committee any of its powers.

(4)

Article 2 of Decision 94/907/EC, ECSC, Euratom of the Council and the Commission of 19 December 1994 on the conclusion of the Europe Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and Romania, of the other part (2), provides for the Community decision-making procedures and for the presentation of the Community position in the Association Council and in the Association Committee.

(5)

The Protocol to the Europe Agreement establishing an Association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and Romania, of the other part, on Conformity Assessment and Acceptance of Industrial Products (PECA), has been signed in Bucharest on 27 October 2006, on behalf of the Community, and should be approved.

(6)

The appropriate internal procedures should be established to ensure the proper functioning of the Protocol.

(7)

It is necessary to empower the Commission, after consultation with a special committee appointed by the Council, to propose certain technical amendments to the Protocol and to take certain decisions for its implementation,

(a)

carry into effect the notifications, acknowledgements, suspensions and withdrawals of bodies, and appointments of a joint team or teams of experts, in accordance with Articles 10, 11 and 14(c) of the Protocol;

(b)

bring about the consultations, exchange of information, the requests for verifications and for participation in verifications, in accordance with Articles 3, 11, 12 and 14(d) and (e), and Sections III and IV of the Annexes to the Protocol;

(c)

if necessary, reply to requests in accordance with Article 11, Sections III and IV of the Annexes to the Protocol.

(a)

amendments to the Annexes in accordance with Article 14(a) of the Protocol;

(b)

addition of new Annexes in accordance with Article 14(b) of the Protocol;

(c)

any decisions regarding disagreements on the results of the verifications and the suspensions, in part or totally, of any notified body in accordance with the second and third subparagraphs of Article 11 of the Protocol;

(d)

any measures taken in the application of the safeguard clauses in Section IV of the Annexes of the Protocol;

(e)

any measures concerning the verification, suspension, or withdrawal of industrial products as having mutual acceptance under Article 4 of the Protocol.

5.12.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 337/45

(1)

The standardised requirements of Regulation No 107 on uniform provisions concerning the approval of category M2 or M3 vehicles with regard to their general construction are intended to remove technical barriers to the trade in motor vehicles between the Contracting Parties and to ensure a high level of safety and protection in the operation of vehicles.

(2)

The Commission therefore considers that Regulation No 107 should become part of the Community system for the type approval of motor vehicles,

5.12.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 337/46

(1)

Council Decision 90/424/EEC provides for the possibility of a financial contribution by the Community in the eradication and monitoring of animal diseases and for checks aimed at the prevention of zoonoses.

(2)

Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (2), provides for annual programmes for the eradication and monitoring of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs) in bovine, ovine and caprine animals.

(3)

The Member States have submitted programmes for the eradication and monitoring of certain animal diseases, for the prevention of zoonoses and for the eradication and monitoring of TSEs in their territories.

(4)

After examination of those programmes they were found to comply with relevant Community veterinary legislation and in particular with the Community criteria relating to the eradication of those diseases, in accordance with Council Decision 90/638/EEC of 27 November 1990 laying down Community criteria for the eradication and monitoring of certain animal diseases (3).

(5)

Those programmes appear on the list of programmes established by Commission Decision 2006/687/EC of 12 October 2006 on programmes which qualify for a Community financial contribution in 2007 for the eradication and monitoring of certain animal diseases, for the prevention of zoonoses, for the monitoring of TSEs as well as programmes for the eradication of BSE and scrapie (4).

(6)

In the light of the importance of those programmes for the achievement of Community objectives in the field of animal and public health, as well as the obligatory application in all Member States in the case of the TSE programmes, it is appropriate to fix the appropriate rate of financial contribution of the Community to reimburse the costs to be incurred by the Member States concerned for the measures referred to in this Decision up to a maximum amount for each programme.

(7)

For the sake of better management, more efficient use of Community funds and improved transparency, it is also necessary to fix for each programme, where appropriate, maximum amounts to be reimbursed to the Member States for certain costs of such items as tests, different vaccines used in the Member States and compensation to owners for their losses due to the slaughter or culling of animals.

