30.9.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 256/1

(1)

Decision No 1982/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007 to 2013) (3) (the Seventh Framework Programme) provides for Community participation in research and development programmes undertaken by several Member States, including participation in the structures created for the execution of those programmes, within the meaning of Article 169 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (EC Treaty).

(2)

Council Decision 2006/971/EC of 19 December 2006 concerning the Specific Programme Cooperation implementing the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007 to 2013) (4) encourages a cross-thematic approach to research topics relevant to one or more themes of the Seventh Framework Programme, and in this context identified an initiative under Article 169 of the EC Treaty in the field of Joint Baltic Sea research as one of the fields suitable for Community participation in jointly implemented national research programmes.

(3)

The Baltic Sea ecosystem, a semi-land locked European inland sea, is one of the world’s largest brackish water bodies and has been seriously affected by many natural pressures and pressures caused by human activity, such as pollution from dumped chemical weapons, for example war gases dating back to the Second World War, and from heavy metal compounds, organic substances, radioactive material, and heating oil and petroleum spills. The development of agriculture in the Baltic Sea drainage basin has likewise caused excessive inputs of fertilisers and organic material leading to advanced eutrophication, and the introduction of non-endemic alien organisms into the environment. The unsustainable exploitation of fish stocks and climate change are causing the loss of original biodiversity. Those factors, as well as continuing human activity, including infrastructure projects directly on and in the immediate vicinity of the coast and in the Baltic Sea drainage basin, and ecologically unsustainable tourism, are degrading the natural environment. All this is seriously reducing the capacity of the Baltic Sea to sustainably provide the goods and services upon which people depend directly and indirectly for social, cultural and economic benefits.

(4)

The European Council of 14 December 2007 highlighted concern for the status of the environment in the Baltic Sea, as reflected in the Communication from the Commission of 10 June 2009 to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions concerning the European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region. Moreover, the Council invited the Commission to present a proposal for an initiative under Article 169 of the EC Treaty for the Baltic Sea Region.

(5)

Science should contribute to addressing such challenges and finding solutions to the urgent environmental problems in the Baltic Sea. However, the gravity of the present situation calls for a qualitative and quantitative stepping-up of current research in the Baltic region through the development and implementation of a fully-integrated approach whereby the relevant research programmes of all the bordering States can be streamlined and focused in order to address the complex and urgent issues in a coordinated, efficient and effective manner.

(6)

At present, a number of research and development programmes or activities undertaken by Member States individually at national level to support research and development in the Baltic Sea region are not sufficiently coordinated at Union level to achieve the critical mass required in strategic research and development areas.

(7)

Furthermore, existing sector-specific research structures, which have evolved throughout a long history of national policies, are deeply rooted in national governance systems and prevent the development and funding of the multi-disciplinary, inter-disciplinary and trans-disciplinary environmental research needed to address the Baltic Sea challenges.

(8)

While there is a long tradition of Baltic Sea research cooperation with countries both within and outside the Baltic Sea area, collaborative efforts have so far lacked adequate financial resources for the optimal exploitation of the research potential due to the unequal economic and development situation in those countries as well as highly diverse national research agendas, research themes and priorities.

(9)

The Commission, in its work programme for 2007-2008 of 11 June 2007 for the implementation of the Specific Programme Cooperation, provided financial support to BONUS ERA-NET and ERA-NET PLUS in the field of Baltic Sea environmental research in order to strengthen cooperation between environmental research funding agencies in the Baltic region and facilitate the transition to a joint research and development programme in the Baltic Sea to be implemented on the basis of Article 169 of the EC Treaty.

(10)

By and large, BONUS ERA-NET and ERA-NET PLUS have worked well and it is thus important to ensure the continuity of the research efforts in order to address the pressing environmental challenges.

(11)

In line with the approach of the Seventh Framework Programme and as acknowledged in the consultations with stakeholders undertaken during BONUS ERA-NET, there is a need for policy-driven research programmes in the Baltic region.

(12)

Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Finland and Sweden (the Participating States) have agreed to jointly undertake the Joint Baltic Sea Research and Development Programme BONUS (‘BONUS’). BONUS aims to support scientific development and innovation by providing the necessary legal and organisational framework for trans-national cooperation between the Baltic Sea States on environmental research in the Baltic Sea region.

