(1)

Pursuant to Decision No 210/97/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 1996 adopting an action programme for customs in the Community (Customs 2000) (2), the Community transit system has been computerised. The system has been fully operational in the Member States since 1 July 2003 and has been proven to be reliable and satisfactory both for customs administrations and for economic operators.

(2)

Under those circumstances it is no longer economically justified to permit formalities to be carried out on the basis of a transit declaration made in writing, the use of which implies that the customs authorities are obliged to enter manually the declaration data into the computerised system. In general, all transit declarations should therefore be lodged using a data-processing technique.

(3)

The use of transit declarations made in writing should only be permitted in exceptional cases, where customs’ computerised transit system or the principal’s application are not functioning, in order to allow economic operators to carry out transit operations.

(4)

In order to allow travellers to carry out transit operations the customs authorities should authorise the use of transit declarations made in writing where the travellers cannot directly access the computerised transit system.

(5)

Since some Member States need to develop and implement necessary tools and links in order to allow all economic operators to be linked to the computerised transit system, a transitional period permitting the use of transit declarations made in writing should be envisaged.

(6)

Except in cases where the customs’ computerised transit system or the principal’s application are not functioning, the customs authorities accepting transit declarations made in writing should ensure that the transit data is exchanged between the customs authorities using information technology and computer networks.

(7)

In the absence of an opinion delivered by the Customs Code Committee, it is up to the Council to adopt the necessary measures.

(8)

Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 (3) should therefore be amended accordingly,

1.

Article 353 shall be replaced by the following:

2.

Article 354 shall be deleted.

(1)

Common Position 2004/31/CFSP (2) provides for an embargo on exports of arms, munitions and military equipment to Sudan, including a ban on the provision of technical and financial assistance related to military activities in Sudan. The ban on the provision of technical and financial assistance related to military activities has been implemented by Council Regulation (EC) No 131/2004 of 26 January 2004 concerning certain restrictive measures in respect of Sudan (3).

(2)

In view of recent developments in Sudan, and notably the continued violations of the N’djamena Ceasefire Agreement of 8 April 2004 and the Abuja Protocols of 9 November 2004 by all sides in Darfur and the failure of the Government of Sudan and rebel forces and all other armed groups in Darfur to comply with their commitments and the demands of the Security Council, the United Nations Security Council on 29 March 2005 adopted Resolution 1591 (2005), hereinafter referred to as ‘UNSCR 1591 (2005)’, imposing, inter alia, an arms embargo and a ban on the provision of related assistance against all the parties of the N’djamena Ceasefire Agreement and any other belligerents in Darfur. UNSCR 1591 (2005) provides for certain exemptions to the embargo.

(3)

Common Position 2005/411/CFSP confirms the embargo and ban of Common Position 2004/31/CFSP and makes provision for an additional exemption to the arms embargo and the ban on the provision of related assistance, which affects all persons and entities in Sudan, in order to bring the list of exemptions in line with UNSCR 1591 (2005). Since this exemption applies to the ban on the provision of certain financial and technical assistance, Regulation (EC) No 131/2004 should be amended accordingly.

(4)

The additional exemption should have retroactive effect from the date on which UNSCR 1591 (2005) was adopted,

(1)

Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations, the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products and periods stipulated in the Annex thereto.

(2)

In compliance with the above criteria, the standard import values must be fixed at the levels set out in the Annex to this Regulation,

(1)

Articles 173 to 177 of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 provide that the Commission shall periodically establish unit values for the products referred to in the classification in Annex 26 to that Regulation.

(2)

The result of applying the rules and criteria laid down in the abovementioned Articles to the elements communicated to the Commission in accordance with Article 173(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 is that unit values set out in the Annex to this Regulation should be established in regard to the products in question,

(1)

Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1159/2003 lays down detailed rules on determining the delivery obligations at zero duty for products falling within CN code 1701 expressed as white sugar equivalent for imports originating in countries which are parties to the ACP Protocol and the India Agreement.

(2)

The weekly totals referred to in Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1159/ 2003 show that some sugar is still available for the delivery obligations for preferential sugar originating in Côte d’Ivoire for the 2004/05 delivery period which have already reached their limits.