(8)

Under Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (5), programmes for the eradication and control of animal diseases are to be financed under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund. For financial control purposes, Articles 9, 36 and 37 of that Regulation are to apply.

(9)

The presence of rabies in territory surrounded by the Europan Union would constitute a continuing source of reinfectionn for surrounding areas. It is, therefore, preferable to eradicate rabies rather than put in place a protective vaccination zone surrounding any such territory, which would have to be maintained indefinitely.

(10)

The financial contribution from the Community should be granted subject to the condition that the actions planned are efficiently carried out and that the competent authorities supply all the necessary information within the time limits laid down in this Decision.

(11)

There is a need to clarify the rate to be used for the conversion of the payment applications submitted in national currency as defined in Article 1(d) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2799/98 of 15 December 1998 establishing agrimonetary arrangements for the euro (6).

(12)

The approval of some of the programmes should not prejudge a decision of the Commission on rules for eradication of those diseases based on scientific advice.

(13)

The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,

(a)

EUR 490 000 for the Czech Republic;

(b)

EUR 850 000 for Germany;

(c)

EUR 925 000 for Estonia;

(d)

EUR 1 200 000 for Latvia;

(e)

EUR 1 850 000 for Hungary;

(f)

EUR 185 000 for Austria;

(g)

EUR 4 850 000 for Poland;

(h)

EUR 375 000 for Slovenia;

(i)

EUR 500 000 for Slovakia;

(j)

EUR 112 000 for Finland.

(a)

for the purchase of one vaccine dose EUR 0,5 per dose for the programmes referred to in paragraph 2(c) and (d); and

(b)

for the purchase of one vaccine dose EUR 0,3 per dose for the other programmes referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3.

(a)

EUR 3 500 000 for Spain;

(b)

EUR 1 100 000 for Ireland;

(c)

EUR 2 000 000 for Italy;

(d)

EUR 95 000 for Cyprus;

(e)

EUR 1 600 000 for Portugal;

(f)

EUR 1 100 000 for the United Kingdom.

(a)

for a rose bengal test

EUR 0,2 per test;

(b)

for a SAT test

EUR 0,2 per test;

(c)

for a complement fixation test

EUR 0,4 per test;

(d)

for an ELISA test

EUR 1 per test;

(e)

for the purchase of one vaccine dose

EUR 0,5 per dose.

(a)

EUR 3 000 000 for Spain;

(b)

EUR 2 500 000 for Italy;

(c)

EUR 1 100 000 for Poland;

(d)

EUR 450 000 for Portugal.

(a)

for a tuberculin test

EUR 0,8 per test;

(b)

for a gamma-interferon test

EUR 5 per test.

(a)

EUR 20 000 for Estonia;

(b)

EUR 400 000 for Italy;

(c)

EUR 35 000 for Latvia;

(d)

EUR 135 000 for Lithuania;

(e)

EUR 2 300 000 for Poland;

(f)

EUR 225 000 for Portugal.

(a)

for an ELISA test

EUR 0,5 per test;

(b)

for an agar gel immune diffusion test

EUR 0,5 per test.

(a)

EUR 5 000 000 for Spain;

(b)

EUR 200 000 for France;

(c)

EUR 4 000 000 for Italy;

(d)

EUR 120 000 for Cyprus;

(e)

EUR 1 600 000 for Portugal.

(a)

for a rose bengal test

EUR 0,2 per test;

(b)

for a complement fixation test

EUR 0,4 per test;

(c)

for the purchase of one vaccine dose

EUR 0,1 per dose.

(a)

EUR 4 900 000 for Spain;

(b)

EUR 160 000 for France;

(c)

EUR 1 300 000 for Italy;

(d)

EUR 600 000 for Portugal.

(a)

for an ELISA test

EUR 2,5 per test;

(b)

for the purchase of one vaccine dose

EUR 0,5 per dose.

