(1)

Regulation (EC) No 273/2004 lays down measures for monitoring trade in drug precursors within the Union, while Regulation (EC) No 111/2005 governs trade in drug precursors between the Union and third countries. Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 273/2004 and the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 111/2005 each contain a list of scheduled substances, which are subject to a number of harmonised control and monitoring measures provided for by those Regulations.

(2)

By means of Decisions 65/4, 65/5 and 65/6 of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs of the United Nations, taken at its sixty-fifth session from 14 to 18 March 2022, the substances N-phenylpiperidin-4-amine (4-AP), tert-butyl 4-anilinopiperidine-1-carboxylate (1-boc-4-AP) and N-phenyl-N-(piperidin-4-yl)propanamide (norfentanyl) have been added to Table I of the United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances done at Vienna on 19 December 1988 and approved by Council Decision 90/611/EEC (3) (‘the 1988 UN Convention’).

(3)

4-AP is a substitute chemical for N-phenethyl-4-piperidone (NPP) to synthesize 4-anilino-N-phenethylpiperidine (ANPP), which itself is an immediate precursor for the manufacture of fentanyl and some of its analogues.

(4)

1-boc-4-AP is a chemically protected derivative of 4-AP, which could be converted to 4-AP, norfentanyl or a number of norfentanyl analogues.

(5)

Norfentanyl is an immediate precursor of fentanyl and a number of fentanyl analogues.

(6)

NPP and ANPP are already scheduled substances in Regulations (EC) No 273/2004 and (EC) No 111/2005. Fentanyl and fentanyl analogues are very potent narcotic drugs, typically 10 to 100 times stronger than heroin. Their high potency continues to result in overdose deaths in users.

(7)

National competent authorities have indicated the seizure of diethyl (phenylacetyl) propanedioate (DEPAPD) and ethyl 3-(2H-1,3-benzodioxol-5-yl)-2-methyloxirane-2-carboxylate (PMK ethyl glycidate).

(8)

DEPAPD is used to produce 1-Phenyl-2-propanone (P-2-P), also known as benzyl methyl ketone (BMK). BMK is a precursor of amphetamine and methamphetamine, two of the most common drugs illicitly produced in the Union. Both have severe consequences for human health.

(9)

PMK ethyl glycidate is a precursor of 3,4-Methylenedioxyphenylpropan-2-one (PMK), which, in turn, is used to produce 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), commonly known as ‘ecstasy’.

(10)

BMK, as well as some of its other pre-precursors which are very similar to DEPAPD (such as methyl alpha-phenylacetoacetate (MAPA) or alpha-phenylacetoacetamide (APAA)), and PMK are already scheduled substances in Regulations (EC) No 273/2004 and (EC) No 111/2005.

(11)

Amphetamine, methamphetamine and MDMA are some of the most common drugs illicitly produced in the Union. They have severe consequences for human health and are causing serious social and public health problems in some regions of the Union.

(12)

4-AP, 1-boc-4-AP, norfentanyl, DEPAPD and PMK ethyl glycidate have been designed by criminal organisations to avoid the strict controls of scheduled substances provided for by Regulations (EC) No 273/2004 and (EC) No 111/2005. Therefore, 4-AP, 1-boc-4-AP, norfentanyl, DEPAPD and PMK ethyl glycidate should also be scheduled at Union level to reinforce the control and monitoring of those substances.

(13)

The scheduled substances listed in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 273/2004 and in the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 111/2005 are divided into categories for which different measures apply, so as to achieve a proportionate balance between the level of threat posed by each specific substance and the burden on licit trade. The strictest control and monitoring measures apply to substances of Category 1.

(14)

4-AP, 1-boc-4-AP and norfentanyl, should be scheduled as Category 1 substances because they can be easily transformed to support the production of fentanyl and its analogues and pose a significant threat to social and public health in the Union.

(15)

DEPAPD and PMK ethyl glycidate should be scheduled as Category 1 substances because they can be easily transformed to support the production of methamphetamine, amphetamine and MDMA and pose a significant threat to social and public health in the Union.

(16)

4-AP, 1-boc-4-AP, norfentanyl, DEPAPD and PMK ethyl glycidate have no known licit production, trade or use, except for research purposes. Therefore, including those substances under Category 1 in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 273/2004 and under Category 1 in the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 111/2005 would be an adequate response to avoid their use in the illicit manufacture of narcotic drugs and, at the same time, would not entail any significant extra administrative burden for economic operators and competent authorities in the Union.

