12.1.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 7/1

(1)

Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 aims to progressively eliminate discards in all Union fisheries through the introduction of a landing obligation for catches of species subject to catch limits.

(2)

In order to implement the landing obligation, Article 15(6) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 empowers the Commission to adopt discard plans by means of a delegated act for a period of no more than three years on the basis of joint recommendations developed by Member States in consultation with the relevant Advisory Councils.

(3)

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/2374 (2) established a discard plan for certain demersal fisheries in South-Western waters following a joint recommendation submitted by Belgium, Spain, France, the Netherlands and Portugal in 2016.

(4)

Belgium, Spain, France, the Netherlands and Portugal have a direct fisheries management interest in South-Western waters. On 2 June 2017 those Member States submitted a new joint recommendation to the Commission, after consultation of the South Western Waters Advisory Council, suggesting certain amendments to the discard plan.

(5)

The new joint recommendation was reviewed by STECF (3). The measures suggested by that joint recommendation comply with Article 18(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 and may thus be included in the discard plan.

(6)

The new joint recommendation suggests that the fisheries of blue whiting (Micromesistius poutassou) caught with bottom trawls and seines in ICES divisions VIIIc and IXa be also included in the discard plan established by Regulation (EU) 2016/2374.

(7)

The new joint recommendation also suggests to amend the definition of the fishery for anglerfish (Lophiidae) in ICES divisions VIII a, b, d and e and ICES divisions VIIIc and IXa, as set out in the discard plan, by adding a gear code for trammel nets (GTR) and lowering the mesh size for all set nets from 200 to 170 mm.

(8)

The new joint recommendation suggests furthermore to maintain the exemption from the landing obligation granted by the discard plan for Norway lobster caught by trawls in ICES subareas VIII and IX, as existing scientific evidence indicates possible high survival rates, taking into account the characteristics of the gears targeting that species, the fishing practices and the ecosystem. The STECF in its evaluation concluded that the latest experiments and studies, completed by the additional information provided by Member States, show a sufficent evidence on survival rates. Therefore, that exemption granted twice (for the year 2016 and for the year 2017) should be maintained in the year 2018.

(9)

The de minimis exemption set out in the discard plan for hake, up to a maximum of 6 % in 2018 of the total annual catches of that species by vessels targeting that species in ICES subareas VIII and IX with trawls, is based on the fact that viable increases in selectivity are very difficult to achieve. The STECF concluded that additional selectivity information provided by Member States did contain additional evidence to demonstrate that selectivity is very difficult to achieve for the métiers involved. However, additional work should be carried out in order to improve the justification for this exemption. That exemption should therefore be extended to the year 2018, and under the condition that Member States provide improved information to support this exemption that would be assessed by STECF.

(10)

Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/2374 should be amended accordingly.

(11)

Since the measures provided for in this Regulation impact directly on the economic activities linked to and the planning of the fishing season of Union vessels, this Regulation should enter into force immediately after its publication. It should apply from 1 January 2018,

(1)

In Article 3(1), point (a) is replaced by the following:

(2)

in Article 3(2) the year ‘2017’ is replaced by the year ‘2018’;

(3)

the Annex is replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Regulation.

12.1.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 7/6

(1)

Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 aims to progressively eliminate discards in all Union fisheries through the introduction of a landing obligation for catches of species subject to catch limits.

(2)

In order to implement the landing obligation, Article 15(6) of that Regulation empowers the Commission to adopt discard plans by means of delegated acts for a period of no more than 3 years on the basis of joint recommendations developed by Member States in consultation with the relevant Advisory Councils.

(3)

Belgium, Denmark, Germany, France, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom have a direct fisheries management interest in the North Sea. After consulting the North Sea Advisory Council, those Member States submitted on 3 June 2016 a joint recommendation to the Commission concerning a discard plan for demersal fisheries in the North Sea. Based on that joint recommendation, Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/2250 (3) established a discard plan applicable to those fisheries

(4)

After consulting the North Sea Advisory Council, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, France, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom submitted on 31 May 2017 a new joint recommendation to the Commission concerning a new discard plan for demersal fisheries in the North Sea. Scientific contributions were obtained from relevant scientific bodies and reviewed by the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF). On 8 September an expert group meeting attended by representatives of 28 Member States, the Commission as well as the European Parliament as an observer took place and the measures concerned were discussed.

(5)

Following a new joint recommendation, it is appropriate to repeal Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/2250.

(6)

The measures suggested in the new joint recommendation comply with Article 18(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013.

(7)

For the purposes of that Regulation, the North Sea comprises ICES zones IIIa and IV. As some demersal stocks relevant to the proposed discard plan are also to be found in Union waters of ICES Division IIa, the Member States concerned recommend that ICES Division IIa be also covered by the discard plan.

(8)

The new discard plan for the year 2018 should include the provisions laid down in Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/2250 regarding the species to be landed and should specify additional species and fisheries to which the landing obligation should apply in 2018.

(9)

Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/2250 introduced survivability exemptions, as provided for by Article 15(4)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 (4), for catches of Norway lobster made with pots and with trawls when using certain selectivity devices in ICES Division IIIa. The Member States provided for the scientific evidence which demonstrated the high survival rates for catches of Norway lobster with the bottom trawls. That information has been submitted and STECF has concluded that the information is sufficient. The new joint recommendation suggests the continued application of those exemptions. They should therefore be included in the new discard plan for the year 2018.