(a)

EUR 660 000 for Belgium;

(b)

EUR 330 000 for Czech Republic;

(c)

EUR 250 000 for Denmark;

(d)

EUR 175 000 for Germany;

(e)

EUR 27 000 for Estonia;

(f)

EUR 60 000 for Greece;

(g)

EUR 2 000 000 for Spain;

(h)

EUR 875 000 for France;

(i)

EUR 175 000 for Ireland;

(j)

EUR 320 000 for Italy;

(k)

EUR 40 000 for Cyprus;

(l)

EUR 60 000 for Latvia;

(m)

EUR 60 000 for Hungary

(n)

EUR 1 350 000 for the Netherlands;

(o)

EUR 80 000 for Austria;

(p)

EUR 2 000 000 for Poland;

(q)

EUR 450 000 for Portugal;

(r)

EUR 205 000 for Slovakia.

(a)

for a bacteriological test

EUR 5,0 per test;

(b)

for the purchase of one vaccine dose

EUR 0,05 per dose.

(a)

Classical swine fever presented by Germany, France, Luxembourg, Slovenia and Slovakia are hereby approved for the period from 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2007.

(b)

Classical swine fever and African swine fever presented by Italy are hereby approved for the period from 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2007.

(a)

EUR 800 000 for Germany;

(b)

EUR 500 000 for France;

(c)

EUR 140 000 for Italy;

(d)

EUR 35 000 for Luxembourg;

(e)

EUR 25 000 for Slovenia;

(f)

EUR 400 000 for Slovakia.

(a)

for an ELISA test

EUR 2,5 per test;

(b)

for the purchase of one vaccine dose

EUR 0,5 per dose.

(a)

EUR 250 000 for Belgium;

(b)

EUR 350 000 for Spain.

(a)

EUR 66 000 for Belgium;

(b)

EUR 74 000 for the Czech Republic;

(c)

EUR 160 000 for Denmark;

(d)

EUR 243 000 for Germany;

(e)

EUR 40 000 for Estonia;

(f)

EUR 42 000 for Greece;

(g)

EUR 82 000 for Spain;

(h)

EUR 280 000 for France;

(i)

EUR 59 000 for Ireland;

(j)

EUR 510 000 for Italy;

(k)

EUR 15 000 for Cyprus;

(l)

EUR 15 000 for Latvia;

(m)

EUR 12 000 for Lithuania;

(n)

EUR 10 000 for Luxembourg;

(o)

EUR 110 000 for Hungary;

(p)

EUR 5 000 for Malta;

(q)

EUR 126 000 for the Netherlands;

(r)

EUR 42 000 for Austria;

(s)

EUR 87 000 for Poland;

(t)

EUR 121 000 for Portugal;

(u)

EUR 32 000 for Slovenia;

(v)

EUR 21 000 for Slovakia;

(w)

EUR 27 000 for Finland;

(x)

EUR 130 000 for Sweden;

(y)

EUR 275 000 for the United Kingdom.

(a)

:

ELISA test

:

EUR 1 per test;

(b)

:

agar gel immune diffusion test

:

EUR 1,2 per test;

(c)

:

HI test for H5/H7

:

EUR 12 per test;

(d)

:

virus isolation test

:

EUR 30 per test;

(e)

:

PCR test

:

EUR 15 per test.

(a)

EUR 2 084 000 for Belgium;

(b)

EUR 1 059 000 for the Czech Republic;

(c)

EUR 1 680 000 for Denmark;

(d)

EUR 11 307 000 for Germany;

(e)

EUR 233 000 for Estonia;

(f)

EUR 1 827 000 for Greece;

(g)

EUR 10 237 000 for Spain;

(h)

EUR 24 815 000 for France;

(i)

EUR 6 755 000 for Ireland;

(j)

EUR 3 375 000 for Italy;

(k)

EUR 348 000 for Cyprus;

(l)

EUR 312 000 for Latvia;

(m)

EUR 645 000 for Lithuania;

(n)

EUR 146 000 for Luxembourg;

(o)

EUR 784 000 for Hungary;

(p)

EUR 90 000 for Malta;

(q)

EUR 5 112 000 for the Netherlands;

(r)

EUR 1 759 000 for Austria;

(s)

EUR 3 744 000 for Poland;

(t)

EUR 2 115 000 for Portugal;

(u)

EUR 308 000 for Slovenia;

(v)

EUR 1 088 000 for Slovakia;

(w)

EUR 839 000 for Finland;

(x)

EUR 2 020 000 for Sweden;

(y)

EUR 6 781 000 for the United Kingdom.