(17)

Regulations (EC) No 273/2004 and (EC) No 111/2005 should therefore be amended accordingly.

(18)

The Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1832 of 12 October 2021 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (4) reclassified ANPP and NPP. Regulations (EC) No 273/2004 and (EC) No 111/2005 should therefore be amended and corrected accordingly.

(19)

Regulations (EC) No 273/2004 and (EC) No 111/2005 jointly implement the drug precursors related provisions of the 1988 UN Convention. In view of the close substantive link between the empowerments contained in those Regulations, it is appropriate to adopt the amendments by way of one single delegated act,

(1)

Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 53(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Commission has examined Austria’s application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the protected geographical indication ‘Steirisches Kürbiskernöl’, registered under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1263/96 (2).

(2)

Since the amendments in question are not minor within the meaning of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Commission published the amendment application in the Official Journal of the European Union (3) as required by Article 50(2)(a) of that Regulation.

(3)

As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the amendments to the specification should be approved,

(1)

For abamectin, maximum residue levels (MRLs) were set in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005.

(2)

During the review of those MRLs in accordance with Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, the European Food Safety Authority (‘the Authority’), identified in its reasoned opinion (2) some information as unavailable for certain products. The available information was sufficient for the Authority to propose MRLs that are safe for consumers and the data gaps were indicated in Annex II of that Regulation specifying the date by which the missing information was to be submitted to the Authority in support of the proposed MRLs.

(3)

The applicant submitted the missing data together with a request based on Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 to modify the existing MRLs for abamectin in certain products.

(4)

In accordance with Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, the application was evaluated by the Member State concerned and the evaluation report was forwarded to the Commission.

(5)

The Authority assessed the application and the evaluation report, examining in particular risks to consumers and, where relevant, to animals.

(6)

On 23 January 2020, the Authority published a reasoned opinion on the evaluation of the confirmatory data submitted following the MRL review under Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 and on the request to modify the existing maximum residue levels for abamectin in various commodities (3).

(7)

For almonds, hazelnuts/cobnuts, walnuts, currants (black, red and white), gooseberries (green, red and yellow), papayas and witloofs/Belgian endives information concerning residue trials was not submitted by the applicant. The Authority concluded that the data gap was thus not sufficiently addressed and that risk managers may consider setting or keeping those MRLs at the limit of determination (LOD). Therefore, for these products, it is appropriate to set the MRLs in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 at the LOD. It is therefore appropriate to amend the Annex II and to delete the reference concerning additional information from that Annex.

(8)

For quinces, medlars, loquats/Japanese medlars, the applicant proposed to derive an MRL based on an alternative Good Agricultural Practices (GAP). This use and the residue trials were already assessed in a previous reasoned opinion (4). The Authority concluded that the residue data were sufficient to support lower MRL proposals for those products. Therefore, for those products, MRLs in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 should be set at the level identified by the Authority.

(9)

For celery leaves, beans with pods and peas with pods, Authority concluded that residue data were sufficient to support the MRL for those products. Therefore, for these products, MRLs should be set in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 at the level requested by the applicant.

(10)

In accordance with Article 6(2) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 applications for import tolerances were submitted for abamectin used in the United States on certain products.

(11)

The applicant states that the authorised uses of abamectin on such crops in that country lead to residues exceeding the MRLs contained in Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 and that higher MRLs are necessary to avoid trade barriers for the importation of those crops.

(12)

In accordance with Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, those applications were evaluated by the Member State concerned and the evaluation report was forwarded to the Commission.

(13)

The Authority assessed the applications and the evaluation report, examining in particular risks to consumers and, where relevant, to animals.

(14)

On 10 July 2020, the Authority published a reasoned opinion on setting of import tolerances for abamectin in various crops (5).

(15)

As regards modifications to MRLs requested by the applicant for avocados, cresses and other sprouts and shoot, land cresses, Roman rocket/rucola, baby leaf crops (including brassica species), other lettuces and salad plants, purslanes, Florence fennels and cotton seeds, the Authority concluded, that all requirements with respect to completeness of data submission were met and that the modifications to the MRLs requested by the applicant were acceptable with regard to consumer safety on the basis of a consumer exposure assessment for 27 specific European consumer groups. The Authority took into account the most recent information on the toxicological properties of the substance. Neither the lifetime exposure to the substance via consumption of all food products that may contain them, nor the short-term exposure due to high consumption of the relevant products showed that there is a risk that the acceptable daily intake or the acute reference dose is exceeded. Therefore, for these products, MRLs should be set in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 at the level requested by the applicant.

