31.1.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 26/1

(1)

Following an investigation (the original investigation), the Council, by Regulation (EC) No 950/2001 (2), imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty of 14,9 % on imports of certain aluminium foil (AHF) originating in Russia. Following the acceptance of an undertaking from the Russian exporting producer ‘United Company Siberian Aluminium’, joint stock company, which has since changed its name (3) to Open Joint Stock Company Rusal Sayanal (Sayanal), imports from this exporter were exempted from the anti-dumping duty by Commission Decision 2001/381/EC (4).

(2)

A request for a partial interim review of Regulation (EC) No 950/2001 was received from Sayanal, an exporting producer of AHF subject to a price undertaking and part of the Russian Aluminium group of companies (Rusal).

(3)

In its request pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation, Sayanal claimed that the circumstances with regard to dumping, on the basis of which the measures in force were established, had changed and that these changes were of a lasting nature. Sayanal further alleged and provided prima facie evidence to show that a comparison of normal value based on its own costs or domestic prices and export prices to the Community would lead to a reduction of dumping significantly below the level of the current measures (14,9 %). Therefore it claimed that the continued imposition of measures at the existing levels, which were based on the level of dumping previously established, was no longer necessary to offset dumping.

(4)

Having determined, after consulting the Advisory Committee, that sufficient evidence existed for the initiation of a partial interim review, the Commission, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union  (5), initiated a partial interim review limited in scope to the examination of dumping in accordance with Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation and commenced its investigation.

(5)

The Commission officially advised the applicant, as well as the representatives of the exporting country, of the initiation of the interim review. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing.

(6)

The Commission also sent a questionnaire to the applicant and received a reply within the deadline. The Commission sought and verified all the information it deemed necessary for the determination of dumping and carried out verification visits at the premises of the following companies:

(7)

The investigation of dumping covered the period from 1 October 2003 to 30 September 2004 (the investigation period or IP).

(8)

The product concerned by the current review is the same as that defined in the original investigation, i.e. certain aluminium foil of a thickness of not less than 0,009 mm and not more than 0,018 mm, not backed, not further worked than rolled, in reels of a width not exceeding 650 mm originating in Russia, currently classifiable under CN code 7607 11 10.

(9)

Unlike in the previous investigation, Sayanal and its related companies sold AHF also on the Russian domestic market. Whereas the product concerned sold to the EC is in the form of ‘jumbo reels’, sales on the Russian domestic market were in the form of ‘small rolls’. Small rolls are processed from jumbo reels, by cutting them to smaller lengths and packaging them for sale to end-users. However, it was found that AHF in jumbo reels and small rolls both shared the same physical and chemical characteristics and uses.

(10)

Consequently, both AHF produced and sold on the Russian domestic market and that exported to the Community have the same basic physical and chemical characteristics and uses and are therefore considered to be alike within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.

(11)

Sales on the domestic market are made by Sayanal via Trading House Russian Foil (THRF) to Rusal Sayanskaya Folga (RSF), which processes the jumbo reels into small rolls and then sells them to independent customers within Russia.

(12)

There are no sales of jumbo reels to independent customers in Russia, and no representative sales of small rolls to independent customers in the Community. As such, no proper comparison on a model-to-model basis could be made. Therefore normal value was constructed according to Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation on the basis of the company’s cost of production plus a reasonable amount for selling, general and administrative costs (SG&A) and for profits.

(13)

Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation provides for the cost of manufacturing to be adjusted where ‘costs associated with the production and sale of the product under investigation are not reasonably reflected in the records of the party concerned’.

(14)

The investigation established that the related smelting company was charged a very low price for its electricity, which is generated at the Sayano-Shushenskoe Hydro-Electricity Plant, compared to prices charged in third countries with comparable hydro-electricity plants. The prices are set by the Regional Energy Commission. These prices were considered abnormally low and not reflecting the normal costs. Therefore they were adjusted on the basis of the 2004 price of electricity for energy-intensive manufacturing in another representative market, i.e. Norway, which was found to be EUR 14/MWh.

(15)

As regards the SG&A, they were determined on the basis of the company’s own data pursuant to the chapeau of Article 2(6) of the basic Regulation. However, an adjustment was necessary in order to reflect the fact that, as pointed out in recital 12, the company does not sell the same type of AHF rolls on the EC and Russian markets and that, in addition, these types are sold at a different level of trade.

(16)

For the same reason, the profit on domestic sales had to be adjusted as well. In order to make such adjustment, and given the existence of intra-group transfer prices, it was considered appropriate to determine the profit on the basis of the profit margin (32,1 %) found for the audited consolidated accounts of the Rusal Group, expressed as a percentage of total costs.

(17)

Sales to the EU are made through a series of sales companies within the Rusal group: THRF, Trading House Safoil (Safoil), Rual Trade (BVI) Limited (Rual) and Sibirsky Aluminium GmbH (SAG).

(18)

Where sales were made via a related importer in the Community, the export price was constructed on the basis of the resale prices to independent customers. Adjustments were made for all costs incurred between importation and resale by that importer, including SG&A expenses, and a reasonable profit margin, in accordance with Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation. The latter was based on the profit margin found for an unrelated importer in the previous investigation.