(a)

EUR 6 per test, for tests carried out in bovine animals referred to in Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001;

(b)

EUR 30 per test, for tests carried out in ovine and caprine animals referred to in Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001;

(c)

EUR 50 per test, for tests carried out in cervids animals referred to in Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001;

(d)

EUR 145 per test, for primary molecular discriminatory tests carried out as referred to in Annex X, Chapter C, point 3.2(c)(i) to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001.

(a)

EUR 50 000 for Belgium;

(b)

EUR 750 000 for the Czech Republic;

(c)

EUR 51 000 for Denmark;

(d)

EUR 500 000 for Germany;

(e)

EUR 98 000 for Estonia;

(f)

EUR 750 000 for Greece;

(g)

EUR 713 000 for Spain;

(h)

EUR 50 000 for France;

(i)

EUR 800 000 for Ireland;

(j)

EUR 150 000 for Italy;

(l)

EUR 100 000 for Luxembourg;

(m)

EUR 60 000 for the Netherlands;

(n)

EUR 48 000 for Austria;

(o)

EUR 328 000 for Poland;

(p)

EUR 305 000 for Portugal;

(q)

EUR 25 000 for Slovenia;

(r)

EUR 250 000 for Slovakia;

(s)

EUR 25 000 for Finland;

(t)

EUR 347 000 for the United Kingdom.

(a)

EUR 99 000 for Belgium;

(b)

EUR 107 000 for the Czech Republic;

(c)

EUR 927 000 for Germany;

(d)

EUR 13 000 for Estonia;

(e)

EUR 1 306 000 for Greece;

(f)

EUR 5 374 000 for Spain;

(g)

EUR 8 862 000 for France;

(h)

EUR 629 000 for Ireland;

(i)

EUR 3 076 000 for Italy;

(j)

EUR 2 200 000 for Cyprus;

(k)

EUR 28 000 for Luxembourg;

(l)

EUR 332 000 for Hungary;

(m)

EUR 543 000 for the Netherlands;

(n)

EUR 14 000 for Austria;

(o)

EUR 716 000 for Portugal;

(p)

EUR 83 000 for Slovenia;

(q)

EUR 279 000 for Slovakia;

(r)

EUR 11 000 for Finland;

(s)

EUR 6 000 for Sweden;

(t)

EUR 9 178 000 for the United Kingdom.

(a)

for bovine animals, up to a maximum of EUR 300 per animal;

(b)

for sheep and goats, up to a maximum of EUR 35 per animal;

(c)

for breeding poultry, up to a maximum of EUR 2,5 per bird.

(a)

bringing into force by 1 January 2007 the laws, regulations and administrative provisions by the Member State concerned for implementing the programme;

(b)

forwarding by 1 June 2007 at the latest, the preliminary technical and financial evaluation of the programme, in accordance with Article 24(7) of Decision 90/424/EEC;

(c)

for the programmes referred to in Articles 1 to 11, forwarding an intermediate report, covering the first six months of the programme, at the latest four weeks after the end of the implementation period covered by the report;

(d)

for the programmes referred to in Article 12, Member States shall report to the Commission positive and negative results of investigations detected during their surveillance of poultry and wild birds every three months by the end of the following month;

(e)

for the programmes referred to in Articles 13 to 15, forwarding a report to the Commission every month on the progress of the TSE monitoring programme and the costs paid by the Member State; that report must be forwarded within a period of four weeks following the end of the month covered by the report;

(f)

forwarding a final report by 1 June 2008 at the latest, on the technical execution of the programme accompanied by justifying evidence as to the costs paid by the Member State and the results attained during the period from 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2007;

(g)

details of the costs paid by the Member State as referred to in point (d) and (e) must be provided in a form in accordance with the table set out in the Annexes I and II;

(h)

implementing the programme efficiently;

(i)

no other Community contribution has been or will be requested for these measures.