(16)

In the context of the procedure for the renewal of the approval of the active substance abamectin in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council (6), the Authority published a conclusion on the peer review of the risk assessment (7) of that active substance. The Authority proposed, based on the developmental neurotoxicity studies, that a lower acceptable daily intake (ADI) and acute reference dose (ARfD) should be established.

(17)

On 3 February 2021 and in accordance with Article 43 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, the Commission requested the Authority to provide a reasoned opinion assessing the risks on certain existing MRLs for abamectin that may pose to consumers in light of the lower ADI and ARfD.

(18)

On 6 October 2021, the Authority published a reasoned opinion on the focussed assessment of certain existing maximum residues levels of concern for abamectin (8).

(19)

For apples, pears and escaroles/broad-leaved endives, the Authority identified unacceptable risks concerning the current MRLs. Member States were consulted and requested to report potential fall-back GAPs which would lead to safe MRLs for consumers. For apples and pears, a fall-back GAP could not proposed by the Member States. Supporting data was not available for the GAP reported for escaroles/broad-leaved endives. Therefore, no MRL could be derived for apples, pears and escaroles/broad-leaved endives. Therefore, for these products, it is appropriate to set the MRLs in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 at the LOD.

(20)

For strawberries, tomatoes, cucumbers, courgettes, lamb’s lettuces/corn salads, lettuces, chervil and parsley, the Authority identified unacceptable risks concerning the current MRLs. Member States were consulted and requested to report potential fall-back GAPs which would lead to safe MRLs for consumers. Member States identified such GAPs for strawberries, tomatoes, cucumbers, courgettes, lamb’s lettuces/corn salads, lettuces, chervil and parsley. The Authority therefore recommended lowering the MRLs for those products. Therefore, for these products, MRLs should be set in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 at the level identified by the Authority.

(21)

For sweet peppers/bell peppers, the Authority identified unacceptable risks for consumers with the current MRLs. Member States were consulted and requested to report potential fall-back GAPs which would lead to safe MRLs for consumers. The Authority concluded that although Member States identified a fall-back GAP for sweet peppers/bell peppers, some information was not available and that further consideration by risk managers was required. As there is no risk for consumers, the MRLs for sweet peppers/bell peppers should be set in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 at the level identified by the Authority. This MRL will be reviewed; the review will take into account the information available within two years from the publication of this Regulation.

(22)

The Commission consulted the European Union reference laboratories for residues of pesticides on the need to adapt certain LODs. For abamectin, those laboratories proposed product specific LODs that are analytically feasible.

(23)

Through the World Trade Organisation, the trading partners of the Union were consulted on the new MRLs and their comments have been taken into account.

(24)

Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 should therefore be amended accordingly.

(25)

In order to allow for the normal marketing, processing and consumption of products, this Regulation should not apply to products which have been produced in the Union or imported into the Union before the modified MRLs start applying and for which information shows that a high level of consumer protection is maintained. This is the case for all products except for apples, pears, strawberries, tomatoes, sweet peppers/bell peppers, cucumbers, courgettes, lamb’s lettuces/corn salads, lettuces, escaroles/broad-leaved endives, chervil and parsley.

(26)

A reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before the modified MRLs become applicable, in order to permit Member States, third countries and food business operators to adapt themselves to meet the new requirements which will result from the modification of the MRLs.

(27)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed,

(1)

On 30 October 2018, France received an application pursuant to Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 from Agrotecnologías Naturales S.L. for the approval of the active substance Trichoderma atroviride AT10.

(2)

In accordance with Article 9(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, France, as rapporteur Member State, notified the applicant, the other Member States, the Commission and the European Food Safety Authority (‘the Authority’) on 15 February 2019 of the admissibility of the application.

(3)

On 18 September 2020, after assessing whether that active substance can be expected to meet the approval criteria provided for in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, the rapporteur Member State submitted a draft assessment report to the Commission with a copy to the Authority.