(13)

While largely focused on environmental research, BONUS cuts across a number of related Union research programmes on a range of human activities having accumulated impacts on ecosystems such as fisheries, aquaculture, agriculture, infrastructure (including in the field of energy), transport, training and mobility of researchers as well as socioeconomic issues. BONUS is of considerable relevance to a number of Union policies and directives including the Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region; the Common Fisheries Policy; the Common Agricultural Policy, Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (5); Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive) (6), as well as international commitments of the Union such as the HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan. As a result, many other areas of Union policy will benefit from BONUS.

(14)

In order to increase the impact of BONUS, the Participating States have agreed to the Union participating in it.

(15)

BONUS should include a strategic phase, followed by the implementation phase, to provide an opportunity to carry out a wide stakeholder consultation on a strategically-driven research agenda also capable of tackling emerging research needs. During the strategic phase of BONUS, the involvement of additional sector-oriented funding agencies should be sought to further enhance the integration of research addressing cross-sectoral end-user needs and to ensure the effective use and uptake of results for policy and resource management arrangements across a wide array of economic sectors.

(16)

At the end of the strategic phase, the Commission should verify that the Strategic Research Agenda, Stakeholders Consultation Platforms and implementation modalities are in place for BONUS to enter the implementation phase. The Commission may, if appropriate, make recommendations for improving the Strategic Research Agenda. The transition to the implementation phase should be seamless and without delays.

(17)

Participating States have agreed to contribute EUR 50 million to BONUS. In-kind contributions in the form of access to and use of infrastructures (in-kind infrastructure contribution) should be allowed, provided that they do not represent a significant part of the entire contribution. They should be subject to an evaluation of their value and their utility for carrying out BONUS projects.

(18)

The Union participation in BONUS should not exceed EUR 50 million for its entire duration and match, within that limit, the contribution of the Participating States in order to increase their interest in carrying out BONUS jointly. Most of the Union financial contribution should be allocated to the implementation phase. A ceiling should be defined for each phase. The ceiling for the implementation phase should be increased by any amount remaining after implementation of the strategic phase.

(19)

The joint implementation of BONUS requires a dedicated implementation structure, as provided for in Decision 2006/971/EC. The Participating States have agreed on such a dedicated implementation structure and set up the Baltic Organisations’ Network for Funding Science (BONUS EEIG) to implement BONUS. BONUS EEIG should be the recipient of the Union financial contribution. While reminding the Participating States that the principle of a real common pot is important, each Participating State will decide, in accordance with the funding rules and procedures common to BONUS, whether to administer its own contribution or whether its contribution will be administered by BONUS EEIG. BONUS EEIG should also ensure that the implementation of BONUS complies with the principle of sound financial management.

(20)

The Union financial contribution should be subject to formal commitments from the competent national authorities of the Participating States and the payment of their financial contributions.

(21)

The payment of the Union contribution for the strategic phase should be subject to the conclusion of a grant agreement between the Commission on behalf of the Union and BONUS EEIG that should be governed by Regulation (EC) No 1906/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 laying down the rules for the participation of undertakings, research centres and universities in actions under the Seventh Framework Programme and for the dissemination of research results (2007 to 2013) (7) in order to facilitate and simplify its management.

(22)

The payment of the Union contribution for the implementation phase should be subject to the conclusion of an implementation agreement between the Commission on behalf of the Union and BONUS EEIG, containing the detailed arrangements for the use of the Union financial contribution. This part of the Union financial contribution should be managed under indirect centralised management in accordance with Articles 54(2)(c) and 56 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (8) (Financial Regulation), and Articles 35, 38(2) and 41 of Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (9).

(23)

Any interest accruing on the contributions paid to BONUS EEIG should be considered to be its revenue and assigned to the implementation of BONUS.

(24)

In order to protect its financial interests, the Union should have the right to reduce, withhold or terminate its financial contribution in the event that BONUS is implemented inadequately, partially or late, or the Participating States do not contribute, or contribute partially or late, to the financing of BONUS, on the terms set out in the agreements to be concluded between the Union and BONUS EEIG.