(10)

Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/2250 introduced a survivability exemption for catches of Norway lobster in ICES Subarea IV for certain gears on the condition that a netgrid selectivity device is used. That Delegated Regulation required Member States having a direct management interest in the North Sea to submit to the Commission additional scientific information supporting the exemptions for the bottom trawls specified. The information has been submitted and STECF has concluded that it only substantiates an exemption in winter months and in certain areas (ICES functional units). Therefore, that exemption should be included in the new discard plan for the year 2018 but limited to winter months and certain ICES functional units.

(11)

The new joint recommendation includes a survivability exemption for fish by-catch in the fishery carried out with pots and fyke nets as well as for catches of common sole with otter trawls.

(12)

Based on the scientific evidence provided in the new joint recommendation and reviewed by STECF and taking into account the characteristics of the gear, of the fishing practices and of the ecosystem, those survivability exemptions should be included in the new discard plan for the year 2018.

(13)

Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/2250 established de minimis exemptions for:

The new joint recommendation suggests the continued application of those de minimis exemptions. It is therefore appropriate included those exemptions in the new discard plan.

(14)

The new joint recommendation suggests a de minimis exemption for common sole, haddock, whiting, cod and saithe combined for catches with certain bottom trawls in ICES Division IIIa, a de minimis exemption for sole, haddock, whiting, cod and saithe combined for catches with creels in ICES Division IIIa, a de minimis exemption for whiting and cod caught with bottom trawls in ICES Division IVc and a de minimis exemption for whiting for catches with certain bottom trawls in ICES Division IIIa.

(15)

On the basis of compelling evidence provided by Member States for those de minimis exemptions as reviewed by the STECF, which concluded that those exemptions contained reasoned arguments that further improvements in selectivity are difficult to achieve or imply disproportionate costs in handling unwanted catches, it is appropriate to establish the de minimis exemptions in accordance with the percentage level proposed in the new joint recommendation, within the limits set out in Article 15(5)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013.

(16)

Article 18a of Regulation (EC) No 850/98 empowers the Commission to establish, for the purpose of adopting discard plans and for the species subject to the landing obligation, minimum conservation reference size with the aim of ensuring the protection of juveniles of marine organisms. Those minimum conservation reference sizes may derogate, where appropriate, from the sizes established in Annex XII to Regulation (EC) No 850/98. For Norway lobster in ICES Division IIIa it is appropriate to maintain the minimum conservation reference sizes set out in Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2440 (5), i.e. a total length of 105 mm and a carapace length of 32 mm. A minimum tail length of 59 mm should be added, based on the new joint recommendation and STECF's assessment which states that such tail length corresponds to the existing values for total length and carapace length.

(17)

Discard plans may also include technical measures for fisheries or species covered by the landing obligation. To increase gear selectivity and reduce unwanted catches in the Skagerrak, it is appropriate to maintain a number of technical measures, which were agreed between the Union and Norway in 2011 (6), and 2012 (7) and to authorise the use of the SepNep selectivity device.

(18)

To ensure appropriate control, specific requirements for the Member States to establish lists of vessels covered by this Regulation should be laid down.

(19)

As the measures provided for in this Regulation have a direct impact on the planning of the fishing season of Union vessels and on related economic activities, this Regulation should enter into force immediately after its publication. It should apply from 1 January until 31 December 2018 in order to comply with the time frame set out in Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013,

(1)

‘Seltra panel’ means a selectivity device which:

(2)

‘Netgrid selectivity device’ means a selectivity device consisting of a four-panel section inserted into a two-panel trawl with an inclined sheet of diamond mesh netting with a mesh size of at least 200 mm, leading to an escape hole in the top of the trawl.

(3)

‘Flemish Panel’ means the last tapered netting section of a beam trawl whose:

(4)

‘SepNep’ means an otter trawl which:

(a)

catches with pots (FPO (8));

(b)

catches in ICES Division IIIa with bottom trawls (OTB, TBN) with a mesh size of at least 70 mm equipped with a species selective grid with bar spacing of maximum 35 mm;

(c)

catches in ICES Division IIIa with bottom trawls (OTB, TBN) with a mesh size of at least 90 mm equipped with a seltra panel;

(d)

in winter months (October to March), catches in the functional units Farn Deeps (FU6), Firth of Forth (FU8) and Moray Firth (FU9) with bottom trawls (OTB, TBN) with a mesh size of at least 80 mm equipped with a netgrid selectivity device.

(a)

in the fisheries by vessels using trammel nets and gill nets (GN, GNS, GND, GNC, GTN, GTR, GEN, GNF) in ICES Division IIIa, ICES Subarea IV and Union waters of ICES Division IIa:

a quantity of common sole which shall not exceed 3 % of the total annual catches of that species;

(b)

in the fisheries by vessels using beam trawl (TBB) of mesh size 80-119 mm with increased mesh size in the extension of the beam trawl, Flemish panel, in ICES Subarea IV:

a quantity of common sole below minimum conservation reference sizes, which shall not exceed 6 % of the total annual catches of that species;

(c)

in the fisheries by vessels using bottom trawls (OTB, OTT, TB, TBN,) of mesh size 80-99 mm in ICES Subarea IV and Union waters of ICES Division IIa:

a quantity of Norway lobster below minimum conservation reference sizes, which shall not exceed 2 % of the total annual catches of that species;