(3)

Under these circumstances, the Commission must indicate that the limits concerned have not been reached,

(1)

The representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2004/2005 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1210/2004 (3). These prices and duties have last been amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 292/2005 (4).

(2)

The data currently available to the Commission indicate that the said amounts should be changed in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1423/95,

(1)

Commission Decision 2003/804/EC (2) sets out a temporary list of third countries from which Member States are authorised to import live molluscs, their eggs and gametes for further growth, fattening, relaying or human consumption into the Community, as well as model certificates that must accompany consignments of such products.

(2)

Canada, Croatia, Morocco, New Zealand, Tunisia, Turkey and the United States of America have been included in that temporary list, based on current trade with Member States, while awaiting Community assessment of the guarantees these third countries can provide with respect to mollusc diseases.

(3)

The animal health guarantees provided by Morocco, New Zealand, Tunisia and Turkey have been assessed by the Commission, and found not to meet all the requirements laid down in Directive 91/67/EEC and Council Directive 95/70/EC of 22 December 1995 introducing minimum Community measures for the control of certain diseases affecting bivalve molluscs (3).

(4)

Canada and New Zealand have notified the Commission that they have no current interest in exporting live molluscs for further growth, fattening or relaying to the Community.

(5)

The United States of America has submitted its programme for export certification of mollusc farming areas. That programme has been assessed by the Commission, and found to provide the necessary guarantees for export of live molluscs for further growth, fattening or relaying into the Community.

(6)

Croatia is not authorised for export of live molluscs for human consumption, pursuant to Commission Decision 97/20/EC of 17 December 1996 establishing the list of third countries fulfilling the equivalence conditions for the production and placing on the market of bivalve molluscs, echinoderms, tunicates and marine gastropods (4). Accordingly, imports of such mollusc from that country should not be authorised under Decision 2003/804/EC.

(7)

It is also appropriate to simplify the table in Annex I to Decision 2003/804/EC.

(8)

Therefore Decision 2003/804/EC should be amended accordingly.

(9)

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

(1)

Under Article 12(9) of Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 a Member State may be authorised to introduce a temporary measure whereby no compensatory aid is paid for marketed produce of new banana plantations when, in the Member State’s view, there is a risk to the sustainable development of the production areas, with particular reference to conservation of the environment, and protection of the soil and the characteristic features of the countryside.

(2)

By Decision 2002/414/EC (2), the Commission authorised Spain to introduce a temporary measure excluding from compensatory aid marketed produce of new banana plantations planted on or after 1 June 2002 for a period of three years.

(3)

On 15 April 2005, Spain requested the Commission to authorise it to extend, for a further three years, the measure excluding the Canary Islands from compensatory aid for marketed produce of new banana plantations planted on or after 1 June 2002. The reason given for this request is the need to consolidate the positive effects of the application of the measure implemented in June 2002, and in particular to discourage the development of new plantations outside traditional production areas, in order to protect the environment, particularly as regards the use of water resources, soil stability and the socioeconomic balance, and conservation of the characteristic features of the countryside.

(4)

Examination of Spain’s request to extend the measure excluding produce from compensatory aid for a period of three years shows that it complies with the aim and the provisions of Article 12(9) of Regulation (EEC) No 404/93. This request should therefore be accepted.

(5)

The measure provided for in this Decision is in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Bananas,

(1)

The EFTA Surveillance Authority should progressively work towards a system which would permit the estimation of dietary exposure to actual pesticides. To make realistic estimations possible, data on the monitoring of pesticide residues should be available in a number of food products which constitute major components of the European diet. It is generally recognised that major components of the European diet are constituted by some 20 to 30 food products. In view of the resources available at national level for pesticide residue monitoring, the EFTA States are only able to analyse samples of eight products each year within a coordinated monitoring programme. Pesticide uses show changes within the timescale of the three-year period. Each pesticide should thus generally be monitored in 20 to 30 food products over a series of three-year cycles.

(2)

Residues of all the pesticides covered by this Recommendation should be monitored in 2004, as this will allow using these data for the estimation of actual dietary exposure to them.