(25)

In order to efficiently implement BONUS, during the implementation phase, financial support should be granted to participants in BONUS projects selected at the central level under the responsibility of BONUS EEIG following calls for proposals. The grant and payment of such financial support to participants in BONUS should be transparent, unbureaucratic and in accordance with common rules in line with the Seventh Framework Programme.

(26)

Whilst the Joint Research Centre is a department of the Commission, its institutes nevertheless possess research capabilities that are relevant to BONUS and could contribute to its implementation. It is therefore appropriate to define the role of the Joint Research Centre in terms of its eligibility for funding.

(27)

In order to assure equal treatment, the evaluation of proposals should follow the same principles applicable to proposals submitted under the Seventh Framework Programme. Therefore the evaluation of proposals should be performed centrally under the responsibility of BONUS EEIG by independent experts with a good knowledge of local conditions on the basis of transparent and common criteria, and funding should be allocated in accordance with a centrally approved ranking list. Ranking and priority order should be approved by BONUS EEIG strictly following the outcome of the independent evaluation, which should be binding.

(28)

Any Member State and any country associated with the Seventh Framework Programme should be entitled to join BONUS.

(29)

In line with the objectives of the Seventh Framework Programme, participation by any other countries in BONUS, in particular those countries bordering the Baltic Sea or providing its drainage basin, should be possible where such participation is provided for by the relevant international agreement and where both the Commission and the Participating States agree to it. In accordance with the Seventh Framework Programme, the Union should have the right to agree on the conditions relating to its financial contribution to BONUS with regard to the participation by other countries in accordance with the rules and conditions set out in this Decision.

(30)

Appropriate measures should be taken to prevent irregularities and fraud and the necessary steps should be taken to recover funds lost, wrongly paid or incorrectly used in accordance with Council Regulations (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests (10) and (Euratom/EC) No 2185/96 of 11 November 1996 concerning on-the-spot checks and inspections carried out by the Commission in order to protect the European Communities’ financial interest against fraud and other irregularities (11) and Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) (12).

(31)

The research activities carried out under BONUS should conform to ethical principles in accordance with the general principles of the Seventh Framework Programme, and follow the principles of gender mainstreaming and gender equality, and sustainable development.

(32)

In the light of an interim evaluation conducted by the Commission, assisted by independent experts with a good knowledge of local conditions, the Commission should assess the quality and efficiency of the implementation of BONUS and progress towards the objectives set, and should conduct a final evaluation.

(33)

The participants in BONUS should communicate and disseminate their results widely, in particular to other similar regional marine research projects and make the information publicly available.

(34)

The successful implementation of the projects already carried out under BONUS ERA-NET and BONUS ERA-NET PLUS brought to light the disastrous condition of the Baltic Sea. The state of the Baltic Sea environment should therefore continue to be subject to further research activities,

(a)

preparation of the Strategic Research Agenda defining the part on scientific content of BONUS focusing on calls for proposals, in conformity with the objectives set in the Seventh Framework Programme;

(b)

setting up of the Stakeholder Consultation Platforms with the aim of strengthening and institutionalising the involvement of stakeholders from all relevant sectors;

(c)

preparation of the implementation modalities, including legal and financial rules and procedures, provisions governing the intellectual property rights arising from BONUS activities, human resources and communication aspects.

(a)

the establishment by the Participating States of the Strategic Research Agenda, Stakeholders Consultation Platforms and the implementation modalities referred to in Article 2(3), as well as the progress made towards the achievement of objectives and deliverables set out in Annex I, section 2. The Commission may, if appropriate, make recommendations for improving the Strategic Research Agenda;

(b)

demonstration by BONUS EEIG of its capacity to implement BONUS, including receiving, allocating and monitoring the Union financial contribution under indirect centralised management in accordance with Articles 54(2)(c) and 56 of the Financial Regulation and Articles 35, 38(2) and 41 of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 and in accordance with the principle of sound financial management;

(c)

the maintenance and application of an appropriate and efficient governance model for BONUS in conformity with Annex II;