(4)

Pursuant to Article 12(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, the Authority circulated the draft assessment report to the applicant and the other Member States.

(5)

In accordance with Article 12(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, it requested the applicant to supply additional information to the Member States, the Commission and the Authority.

(6)

The assessment of the additional information by the rapporteur Member State was submitted to the Authority in the form of an updated draft assessment report.

(7)

On 20 January 2022, the Authority communicated to the applicant, the Member States and the Commission its conclusion (2) on whether the active substance Trichoderma atroviride AT10 can be expected to meet the approval criteria provided for in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009. The Authority made its conclusion available to the public.

(8)

On 14 July 2022, the Commission presented a review report regarding Trichoderma atroviride AT10 and a draft of this Regulation to the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed.

(9)

The Commission invited the applicant to submit its comments on the review report. The applicant submitted its comments, which have been carefully examined.

(10)

It has been established, with respect to one representative use of at least one plant protection product containing the active substance, which was examined and detailed in the review report, that the approval criteria provided for in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 are satisfied.

(11)

The Commission further considers that Trichoderma atroviride AT10 is a low-risk active substance pursuant to Article 22 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009. Trichoderma atroviride AT10 is not a microorganism of concern and fulfils the conditions set in Annex II point 5.2 to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.

(12)

It is therefore appropriate to approve Trichoderma atroviride AT10 as a low-risk active substance.

(13)

In accordance with Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 in conjunction with Article 6 thereof and in the light of current scientific and technical knowledge, it is necessary to include certain conditions.

(14)

In accordance with Article 13(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 in conjunction with Article 22(2) thereof, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 (3) should therefore be amended accordingly.

(15)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed,

(1)

On 6 June 2020, the Commission received an application from Cugargestion Management S. L. (‘the applicant’) for the approval of lemon essential oil as a basic substance to be used in plant protection as an acaricide, insecticide and fungicide on citrus fruit trees. In November 2020, the Commission received a revised application, which was accompanied by the information required under Article 23(3), second subparagraph, of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.

(2)

The relevant evaluations, carried out in accordance with other Union legislation, as referred to in Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, were available. As regards the lemon essential oil, an evaluation from the FEEDAP Panel of the European Food Safety Authority (‘the Authority’) was available (2). As regards the main component of lemon essential oil, namely d-limonene, the available relevant evaluations included a Conclusion on the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment issued by the Authority (3) as well as an opinion of the Risk Assessment Committee of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (4). The outcome of these evaluations have been taken into account by the Authority as well as by the Commission.

(3)

The Commission asked the Authority for scientific assistance. The Authority provided the Commission with a technical report on lemon essential oil on 20 September 2021 (5).

(4)

With regard to human health, the Authority concluded that, even though no Union harmonised classification has been established for lemon essential oil under Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council (6) on classification, labelling and packaging of chemical substances and mixtures, the main hazard associated with lemon essential oil is its toxicity by inhalation and skin sensitisation properties. The main component of lemon essential oil, d-limonene, is classified (7) as a substance that may be fatal if swallowed and when it enters airways (Asp. Tox.1), as a skin irritant (Skin Irrit 2) and as a substance that may cause an allergic skin reaction (Skin Sens.1B). Additionally, due to the absence of data, the Authority could not conclude its assessment of non-dietary risks for operators, workers, bystanders and residents.

(5)

As regards the effect of lemon essential oil on the environment, the Authority noted that lemon essential oil is toxic to aquatic organisms. D-limonene is classified (8) as very toxic to aquatic life (Aquatic Acute 1) and as very toxic to aquatic life with long lasting effects (Aquatic Chronic 3). Moreover, the available data were not sufficient to demonstrate acceptable risk to non-target organisms.

(6)

The Commission presented the review report, concluding that the approval criteria for basic substances are not fulfilled in the case of lemon essential oil and that it is therefore not to be approved as a basic substance, as well as a draft of this Implementing Regulation to the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed on 12 April 2022 and 14 October 2022, respectively.

(7)

The Commission invited the applicant to submit its comments on the technical report of the Authority and on the Commission’s review report. The applicant submitted its comments, which were taken into due consideration.

(8)

However, despite the arguments put forward by the applicant, the concerns related to the safety of using this substance with regard to the protection of human health and environment could not be eliminated.

(9)

Consequently, it has not been established that the conditions laid down in Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 are satisfied. It is therefore appropriate to establish that lemon essential oil is not approved as a basic substance.