(d)

in the fishery for Norway lobster by vessels using bottom trawls (OTB, TBN) of mesh size equal to or larger than 70 mm equipped with a species-selective grid with bar spacing of maximum 35 mm in ICES Division IIIa:

a combined quantity of common sole, haddock, whiting, cod and saithe below minimum conservation reference sizes, which shall not exceed 4 % of the total annual catches of Norway lobster, common sole, haddock, whiting and Northern prawn, cod and saithe;

(e)

in the fishery for Northern prawn by vessels using bottom trawls (OTB) with a mesh size equal to or larger than 35 mm equipped with a species selective grid with bar spacing of maximum 19 mm, with unblocked fish outlet, in ICES Division IIIa:

a combined quantity of common sole, haddock, whiting, cod, plaice and saithe below minimum conservation reference sizes, which shall not exceed 1 % of the total annual catches of Norway lobster, common sole, haddock, whiting, cod, saithe and plaice and Northern prawn;

(f)

in the mixed fishery for sole, whiting, plaice and species without catch limits by vessels using bottom trawls (OTB, OTT, SDN, SSC) of mesh size 70-99 mm in ICES Division IVc:

a combined quantity of whiting and cod below minimum conservation reference sizes, which shall not exceed 6 % of the total annual catches of Norway lobster, haddock, sole, Northern prawn, whiting, plaice, saithe and cod; the maximum amount of cod that may be discarded shall be limited to 2 % of those total annual catches;

(g)

in the fisheries by vessels using bottom trawls (OTB, OTT, TBN) with a mesh size of 90-119 mm, equipped with Seltra panel, or with a mesh size of 120 mm and above in ICES Division IIIa:

a quantity of whiting below minimum conservation reference sizes, up to a maximum of 2 % of the total annual catches of Nephrops, cod, haddock, whiting, saithe, common sole, plaice and hake.

(a)

total length of 105 mm;

(b)

tail length of 59 mm;

(c)

carapace length of 32 mm.

(a)

trawls with a cod end of a mesh size of at least 90 mm, provided they are equipped with a seltra panel or a sorting grid with no more than 35 mm bar spacing;

(b)

trawls with a cod end of at least 70 mm mesh size (square mesh) equipped with a sorting grid with no more than 35 mm bar spacing;

(c)

trawls of minimum mesh sizes of less than 70 mm when fishing for pelagic or industrial species, provided the catch contains more than 80 % of one or more pelagic or industrial species;

(d)

trawls with a cod end of at least 35 mm mesh size when fishing for Northern prawn, provided the trawl is equipped with a sorting grid with a maximum bar spacing of 19 mm.

(a)

constructed with a top panel of a minimum mesh size of 120 mm square mesh;

(b)

at least 3 metres long; and

(c)

at least as wide as the width of the sorting grid.

12.1.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 7/13

(1)

Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 aims to progressively eliminate discards in all Union fisheries through the introduction of a landing obligation for catches of species subject to catch limits.

(2)

In order to implement the landing obligation, Article 15(6) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 empowers the Commission to adopt discard plans by means of a delegated act for a period of no more than three years on the basis of joint recommendations developed by Member States in consultation with the relevant Advisory Councils.

(3)

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/2375 (2), established a discard plan for certain demersal fisheries in North-Western waters for the period 2016-2018, following a joint recommendation submitted by Belgium, Ireland, Spain, France, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom in 2016.

(4)

Belgium, Ireland, Spain, France, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom have a direct fisheries management interest in North-Western waters. After consulting the North Western Waters Advisory Council, those Member States submitted on 31 May 2017 a new joint recommendation to the Commission concerning a discard plan for certain demersal and deep sea fisheries in North-Western Waters for the year 2018. Scientific contribution was obtained from relevant scientific bodies and reviewed by the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) (3). The measures suggested by the new joint recommendation comply with Article 18(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 and may therefore be included in this Regulation.

(5)

According to Article 15(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 the landing obligation applies in North-Western waters, at the latest from 1 January 2016, to species that define the fisheries which are subject to catch limits. The new joint recommendation specifies the fleets which are to comply with the landing obligation in the mixed fisheries for cod, haddock, whiting and saithe, in the fisheries for Norway lobster, in the mixed fishery for common sole and plaice and in the fisheries for hake, megrim and pollack.

(6)

In accordance with the new joint recommendation, the discard plan for the year 2018 should cover, in addition to the fisheries specified in Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/2375, (i.e. the highly mixed cod, haddock, whiting and saithe fishery, Norway lobster fishery, mixed common sole and plaice fishery, hake, megrim and pollack fisheries) the saithe fisheries in ICES divisions VI and Vb, and VII. By-catch species should also be covered in certain fisheries.

(7)

The new joint recommendation further suggests that the landing obligation be applied as from 2018 to deep sea fisheries using trawls and seines to catch black scabbard fish, blue ling and grenadiers in ICES subarea VI and ICES division Vb.

(8)

The new joint recommendation suggests, for the year 2018, a survivability exemption, as referred to in Article 15(4)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013, for Norway lobster caught by pots, traps or creels in ICES division VI and subarea VII, taking into account the characteristics of the gear, of the fishing practices and of the ecosystem. The STECF concluded that the exemption is grounded. Therefore, that exemption should be included in the discard plan for 2018.