(d)

the efficient carrying out of the activities relating to the implementation phase of BONUS set out in Annex I by BONUS EEIG, which entails the launch of calls for proposals for the award of grants;

(e)

a commitment by each Participating State to contribute its share of the financing to BONUS and the effective payment of their financial contribution, in particular the funding of participants in BONUS projects selected following the calls for proposals;

(f)

compliance with the State aid rules of the Union, and in particular with the Community Framework for State Aid for Research and Development and Innovation (13);

(g)

ensuring a high level of scientific excellence, observance of ethical principles in accordance with the general principles of the Seventh Framework Programme, and adherence to the principles of gender mainstreaming and gender equality, and to the principle of sustainable development.

(a)

a definition of the tasks delegated;

(b)

provision for the protection of Union funds;

(c)

the conditions and detailed arrangements for performing the tasks, including funding rules and upper funding limits applicable to BONUS projects, appropriate provisions for demarcating responsibilities and implementing controls;

(d)

rules on reporting to the Commission on how the tasks are performed;

(e)

the conditions under which the performance of tasks ceases;

(f)

detailed arrangements for Commission scrutiny;

(g)

conditions governing the use of a separate bank account and the treatment of the interest yielded;

(h)

provisions ensuring the visibility of Union action in relation to the other activities of BONUS EEIG;

(i)

an undertaking to refrain from any act that may give rise to a conflict of interests within the meaning of Article 52(2) of the Financial Regulation;

(j)

provisions governing the intellectual property rights arising from the implementation of BONUS as referred to in Article 2;

(k)

the criteria to be used in the interim and final evaluations, including those referred to in Article 13.

30.9.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 256/15

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 967/2006 of 29 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards sugar production in excess of the quota (2) establishes deadlines that are applicable to export and levying of out of quota sugar.

(2)

Article 19(2)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 967/2006 lays down that in case of exporting the production in excess of the quota, manufacturers shall submit the requested proofs of export to the competent authority of the Member State before 1 April following the marketing year in which the surplus was produced.

(3)

Where certain destinations are not eligible for exporting sugar and/or isoglucose produced in excess of quota, manufacturers are requested to submit proof of arrival at destination in accordance with Article 4c of Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 (3). Experience has shown that in the case of certain destinations it may take longer to obtain all necessary documents. It is therefore appropriate to provide for the possibility to extend the deadline in such cases.

(4)

Where the deadline to submit proofs of export to the competent authority of the Member State is extended, the deadline for the Member State to notify the total levy to be paid by manufacturers and the deadline for manufacturers to pay the levy should also be adjusted. Similarly, the deadline fixed for Member States to establish and communicate to the Commission the surplus quantities should be modified.

(5)

Articles 3, 4 and 19 of Regulation (EC) No 967/2006 should therefore be amended accordingly.

(6)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,

1.

in Article 3(2) the following second subparagraph is added:

‘Should Member States make use of the possibility foreseen in Article 19(3), the deadlines laid down in the first subparagraph shall be 1 November and 1 December respectively.’;

2.

in Article 4(3) the following second subparagraph is added:

‘Should Member States make use of the possibility foreseen in Article 19(3), the deadline laid down in the first subparagraph shall be 31 December.’;

3.

Article 19 is amended as follows:

30.9.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 256/17

30.9.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 256/19

(1)

Commission Regulation (EU) No 446/2010 (2) has opened the sales of butter by a tendering procedure, in accordance with the conditions provided for in Commission Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 of 11 December 2009 laying down common detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards buying-in and selling of agricultural products under public intervention (3).

(2)

In the light of the tenders received in response to individual invitations to tender, the Commission should fix a minimum selling price or should decide not to fix a minimum selling price, in accordance with Article 46(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009.

(3)

In the light of the tenders received for the seventh individual invitation to tender, a minimum selling price should be fixed for butter stored in France due to the very small quantity stored in that Member State. For butter stored in other Member States than France, no minimum selling price should be fixed.

(4)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,

30.9.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 256/20

(1)

By letters registered with the Secretariat-General of the Commission on 15 October and 18 November 2009 respectively, the Federal Republic of Germany and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg requested authorisation to apply a measure derogating from the provisions of Directive 2006/112/EC in relation to the renovation and maintenance of a border bridge.