(10)

This Regulation does not prevent the submission of a further application for the approval of lemon essential oil as a basic substance in accordance with Article 23(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.

(11)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed,

(1)

Regulation (EU) 2018/1861 and Regulation (EU) 2018/1862 lay down the new rules on the establishment, operation and use of the Schengen Information System. They increase the effectiveness and strengthen the technical and operational efficiency of the Schengen Information System and extend its use by introducing new alert categories and functionalities. In addition, Regulation (EU) 2018/1860 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) established a new type of alert on the return of third-country nationals.

(2)

Regulation (EU) 2018/1861 constitutes the legal basis for the Schengen Information System in respect of matters falling within the scope of Chapter 2 of Title V of Part Three of the Treaty and Regulation (EU) 2018/1862 constitutes the legal basis for the Schengen Information System in respect of matters falling within the scope of Chapters 4 and 5 of Title V of Part Three of the Treaty. The fact that the legal basis for the Schengen Information System consists of separate instruments does not affect the principle that the Schengen Information System constitutes one single information system that should operate as such.

(3)

Since the entry into force of Regulations (EU) 2018/1860, (EU) 2018/1861 and (EU) 2018/1862, the Commission, Member States and the European Union Agency for the Operational Management of Large-Scale IT Systems in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (eu-LISA) have been completing the necessary technical and legal arrangements to implement the new rules at both central and national level, to be able to process data and exchange supplementary information according to the new rules.

(4)

Pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2018/1861 and Regulation (EU) 2018/1862, the new rules are to apply in successive stages in order to allow sufficient time for the necessary legal, operational and technical measures and arrangements to be put in place. On that basis, various provisions of Regulations (EU) 2018/1861 and (EU) 2018/1862 have started to apply on 28 December 2018, 28 December 2019 and 28 December 2020, respectively. As regards the start of application of the provisions that provide for the most complex changes having an overall impact on the technical implementation and operations of the Schengen Information System, those Regulations provide for a specific mechanism for a deferred start of application to ensure that those elements only become applicable after the necessary preparatory steps have been taken allowing for the continuous and uninterrupted operations of the system.

(5)

In accordance with that mechanism, the Commission is to set the date on which the operations of the Schengen Information System start, following verification that the legal, technical and operational conditions laid down in Regulations (EU) 2018/1860, (EU) 2018/1861 and (EU) 2018/1862 are met.

(6)

The Commission has verified that the implementing acts necessary for the application of Regulations (EU) 2018/1860, (EU) 2018/1861 and (EU) 2018/1862 were adopted; that Member States notified the Commission that they have made the necessary technical and legal arrangements to process Schengen Information System data and exchange supplementary information pursuant to the said Regulations and that eu-LISA notified the Commission of the successful completion of all testing activities with regard to Central SIS and the interaction between the a technical support function of Central SIS (CS-SIS) and the national systems (N.SIS). It is therefore appropriate to set the date on which the operations of the Schengen Information System pursuant to Regulations (EU) 2018/1860, (EU) 2018/1861 and (EU) 2018/1862 are to start.

(7)

By virtue of Article 66(5) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1861 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Article 79(5) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1862 of the European Parliament and of the Council, these regulations shall apply from the date set in this Decision. In addition, by virtue of Article 20 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1860 of the European Parliament and of the Council, the provisions establishing a new type of alert on the return of third-country nationals in the Schengen Information System provided for in that Regulation are to apply from the start date set in this Decision.

(8)

Given that, the Commission is to set a future date on which the operations of the Schengen Information System start, there is no need for any intermediate time period between the date of publication and the date of entry into force of this Decision. Therefore, this Decision should enter into force on the day of its publication.

(9)

In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No 22 on the position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark did not take part in the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2018/1861 and Regulation (EU) 2018/1862 and is not bound by them or subject to their application. However, given that Regulation (EU) 2018/1861 and Regulation (EU) 2018/1862 build upon the Schengen acquis, Denmark, in accordance with Article 4 of that Protocol, notified on 26 April 2019 its decision to implement Regulation (EU) 2018/1861 and Regulation (EU) 2018/1862 in its national law. Denmark is therefore bound under international law to implement this Decision.