(9)

The new joint recommendation suggests, for the year 2018, a survivability exemption, as referred to in Article 15(4)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013, for common sole below the minimum conservation reference size caught by 80-99 mm otter trawl gears in ICES division VIId within six nautical miles from the coast and outside identified nurseries areas. The STECF has noted that the nursery areas referred to in the Regulation should be defined. Therefore, that exemption should be included in the discard plan for 2018 under the condition that Member States concerned undertake additional trials and provide for the information on the location of the nursey areas.

(10)

The new joint recommendation suggests, for the year 2018, seven de minimis exemptions from the landing obligation for certain fisheries and up to certain levels. The evidence provided by the Member States was reviewed by the STECF, which concluded that the joint recommendation contained reasoned arguments that further improvements in the selectivity are difficult to achieve and/or regarding disproportionate costs in handling unwanted catches, supported in some cases with a qualitative assessment of the costs. In light of the above and in the absence of differing scientific information, it is appropriate to include those de minimis exemptions in the discard plan for 2018 in accordance with the percentages proposed in the joint recommendation and at levels not exceeding those allowed under Article 15(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013.

(11)

The de minimis exemption suggested for whiting, up to a maximum of 6 % of the total annual catches of that species by vessels using bottom trawls and seines of less than 100 mm and pelagic trawls to catch whiting in ICES divisions VIId and VIIe, is based on the fact that increases in selectivity are very difficult to achieve.

(12)

The de minimis exemption suggested for whiting, up to a maximum of 6 % of the total annual catches of that species by vessels using bottom trawls and seines of not less than 100 mm to catch whiting in ICES divisions VIIb-VIIj, is based on the fact that increases in selectivity are very difficult to achieve.

(13)

The de minimis exemption suggested for whiting, up to a maximum of 6 % in 2018 of the total annual catches of this species by vessels using bottom trawls and seines of less than 100 mm to catch whiting in ICES subarea VII (excluding VIIa, VIId and VIIe), is based on the fact that increases in selectivity are very difficult to achieve.

(14)

As regards those three de minimis exemptions suggested for whiting, Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/2375 required Member States concerned to submit to the Commission additional scientific information supporting the exemptions. The STECF commented that, while complete evidence is still required, the additional information submitted addresses some concerns of the STECF. The STECF highlighted the need for a more coherent approach to this stock. Based on the scientific evidence reviewed by STEFC and considering that the evidence supporting the exemption has improved, that exemption should be included in the discard plan for 2018.

(15)

The de minimis exemption suggested for Norway lobster, up to a maximum of 6 % of the total annual catches of that species by vessels fishing for Norway lobster in ICES subarea VII, is based on the fact that increases in selectivity are very difficult to achieve. STECF concluded that the exemption is grounded. Therefore, that exemption should be included in the discard plan for 2018.

(16)

The de minimis exemption suggested for Norway lobster, up to a maximum of 2 % of the total annual catches of that species by vessels fishing for Norway lobster in ICES subarea VI, is based on the fact that increases in selectivity are very difficult to achieve and there is supporting quantitative information on disproportionate costs of handling unwanted catches. STECF concluded that the exemption is grounded. Therefore, that exemption should be included in the discard plan for 2018.

(17)

The de minimis exemption suggested for common sole, up to a maximum 3 % of the total annual catches of this species by vessels using TBB gear with mesh size of 80-199 mm with increased selectivity in ICES divisions VIId, VIIe, VIIf, VIIg and VIIh, is based on the fact that increases in selectivity are very difficult to achieve. STECF noted that the exemption is intended to compensate for the use of a more selective gear and to cover residual discards. Therefore, that exemption should be included in the discard plan for 2018.

(18)

The de minimis exemption suggested for common sole, up to a maximum of 3 % of the total annual catches of that species by vessels using trammel and gill nets to catch common sole in ICES divisions VIId, VIIe, VIIf and VIIg, is based on the fact that increases in selectivity are very difficult to achieve. STECF concluded that the exemption is well defined. Therefore, that exemption should be included in the discard plan for 2018.

(19)

The scope of certain provisions of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/2375 is limited to the year 2017. That Regulation should therefore be repealed and replaced by a new Regulation with effect form 1 January 2018.

(20)

As the measures provided for in this Regulation have a direct impact on the planning of the fishing season of Union vessels and on related economic activities, this Regulation should enter into force immediately after its publication. It should apply from 1 January 2018,

(a)

to Norway lobster (Nephrops norvegicus) caught in pots, traps or creels (Gear codes (4) FPO and FIX) in ICES subareas VI and VII;

(b)

to catches of common sole (Solea solea) below the minimum conservation reference size caught with otter trawl gears (Gear codes OTT, OTB, TBS, TBN, TB, PTB, OT, PT, TX) with cod end mesh size of 80-99 mm in ICES division VIId within six nautical miles of the coast and outside identified nursery areas in the fishing operations meeting the following conditions: vessels with the maximum length of 10 m, maximum engine power of 221 kW, when fishing in waters with the depth of 30 m of less and with limited tow durations of no more than 1:30 hours. Such catches of common sole shall be released immediately.