(2)

In accordance with Article 395(2) of Directive 2006/112/EC, the Commission informed the other Member States by letter dated 25 February 2010 of the requests made by the Federal Republic of Germany and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg. By letter dated 2 March 2010, the Commission informed the Federal Republic of Germany and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg that it had all the information necessary to consider the requests.

(3)

The purpose of the measure is, for supplies of goods and services, intra-Community acquisitions of goods and importations of goods intended for the renovation and subsequent maintenance of a cross-border bridge over the Mosel, to regard that bridge and its building site, as entirely on the territory of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg in accordance with an agreement between the two countries.

(4)

In absence of such a measure, it would be necessary to ascertain whether the place of taxation was the Federal Republic of Germany or the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg. Work at the border bridge carried out on German territory would be subject to value added tax in Germany while work carried out in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg would be subject to value added tax in Luxembourg. In addition, the bridge crosses a jointly managed territory (condominium) and work in this area could not be attributed exclusively to the territory of one of the two Member States to determine a single place of supply.

(5)

The purpose of the measure is therefore to simplify the procedure for charging value added tax on the renovation and the maintenance of the bridge in question.

(6)

The derogation will have no negative impact on the Union’s own resources accruing from value added tax,

30.9.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 256/22

(1)

By letter registered with the Secretariat-General of the Commission on 29 January 2010, the Kingdom of the Netherlands requested authorisation to apply special tax measures in the ready-to-wear clothing industry as previously authorised for a limited period by Decision 2007/740/EC (2).

(2)

In accordance with Article 395(2) of Directive 2006/112/EC, the Commission informed the other Member States, by letter dated 25 February 2010, of the request made by the Kingdom of the Netherlands. By letter dated 2 March 2010, the Commission notified the Kingdom of the Netherlands that it had all the information necessary to consider the request.

(3)

The arrangement would authorise the Kingdom of the Netherlands to apply, in the ready-to-wear clothing industry, a scheme for shifting the subcontractor’s obligation to pay over VAT to the tax authorities from the subcontractor to the clothing firm (the contractor). The scheme would constitute a reverse charge procedure confined to upstream operations in the commercial chain, and hence it would not apply to operators who sell to the final consumer. The procedure aims at combating frauds of a specific nature in the domestic manufacturing market.

(4)

Such arrangements have proven in the past to be an effective prevention measure in a sector in which collecting VAT is made difficult by the problems of identifying and supervising the activities of subcontractors. The requested measure is therefore to be considered as a measure to prevent certain types of tax evasion and avoidance in the ready-to-wear clothing industry.

(5)

The location for the manufacture of ready-to-wear clothes is influenced by low labour costs and subcontractors relocate easily from one country to another. Therefore, Decision 2007/740/EC required the Kingdom of the Netherlands to monitor and evaluate the impact of those factors on the effectiveness of the derogation and to submit a report to the Commission by 31 July 2009.

(6)

That report indicated that the incidence of fraud has considerably diminished and that the number of ready-to-wear clothing firms qualifying for the reverse charge procedure under Decision 2007/740/EC has steadily declined as a result of the derogating measure and international market developments. Consequently, stability is gradually returning to the ready-to-wear clothing sector in the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

(7)

In order to complete that process, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has requested the measure to be extended for a limited period and has announced, at the same time, that a final decision on the possible abolishment of the measure would be taken in 2011. It is therefore appropriate that the derogation continue to apply until 31 December 2012.

(8)

In the event that the Kingdom of the Netherlands were to consider another extension of the derogating measure beyond 2012, a new evaluation report should be submitted to the Commission together with that extension request no later than 1 April 2012.

(9)

The derogation will not have an adverse effect on the European Union’s own resources accruing from value added tax nor does it affect the amount of VAT charged at the final stage of consumption,

30.9.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 256/24

(1)

By letter registered with the Secretariat-General of the Commission on 16 November 2009, Poland requested authorisation to introduce a special measure derogating from the provisions of Directive 2006/112/EC governing the right to deduct input tax (‘the special measure’).