A systematic statistical approach to numbers of samples to be taken in each coordinated monitoring exercise is necessary. Such an approach has been set out by the Commission of the Codex Alimentarius (3). Based on a binomial probability distribution it can be calculated that examination of about 650 samples gives a confidence of more than 99 % for detecting one sample containing pesticide residues above the limit of determination (LOD) where less than 1 % of products of plant origin contain residues above the LOD. These samples should be taken across the European Economic Area. For the EFTA States it is recommended, on the basis of population and consumer numbers, to take a minimum of 12 samples per product and per year.

(3)

A new guideline concerning Quality Control Procedures for Pesticide Residue Analysis has been published by the European Commission (4). These guidelines should be implemented as far as possible by the analytical laboratories of the EFTA States and should be reviewed continuously in the light of experience gained in the monitoring programmes.

(4)

Article 4(2)(a) of Directive 90/642/EEC and Article 7(2)(a) of Directive 86/362/EEC require the EFTA States to specify the criteria applied in drawing up their national inspection programmes. Such information should include: (i) the criteria applied in determining the numbers of samples to be taken and analyses to be carried out and the reporting levels applied and the criteria by which the reporting levels have been fixed; (ii) details of accreditation under the Act referred to at point 54n of Chapter XII of Annex II to the EEA Agreement (Council Directive 93/99/EEC of 29 October 1993 on the subject of additional measures concerning the official control of foodstuffs (5)) of the laboratories carrying out analyses; (iii) the number and type of infringements and the action taken.

(5)

Information on the results of monitoring programmes is particularly appropriate for treatment, storage and transmission by electronic/informatic methods. Formats have been developed for supply of data by e-mail from the EC Member States to the Commission. The EFTA States could use the same format and should therefore be able to send their reports to the EFTA Surveillance Authority in the standard format. The further development of such a standard format is most effectively undertaken by the development of guidelines,

(1)

On 9 January 2004, the Council adopted Common Position 2004/31/CFSP (1) concerning the imposition of an embargo on arms, munitions and military equipment on Sudan.

(2)

On 10 June 2004, the Council adopted Common Position 2004/510/CFSP amending Common Position 2004/31/CFSP so as to allow exemptions to the embargo for the African Union-led Ceasefire Commission.

(3)

The Council deems it appropriate to maintain the arms embargo against Sudan. The policy objective of the European Union in this regard is to promote lasting peace and reconciliation within Sudan.

(4)

On 30 July 2004, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 1556 (2004), hereinafter referred to as ‘UNSCR 1556(2004)’, imposing an arms embargo on all non-governmental entities and individuals, including the Janjaweed, operating in the states of North Darfur, South Darfur and West Darfur.

(5)

On 29 March 2005, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 1591 (2005), hereinafter referred to as ‘UNSCR 1591(2005)’, imposing measures to prevent entry into or transit through Member States’ territories of all persons designated by the Committee established by paragraph 3 of that Resolution (the Committee).

(6)

UNSCR 1591(2005) also imposes a freeze of all funds, financial assets and economic resources, owned or controlled, directly or indirectly by the persons designated by the Committee or held by entities owned or controlled directly or indirectly by such persons or by any persons acting on their behalf or at their direction.

(7)

UNSCR 1591(2005) furthermore reaffirms the measures imposed by UNSCR 1556(2004) and provides that these measures shall also apply to all the parties to the N’djamena Ceasefire Agreement and any other belligerents in the states of North Darfur, South Darfur and West Darfur.

(8)

Paragraph 4 of UNSCR 1591(2005) provides that the measures relating to the entry into or transit through Member States’ territories and to the freezing of funds, financial assets and economic resources shall enter into force on 28 April 2005, unless the Security Council determines before then that the parties to the conflict in Darfur have complied with all the commitments and demands of the Security Council referred to in UNSCR 1556(2004) and resolutions 1564(2004) and 1574(2004) and have taken immediate steps to fulfil all their commitments to respect the N’djamena Ceasefire Agreement and the Abuja Protocols, including notification of force positions, to facilitate humanitarian assistance and to cooperate fully with the African Union Mission.

(9)

It is appropriate to integrate the measures imposed by Common Position 2004/31/CFSP and the measures to be imposed pursuant to UNSCR 1591(2005) in one single legal instrument.

(10)

Common Position 2004/31/CFSP should therefore be repealed.

(11)

Action by the Community is needed in order to implement certain measures,