(a)

for whiting (Merlangius merlangus), up to a maximum of 6 % of the total annual catches of that species by vessels obliged to land whiting and using bottom trawls and seines of less than 100 mm (OTB, SSC, OTT, PTB, SDN, SPR, TBN, TBS, TB, SX, SV, OT, PT and TX) and pelagic trawls (OTM, PTM) to catch whiting in ICES divisions VIId and VIIe;

(b)

for whiting (Merlangius merlangus), up to a maximum of 6 % of the total annual catches of that species by vessels obliged to land whiting and using bottom trawls and seines of not less than 100 mm (OTB, SSC, OTT, PTB, SDN, SPR, TBN, TBS, TB, SX, SV OT, PT and TX) and pelagic trawls (OTM, PTM) to catch whiting in ICES divisions VIIb-VIIj;

(c)

for whiting (Merlangius merlangus), up to a maximum of 6 % in of the total annual catches of that species by vessels obliged to land whiting and using bottom trawls and seines of less than 100 mm (OTB, SSC, OTT, PTB, SDN, SPR, TBN, TBS, TB, SX, SV OT, PT and TX) and pelagic trawls (OTM, PTM) to catch whiting in ICES subarea VII, except divisions VIIa, VIId and VIIe;

(d)

for Norway lobster (Nephrops norvegicus), up to a maximum of 6 % of the total annual catches of that species by vessels obliged to land Norway lobster and fishing for Norway lobster in ICES subarea VII;

(e)

for Norway lobster (Nephrops norvegicus), up to a maximum of 2 % of the total annual catches of that species by vessels obliged to land Norway lobster and fishing for Norway lobster in ICES subarea VI;

(f)

for common sole (Solea solea), up to a maximum of 3 % of the total annual catches of that species by vessels obliged to land common sole and using trammel and gill nets to catch common sole in ICES divisions VIId, VIIe, VIIf and VIIg;

(g)

for common sole (Solea solea), up to a maximum of 3 % of the total annual catches of that species by vessels obliged to land common sole and using TBB gear with mesh size of 80-199 mm with increased selectivity, such as a large mesh extension, to catch common sole in ICES divisions VIId, VIIe, VIIf, VIIg and VIIh.

12.1.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 7/21

(1)

Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) aims to progressively eliminate discards in all Union fisheries through the introduction of a landing obligation for catches of species subject to catch limits. Measures to gradually eliminate discards may be included in multiannual plans.

(2)

Regulation (EU) 2016/1139 establishes a multiannual plan for the stocks of cod, herring and sprat in the Baltic Sea and the fisheries exploiting those stocks. It provides, inter alia, for technical measures to be adopted by the Commission in order to contribute to the achievement of the objectives of that multiannual plan. In particular, the Commission may adopt delegated acts regarding modifications to fishing gears intended to ensure or improve selectivity, to reduce unwanted catches or to minimise the negative impact on the ecosystem.

(3)

Council Regulation (EC) No 2187/2005 (3) lays down technical conservation measures in relation to taking and landing of fishery resources in the Baltic Sea. That Regulation defines the ranges of mesh size and other specifications i.a. the fishing gears admissible for each target species in the Baltic Sea.

(4)

Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Finland and Sweden have a direct fisheries management interest in the Baltic Sea. Those Member States have submitted a joint recommendation (4) to the Commission, after consulting the Baltic Sea Advisory Council. The recommendation indicates that certain modifications to the specifications of characteristics of codend in the existing T90 trawls, as defined in Regulation (EC) No 2187/2005, will improve selectivity and reduce the amounts of unwanted catches of cod. Scientific contribution confirming that indication was obtained from the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF).

(5)

The measures suggested in the joint recommendation, concerning the use of alternative T90 trawls in addition to the T90 trawls defined in Regulation (EC) No 2187/2005, contribute to the achievement of the objectives of the multiannual plan established by Regulation (EU) 2016/1139. Those measures should therefore be adopted in line with Article 18(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013,

(a)

‘T90 trawls’ means trawls, Danish seines, and similar gears having a codend and extension piece produced from a standard diamond knotted netting turned 90° so that the main direction of run of the netting twine is parallel to the towing direction;

(b)

‘Member States concerned’ means Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Finland and Sweden

(a)

the mesh size of the codend shall be at least 115 mm, by way of derogation from footnote 2 to Annex II and point (b) of Appendix 2 to that Annex;

(b)

the number of meshes in any circumference in the codend sensu strictu and the extension piece, excluding joinings and selvedges, shall be 80 meshes round, by way of derogation from point (e) of Appendix 2 to that Annex;

(c)

the length of the codend shall be at least 9 m;

12.1.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 7/23

(1)

Pursuant to Article 50(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the application from the Netherlands to register the name ‘Suikerstroop’ as Traditional Speciality Guaranteed (TSG) was published in the Official Journal of the European Union  (2).

(2)

‘Suikerstroop’ is the syrupy liquid obtained from the massecuite of the plant from which the product is made after extraction of the sugar crystals. The name means ‘sugar syrup’.

(3)

The Commission received a notice of opposition from Finland, a second one from Denmark and a third one from Nordic Sugar AB (company established in Denmark) all on 16 September 2014.

(4)

The notices of opposition from Denmark and Finland were forwarded to the Netherlands.

(5)

The opposition procedure based on the notice sent directly to the Commission by Nordic Sugar AB was not initiated. According to Article 51(1), second subparagraph, of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, natural or legal persons having a legitimate interest, established or resident in a Member State other than that from which the application was submitted, may lodge a notice of opposition with the Member State in which it is established. Therefore, Nordic Sugar AB was not allowed to lodge a notice or a statement of opposition directly to the Commission.

(6)

On 13 November 2014 the Commission received the reasoned statements of opposition from Finland. The reasoned statement of opposition from Denmark was already contained in the notice of opposition. Both the reasoned statement of opposition from Denmark and the one from Finland were considered admissible within the meaning of Article 21 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012.