(2)

In accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 395(2) of Directive 2006/112/EC, the Commission informed the other Member States of the request made by Poland by letter dated 14 December 2009. By letter dated 17 December 2009, the Commission notified Poland that it had all the information that it considered necessary to consider the request.

(3)

Poland applies a limitation of the VAT deduction for passenger cars. However, some motor vehicles other than passenger cars are, by the nature of their design, also suited to use for both private and business purposes.

(4)

Currently, where a taxable person intends to use for private purposes a vehicle other than a passenger car on which he has deducted the input tax in full or in part on the purchase, intra-Community acquisition, import, hire or lease, he is required to account for output tax on that use. However, the private use is difficult for the taxable person to establish with any degree of accuracy, and for the tax authorities to monitor.

(5)

In order to simplify the procedure for collecting value added tax (VAT) and to prevent tax evasion and avoidance, Poland seeks a derogation in order to restrict the right of deduction of VAT with respect to motor vehicles other than passenger cars which may be used for both business and private purposes to 60 % of the VAT incurred on their purchase, intra-Community acquisition, import, hire or lease, up to a maximum of PLN 6 000, intended to prevent the excessive deduction of VAT with respect to luxury cars, which are more likely to be used for private purposes. The taxable person would subsequently no longer be required to account for output tax on the private use of the vehicle.

(6)

The special measure should only apply to motor vehicles other than passenger cars with a maximum load capacity of over 500 kg and a maximum weight of 3,5 tonnes. Vehicles intended to perform a specific function such as roadside assistance vehicles, hearses, and loading vehicles, and vehicles for resale or hire should not fall under the derogation.

(7)

The authorisation should be valid for a limited period and should therefore expire on 31 December 2013. In light of the experience gained up to that date an assessment may be made whether or not the derogation remains justified.

(8)

The derogation has no negative impact on the Union’s own resources accruing from value added tax,

(a)

vehicles purchased for resale, hire or lease;

(b)

vehicles, which in accordance with criteria established in fiscal provisions can be considered as vehicles intended in principle for the carriage of goods;

(c)

vehicles intended to perform a specific function;

(d)

vehicles designed for the carriage of at least 10 persons, including the driver.

30.9.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 256/26

(1)

By letters registered with the Secretariat-General of the Commission on 19 June 2009 and 19 November 2009 respectively, Italy and France requested authorisation to introduce a special tax measure in relation to the operation, maintenance and safety of the existing Col de Tende Road Tunnel, as well as the construction, operation, maintenance and safety of a new tunnel to run alongside the existing one (‘the measure’).

(2)

In accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 395(2) of Directive 2006/112/EC, the Commission informed the other Member States by letter dated 14 December 2009 of the requests made by France and Italy. By letter dated 17 December 2009 the Commission notified France and Italy that it had all the information necessary to consider the requests.

(3)

The Col de Tende Road Tunnel is a permanent road link between France and Italy. An agreement of 12 March 2007 between those two Member States has designated Italy as being responsible for the operation, maintenance and safety of the existing tunnel, as well as for the construction, operation, maintenance and safety of the new tunnel which, when completed, will carry traffic in the opposite direction to the existing tunnel.

(4)

Through the measure, the entire site of the existing tunnel, and the perimeter and construction site of the new tunnel, will be deemed to be on the territory of Italy for the purposes of supplies of goods, services, intra-Community acquisitions of goods and imports intended for the relevant construction, operation, maintenance and safety of the two tunnels. In the absence of such a measure, it would be necessary, according to the principle of territoriality, to ascertain for each supply whether the place of taxation was within France or Italy.

(5)

The purpose of the measure is therefore to simplify the procedure for charging value added tax on the operation, maintenance and safety of the existing tunnel, as well as the construction, operation, maintenance and safety of the new tunnel.

(6)

The derogation has no negative impact on the Union’s own resources accruing from value added tax,

30.9.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 256/27

(1)

By letter registered with the Secretariat-General of the Commission on 23 September 2009, Romania requested authorisation to introduce a special measure derogating from Article 193 of Directive 2006/112/EC.