(10)

Ireland is taking part in this Decision to the extent that it concerns Regulation (EU) 2018/1862 in accordance with Article 5(1) of Protocol No 19 on the Schengen acquis integrated into the framework of the European Union, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 6(2) of Council Decision 2002/192/EC (4), read in conjunction with Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/1745 (5).

(11)

As regards Iceland and Norway, this Decision constitutes a development of provisions of the Schengen acquis within the meaning of the Agreement concluded by the Council of the European Union and the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway concerning these States’ association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis (6), which fall within the area referred to in Article 1, point (G) of Council Decision 1999/437/EC (7).

(12)

As regards Switzerland, this Decision constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis within the meaning of the Agreement between the European Union, the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on the Swiss Confederation’s association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis (8), which fall within the area referred to in Article 1, point (G), of Decision 1999/437/EC read in conjunction with Article 3 of Council Decision 2008/146/EC (9) and Article 3 of Council Decision 2008/149/JHA (10).

(13)

As regards Liechtenstein, this Decision constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis within the meaning of the Protocol between the European Union, the European Community, the Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein on the accession of the Principality of Liechtenstein to the Agreement between the European Union, the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on the Swiss Confederation’s association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis (11), which fall within the area referred to in Article 1, point (G), of Decision 1999/437/EC read in conjunction with Article 3 of Council Decision 2011/350/EU (12) and Article 3 of Council Decision 2011/349/EU (13).

(14)

As regards Bulgaria and Romania, this Decision constitutes an act building upon, or otherwise relating to, the Schengen acquis within the meaning of Article 4(2) of the 2005 Act of Accession and should be read in conjunction with Council Decisions 2010/365/EU (14) and (EU) 2018/934 (15).

(15)

Concerning Cyprus, this Decision constitutes an act building upon, or otherwise relating to, the Schengen acquis within the meaning of Article 3(2) of the 2003 Act of Accession,

(1)

Article 34 (Amendments to this Protocol) of Protocol 1 to the Agreement provides that the Parties may, by decision in the Committee on Customs established pursuant to Article 16.2 (Specialised Committees) of the Agreement, amend the provisions of Protocol 1 to the Agreement.

(2)

Amendments were introduced on 1 January 2012, on 1 January 2017 and on 1 January 2022 in relation to the nomenclature governed by the Convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System (‘HS’). The Parties have agreed to update Protocol 1 to reflect the latest version of the HS.

(3)

The Parties have agreed to modify the scope of the annual quotas set out in Annex B(a) to Protocol 1 for canned luncheon meat, curry fish balls and cuttlefish balls.

(4)

Article 17 (Conditions for Making Out an Origin Declaration) of Protocol 1 establishes that an origin declaration may be made out, in the European Union by, inter alia, an exporter who is an approved exporter, and in Singapore by, inter alia, a registered exporter. To provide for equal treatment of the economic operators in both Parties, Protocol 1 should be amended so that each Party may decide, according to its laws and regulations, which exporter may make out an origin declaration. For that purpose, a definition of ‘exporter’ would therefore be necessary.

(5)

Considering the new definition of ‘exporter’, the term ‘exporter’ in the definition of ‘consignment’ in point (d) of Article 1(1), Article 13 (Non Alteration) and Article 14 (Exhibitions) of Protocol 1 needs to be replaced by the term ‘consignor’.

(6)

Paragraph 5 of Article 17 (Conditions for Making Out an Origin Declaration) provides that an origin declaration is to bear the original signature of the exporter in manuscript. The Parties have agreed to waive this requirement to facilitate trade and to decrease the administrative burden of benefiting from the tariff preferences of the Agreement.

(7)

In the definition of ‘ex-works price’ in point (f) of Article 1(1), it is necessary to clarify how the term ‘manufacturer’ is to be understood when the last working or processing is subcontracted.

(8)

Considering that both Parties are to apply a system of registered exporters, the document on origin made out in the Parties should be renamed from ‘origin declaration’ to ‘statement on origin’.

(9)

As a transitional measure, it should be provided that for a period of 3 months starting from the date of entry into force of this Decision, Singapore will accept origin declarations made out in accordance with Article 17 (Conditions for Making Out an Origin Declaration) and Article 18 (Approved Exporter) of Protocol 1 to the Agreement in force prior to the date of entry into force of this Decision.

(10)

Protocol 1 to the Agreement and several of its Annexes should therefore be modified,