(7)

Pursuant to Article 51(3) of the above Regulation, by letters of 19 December 2014 the Commission invited the Netherlands and Finland on one hand, and the Netherlands and Denmark on the other hand, to engage in appropriate consultations for a period of three months from the date of these letters in view of reaching an agreement.

(8)

Upon request of the Netherlands, in accordance with Article 51(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, by letter of 8 April 2015 the Commission granted an extension of the deadline for the consultations among the interested parties in the two opposition procedures concerning the above mentioned application. The final deadline for the amicable procedure was therefore extended until 19 June 2015.

(9)

No agreement was reached within the designated timeframe. By letter of 22 February 2017 the Netherlands sent the Commission the results of the consultations with Finland and Denmark. Therefore, the Commission should decide on registration in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 52(3)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, taking into account the results of these consultations.

(10)

In their reasoned statement of opposition, Finland and Denmark claimed that: 1) the name is not specific (it means just syrup of sugar); 2) identical name is used for several similar products already existing in the Danish, Swedish, Finnish, German and Baltic markets; 3) the product characteristics and its production method are not unique to the product since similar products, marketed in Denmark, Finland and Sweden, have the same specific characteristics and methods. In particular, Finland considers that the product as described in the application cannot be considered to be ‘special’ as a type of syrup since products other than the ‘Suikerstroop’ are also made of 100 % sugar beet or sugar cane.

(11)

In addition, Denmark claimed that point 3.1 of the product specification, providing that ‘the words “traditional Dutch product” will appear on the label in the language of the country in which the product is marketed’ should be reformulated to comply with Article 18(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012. On the other side, Finland challenged the use of the definition ‘traditional Dutch product’ as not specific to the product described in the application since similar products marketed in northern Europe can also be qualified as traditional.

(12)

Finland has subsequently requested, during the consultations with the Netherlands, to delete the last sentence of Section 3.2 ‘There are no other products of the same name or similar products with a similar-sounding name’ because it would be incorrect.

(13)

The Commission has assessed the arguments provided in the reasoned statements of opposition and in the information provided to the Commission regarding the negotiations between the interested parties and it has concluded that the name ‘Suikerstroop’ should be registered as TSG.

(14)

The oppositions are based on both points (a) and (b) of Article 21(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012.

(15)

As regards the incompatibility with the terms of the Regulation, three points have been raised: 1) the name is not specific; 2) the product characteristics and its production method is not unique 3) point 3.1 of the product specification does not comply with Article 18(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 insofar as it refers to a ‘traditional Dutch product’.

(16)

As regards the circumstance that the name is lawful, renowned and economically significant for similar agricultural products and foodstuffs, one point has been raised: an identical name is used for several similar products already existing in the Danish, Swedish, Finnish, German and Baltic markets.

(17)

Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 does not require a TSG name to be specific. This was required under Article 4(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 509/2006 (3). Although the application was submitted to the Commission when Regulation (EC) No 509/2006 was into force, it was then published under Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 and, therefore, in the absence of specific transitional provisions, the latter Regulation applies. In accordance with Article 18(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 a name is eligible for TSG if it has been traditionally used to refer to the specific product or if it identifies the traditional or specific character of the product. In this case, the name ‘Suikerstroop’ has been used for centuries to define this specific product. It identifies the specific character of the product, being a syrup made with the liquid left behind during the production of sugar from sugar beet or sugar cane. Therefore, the name complies with the requirements of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012.

(18)

Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 does not require a TSG product to be unique or distinctive. It has to be identifiable and distinguishable. According to Article 18(4) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 only names that refer to claims of a general nature used for a set of products or to claims provided for by particular Union legislation are excluded. ‘Suikerstroop’ is clearly identified as regards its characteristics and production method. In addition, the product covered by the product specification of the name ‘Suikerstroop’ complies with the requirements set out in Article 18(1) points (a) and (b) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 since the mode of production corresponds to traditional practice for this product and the ingredients are those traditionally used.

(19)

The sentence in point 3.1 of the product specification ‘Once the procedure under Article 18(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been completed, it is intended that the words “traditional Dutch product” will appear on the label in the language of the country in which the product is marketed’ does not comply with Article 18(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012. It should be replaced by the following sentence: ‘The name shall be accompanied by the claim “made following the tradition of the Netherlands”’. The Dutch authorities have agreed that this amendment is included in the product specification which has to be re-published for information.

(20)

Although products similar to ‘Suikerstroop’ are marketed in other Member States under a name which is deemed the translation, in the official languages of those Member States, of the term ‘Suikerstroop’, it cannot be concluded that an ‘identical name’ is used in the market of those Member States for similar products. The name used in those Member States has indeed the same meaning as Suikerstroop in Dutch language but it is not identical to ‘Suikerstroop’ since it is expressed in a different language. In addition, the name ‘Suikerstroop’ is not protected as such but only in conjunction with the claim ‘made following the tradition of the Netherlands’.

(21)

Therefore, those names of products similar to the product referred to in the application of ‘Suikerstroop’, marketed in the Danish, Swedish, Finnish, German and Baltic markets, whose meaning is ‘syrup of sugar’ and represent the translation of the name ‘Suikerstroop’ in their respective languages, may continue to be used. They are not identical to ‘Suikerstroop’ and they should not be considered as imitations or evocations of the name ‘Suikerstroop’ because the name ‘Suikerstroop’, once registered, will have to be accompanied by the claim ‘made following the tradition of the Netherlands’. Therefore the protection of this name is limited to the name as referring to the Dutch tradition.