(2)

In accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 395(2) of Directive 2006/112/EC, the Commission informed the other Member States by letter dated 14 December 2009 of the request made by Romania. By letter dated 17 December 2009, the Commission notified Romania that it had all the information it considered necessary for appraisal of the request.

(3)

Article 193 of Directive 2006/112/EC provides that the taxable person supplying the goods or services is, as a general rule, liable for the payment of the value added tax (VAT) to the tax authorities. The purpose of the derogation requested by Romania is to make the recipient of supplies of goods or services liable for VAT in two specific types of circumstances. The first case covered is where taxable persons supply wood products as defined in the national legislation. The second is where goods and/or services are supplied by taxable persons, with the exception of retailers, while under an insolvency procedure.

(4)

Insolvent businesses are often prevented by financial difficulties from paying the VAT on their supplies of goods or services to the competent authorities. The recipient of such goods or services can nonetheless in principle deduct the VAT even though it has not been paid to the competent authorities by the supplier.

(5)

Since retailers would find it difficult to ascertain the tax status of their customers at the point of sale, the reverse charge should not apply to retailers while under an insolvency procedure.

(6)

Romania also encounters problems in the timber market because of the nature of the market and the businesses involved. The market has a large number of small enterprises which the Romanian authorities have found difficult to control. The most common form of tax evasion involves the supplier invoicing for supplies then disappearing without paying the tax to the competent authorities but leaving the customer in receipt of a valid invoice for the right of tax deduction.

(7)

By designating the recipient as the person liable for the payment of the VAT in the case of supplies of wood products by taxable persons and in the case of supplies of goods and the provision of services by taxable persons, with the exception of retailers, while under an insolvency procedure, the derogation removes the difficulties encountered without affecting the amount of tax due. This has the effect of preventing certain types of evasion or avoidance.

(8)

The measure is proportionate to the objectives pursued since it is not intended to apply generally, but only to specific operations and sectors which pose considerable problems in charging the tax or of tax evasion or avoidance.

(9)

The authorisation should be limited in time until 31 December 2013. In light of the experience gained up to that date an assessment may be made on whether or not the derogation remains justified.

(10)

The derogation has no adverse impact on the Union’s own resources accruing from VAT,

a)

supplies of wood products by taxable persons including standing timber, round or cleft working wood, fuel wood, timber products, as well as square edged or chipped wood and wood in the rough, processed or semi-manufactured wood;

b)

supplies of goods and the provision of services by taxable persons, with the exception of retailers, while under an insolvency procedure.

30.9.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 256/29

(1)

By letter registered with the Secretariat General of the Commission on 17 February 2010, Latvia requested authorisation for a measure derogating from Article 287(10) of the VAT Directive in order to exempt taxable persons whose annual turnover is no higher than EUR 50 000 (‘the measure’). The measure would release those taxable persons from certain or all of the value added tax (‘VAT’) obligations referred to in Chapters 2 to 6 of Title XI of the VAT Directive.

(2)

In accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 395(2) of the VAT Directive, the Commission informed the other Member States by letter dated 4 May 2010 of the request made by Latvia. By letter dated 7 May 2010, the Commission notified Latvia that it had all the information necessary to consider the request.

(3)

A special scheme for small enterprises is an option which is already available to Member States under Title XII of the VAT Directive. The measure derogates from Title XII of the VAT Directive only insofar as the taxable person’s annual turnover threshold for the special scheme is higher than that currently allowed for Latvia under Article 287(10) of the VAT Directive, which is EUR 17 200.

(4)

A higher threshold for the special scheme may significantly reduce the VAT obligations of the smallest businesses, whilst that special scheme is optional for taxable persons and allows businesses to opt for the normal VAT arrangements.

(5)

In its proposal for a Directive simplifying value added tax obligations of 29 October 2004 (2), the Commission included provisions aimed at allowing Member States to set the annual turnover ceiling for the VAT exemption scheme at up to EUR 100 000 or the equivalent in national currency, with the possibility of updating this amount each year. The request submitted by Latvia is in line with this proposal.

(6)

The derogation will have no impact on the Union’s own resources accruing from value added tax,

30.9.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 256/30