(22)

In addition, it is obvious that the registration of the name ‘Suikerstroop’ may not prevent the use of the single terms ‘sugar’ or ‘syrup’ which are common names.

(23)

The Netherlands and Finland have also agreed to delete the last sentence of Section 3.2 which reads: ‘There are no other products of the same name or similar products with a similar-sounding name’. Such a sentence should be therefore deleted from the product specification, which has to be re-published for information purposes.

(24)

In the light of the above, the name ‘Suikerstroop’ should be entered in the register of traditional specialities guaranteed. The consolidated version of the single document should be published for information.

(25)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Agricultural Product Quality Policy Committee,

12.1.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 7/31

(1)

On 29 May 2013, by Regulation (EU) No 502/2013 (2), the Council, following an interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation, amended Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 990/2011 (3) imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of bicycles originating in the People's Republic of China (‘the existing measures’).

(2)

On the same date, the Council, by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 501/2013 (4) extended the measures to imports of bicycles originating in the People's Republic of China (‘PRC’) to imports of bicycles consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia, whether declared as originating in Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia or not (‘the extended measures’).

(3)

On 18 May 2015 the Commission, by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/776 (5), extended the measures to imports of bicycles originating in the PRC to imports of bicycles consigned from Cambodia, Pakistan and the Philippines, whether declared as originating in Cambodia, Pakistan and the Philippines or not.

(4)

The Commission received a request for an exemption from the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of bicycles originating in the PRC extended to imports of bicycles consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia, whether declared as originating in Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia or not, pursuant to Articles 11(4) and 13(4) of the basic Regulation.

(5)

The request was lodged on 13 September 2016 by Look Design System SA (‘the applicant’), an exporting producer of bicycles in Tunisia (‘the country concerned’).

(6)

The applicant alleged that it is not related to any of the exporters or producers in the country concerned which are subject to the extended measures on bicycles.

(7)

Also, the applicant alleged that it did not export bicycles to the Union during the reporting period used in the investigation that led to the extended measures, namely the period from 1 September 2011 to 31 August 2012 (‘original reporting period’).

(8)

In addition, the applicant alleged that it has not circumvented the existing measures.

(9)

Finally, the applicant provided evidence that it has exported the product under review to the Union in August 2016.

(10)

Having determined that sufficient evidence existed to justify the initiation of an investigation pursuant to Articles 11(4) and 13(4) of the basic Regulation for the purposes of determining the possibility of granting the applicant an exemption from the extended measures, and that the Union industry concerned had been given the opportunity to comment, the Commission initiated, by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/777 (6), a review of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 501/2013 with regard to the applicant.

(11)

Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/777 repealed the anti-dumping duty on bicycles imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 501/2013 with regard to imports of the product under review produced and sold for export to the Union by the applicant. Simultaneously, pursuant to Article 14(5) of the basic Regulation, customs authorities were directed to take appropriate steps to register such imports.

(12)

The product under review is bicycles and other cycles (including delivery tricycles, but excluding unicycles), not motorised, consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia, whether declared as originating in Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia or not, currently falling within CN codes ex 8712 00 30 and ex 8712 00 70 (TARIC code 8712003010 and 8712007091).

(13)

The Commission officially advised the Union industry, the applicant and the representatives of the exporting country of the initiation of the review. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to be heard.

(14)

The Commission sent an exemption form to the applicant and received a reply within the deadline set for that purpose.

(15)

The Commission sought to verify all the information it deemed necessary for the determination of the new exporter status and the exemption request of the applicant from the extended measures. A verification visit was carried out at the premises of the applicant in Tunisia.

(16)

The reporting period extended from 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017 and the investigation period covered the period from 1 January 2011 to 31 March 2017 relevant to assess the remedial effects of the measures.

(17)

The Commission examined whether the three conditions contained in Article 11(4) of the basic Regulation for granting new exporter status have been met.

(18)

The investigation confirmed that the company had not exported the product under review during the original reporting period, which satisfies the first condition. The applicant also demonstrated that it did not have any links, direct or indirect, with any of the Tunisian exporting producers subject to the extended measure with regard to the product under review, which satisfies the second condition. Finally, the investigation showed that the applicant had started to export the product under review to the Union only after the original reporting period, thus satisfying the third condition.

(19)

Accordingly, the Commission established that the company should be considered a ‘new exporter’ in accordance with Article 11(4) of the basic Regulation and thus the exemption request should be assessed accordingly.

(20)

The sources of raw materials (bicycle parts) and the cost of production of the applicant were analysed to establish whether it was engaged in assembly operations in accordance with Article 13(2) of the basic Regulation.

(21)

The investigation revealed that the bicycles exported to the Union during the reporting period did not include bicycle parts from the PRC. The parts mainly originated from other countries and the raw materials (bicycle parts) from the PRC constituted thus less than 60 % the total value of the parts of the assembled product (60/40 test).

(22)

Consequently, as the applicant complied with the 60/40 test, it was not required to assess whether the value added to the parts brought in, during the assembly or completion operation, was greater than 25 % of the manufacturing cost. It was also not required to assess whether the remedial effects of the duty were being undermined in terms of prices and/or quantities and whether there was evidence of dumping as foreseen in Article 13(2)(c) of the basic Regulation.

(23)

Moreover, no evidence was found that the applicant purchased bicycles from the PRC, or that it transhipped Chinese produced bicycles into the Union.

(24)

The Commission, therefore, concluded that the applicant is a genuine producer of bicycles, not related to any producer of bicycles located in the PRC. Consequently, the Commission decided to exempt the applicant from the extended measures.

(25)

In the light of the above findings, the registration of imports imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/777 should cease without any retroactive levying of the anti-dumping duties.

(26)

The parties concerned were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to grant the exemption from the extended measures to the applicant and to amend Implementing Regulation (EU) No 501/2013 accordingly. No comments that could alter the decision to exempt the applicant from the extended measures were received from the interested parties.

(27)

This regulation is in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 15(1) of the basic Regulation,

12.1.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 7/35

(1)

Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 lists the persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation.

(2)

On 26 December 2017, the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council decided to delete one entry and amend one entry in the list of persons, groups and entities to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply. Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 should therefore be amended accordingly,

12.1.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 7/37

(1)

The Flexibility Instrument is intended to allow the financing of clearly identified expenditure which could not be financed within the limits of the ceilings available for one or more other headings.

(2)

The ceiling on the annual amount available for the Flexibility Instrument is EUR 600 000 000 (2011 prices), as laid down in Article 11 of Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1311/2013 (2).

(3)

In order to address the ongoing challenges of migration, refugee inflows and security threats, it is necessary to mobilise significant additional amounts to finance appropriate measures as a matter of urgency.

(4)

Having examined all possibilities for re-allocating appropriations under the expenditure ceiling for heading 4 (Global Europe), it is necessary to mobilise the Flexibility Instrument to supplement the financing available in the general budget of the Union for the financial year 2017, beyond the ceiling of heading 4 by the amount of EUR 275 000 000, to provide the financing for the European Fund for Sustainable Development (EFSD). This amount includes amounts which lapsed in the previous years of the European Union Solidarity Fund and of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund and which are made available for the Flexibility Instrument in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 11(1) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1311/2013.

(5)

On the basis of the expected payment profile, the payment appropriations corresponding to the mobilisation of the Flexibility Instrument should be for 2017 only,

12.1.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 7/39

(1)

By Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 430/2013 (2) definitive anti-dumping measures were imposed on certain threaded tube or pipe cast fittings of malleable cast iron originating in the People's Republic of China (‘the PRC’) and Thailand.

(2)

On 23 May 2017, the European Commission (‘the Commission’) initiated a partial interim review with regard to imports into the Union of certain threaded tube or pipe cast fittings of malleable cast iron originating in the PRC and Thailand on the basis of Article 11(3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 (the basic Regulation). It published a Notice of Initiation in the Official Journal of the European Union  (3) (‘the Notice of Initiation’).

(3)

The Commission initiated the review concerning the PRC following a request lodged on 25 July 2016 by Hebei Yulong Casting Co., Ltd (‘the applicant’), a Chinese exporting producer of certain types of threaded tube or pipe cast fittings of malleable cast iron, with regard to imports from the PRC. The applicant requested the review in order to determine whether bodies of compression fittings using DIN 28601 thread, and cross-shaped fittings with two unthreaded central through holes (‘the products for potential exclusion’) should be excluded from the product scope of the Implementing Regulation (EU) No 430/2013. As the measures also apply to imports originating in Thailand, the Commission decided on its own initiative to initiate the review for imports from Thailand as well. The request contained sufficient evidence to justify the initiation of the review.

(4)

In the Notice of Initiation, the Commission invited interested parties to contact it in order to participate in the review. In addition, the Commission specifically informed the applicant, known Union producers, the known exporting producers in the PRC and Thailand and the Chinese and Thai authorities, known importers, suppliers and users, traders, as well as an association about the initiation of the review and invited them to participate.

(5)

Interested parties had an opportunity to comment on the initiation of the review and to request a hearing with the Commission and/or the Hearing Officer in trade proceedings.

(6)

On 8 September 2017, the applicant withdrew its request for review.

(7)

In accordance with Articles 9(1) and 11(5) of the basic Regulation, when the applicant withdraws its request, the review may be terminated unless such termination would not be in the Union interest.

(8)

The Commission considered that the review should be terminated with regard to the PRC since the investigation had not brought to light any consideration demonstrating that such termination would not be in the Union interest.

(9)

With regard to Thailand, none of the contacted known companies or Thai authorities provided any relevant information for the investigation with regard to the product for potential exclusion that would allow for the review to be carried out. None of the contacted known importers reported any imports of the product for potential exclusion from Thailand. The investigation revealed no other relevant information that would be the basis for carrying out a review of a product scope.

(10)

Since the applicant withdrew its request with regard to the PRC and since there is no further relevant information with regard to Thailand, the review should be terminated ex officio with regard to Thailand in accordance with Articles 9(2) and 11(5) of the basic Regulation.

(11)

Interested parties were informed accordingly and were given an opportunity to comment. No comments were received within the prescribed deadline.

(12)

The Commission therefore concludes that the partial interim review concerning imports of certain threaded tube or pipe cast fittings of malleable cast iron originating in the PRC and Thailand should be terminated.

(13)

This Decision is in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 15(1) of the basic Regulation,

12.1.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 7/41