(19)

For sales made through a related company outside the Community, the export price was established on the basis of the resale price paid by the first independent buyer in the Community.

(20)

The comparison of the export price with the constructed normal value was made on an ex-factory basis and at the same level of trade. In order to ensure a fair comparison, account was taken, in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation, of differences in factors which were demonstrated to affect prices and price comparability. On this basis, allowances for differences in transport costs, handling costs, insurance and duty payments were made, where applicable, and justified. Adjustments were also made where the export sales were made via a related company located in a country other than the country concerned or the Community, pursuant to Article 2(10)(i) of the basic Regulation.

(21)

As provided for under Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation, the weighted average constructed normal value by type was compared with the weighted average net ex-works export price of the corresponding type of the product concerned.

(22)

The comparison as described above did not show the existence of any dumping.

(23)

In accordance with Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation it was also examined whether the changed circumstances could reasonably be said to be of a lasting nature.

(24)

In this respect, it was considered first of all that Sayanal has complied with its price undertaking through its subsidiary sales company in the Community, Sibirsky Aluminium GmbH (SAG), since the imposition of measures. At the same time, Sayanal has retained a substantial share of the Community market, indicating that it is able to compete at non-dumped price levels.

(25)

The prices of the product concerned sold on third-country markets were also examined in order to assess the behaviour of the company in markets where no trade defence measures are in force. It was found that these prices were only slightly below the current export prices to the Community, and no indications of dumping on these markets were found. It is therefore considered that there is no reason to believe that this change of circumstances and the findings on the absence of dumping would not be of a lasting nature.

(26)

As a result of the investigation it is considered appropriate to amend the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of AHF from Sayanal.

(27)

Interested parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it is intended to recommend an amendment of Council Regulation (EC) No 950/2001 and were given an opportunity to comment. Their comments were considered and taken into account where appropriate,

31.1.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 26/5

(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,

31.1.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 26/7

(1)

The rates of the refunds applicable from 20 January 2006 to the products listed in the Annex, exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty, were fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 90/2006 (2).

(2)

It follows from applying the rules and criteria contained in Regulation (EC) No 90/2006 to the information at present available to the Commission that the export refunds at present applicable should be altered as shown in the Annex hereto,

31.1.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 26/9

(1)

The export refunds on white sugar and raw sugar exported in the natural state were fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 93/2006 (2). These refunds have been amended by Regulation (EC) No 112/2006 (3).

(2)

Since the data currently available to the Commission are different to the data at the time Regulation (EC) No 93/2006 was adopted, those refunds should be adjusted,

31.1.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 26/11

(1)

The refunds on syrups and certain other sugar products were fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 94/2006 (2). These refunds have been amended by Regulation (EC) No 113/2006 (3).

(2)

Since the information at present available to the Commission is different to that available to it at the time Regulation (EC) No 94/2006 was adopted, these refunds should be amended,

31.1.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 26/13

(1)

By Regulation (EC) No 950/2001 (2) the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain aluminium foil (‘AHF’) originating, inter alia, in Russia. By Decision 2001/381/EC (3) the Commission accepted an undertaking offered by the Russian exporting producer Joint Stock ‘United Company Siberian Aluminium’, which since then has changed its name (4) to Open Joint Stock Company Rusal Sayanal (‘Sayanal’).

(2)

Further to a request lodged by Sayanal, the Commission initiated (5) a partial interim review limited in scope to the examination of dumping in accordance with Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation.

(3)

The findings of the review, which are set out in detail in Council Regulation (EC) No 161/2006 (6), showed that Sayanal is no longer dumping. As a consequence, by the aforementioned Regulation, the anti-dumping duty rate applicable to imports of AHF from Sayanal has been set at 0 %.

(4)

In view of the above, Decision 2001/381/EC, by which the Commission accepted an undertaking from Sayanal, should be repealed,

31.1.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 26/14

(1)

Article 38(1) of the said Protocol provides for derogations from the rules of origin to be granted whenever the development of an existing industry or the establishment of a new one warrants it.

(2)

On 10 May 2001 Decision No 3/2001 of the ACP-EC Customs Cooperation Committee derogating from the definition of the concept of ‘originating products’ to take account of the special situation of the Kingdom of Swaziland with regard to its manufacturing of core spun yarns (1) (HS headings 5206.22, 5206.42, 5402.52 and 5402.62) was adopted. The derogation provided for in Article 1 of this Decision shall apply during the period of 1 April 2001 to 31 March 2006.

(3)

In view of the expiry of this provision, the African, Caribbean and Pacific States submitted on 8 July 2005, on behalf of the Kingdom of Swaziland, a request for a new derogation from the rules of origin, as contained in the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement, for core spun yarns in respect of an annual quantity of 1 300 tonnes, produced by this country during a period of five years and imported into the Community from 1 April 2006 onwards.

(4)

The requested derogation is justified under the relevant provisions of Article 38(5) and (6) especially as regards the development of existing industries in Swaziland, the fact that the applicant is a landlocked State and the inapplicability of the rules on cumulation of origin.

(5)

The derogation would not cause serious injury to an established Community industry taking into account the quantities of the imports envisaged, provided that certain conditions relating to quantities, surveillance and duration are respected.

(6)

The derogation cannot be granted for five years because, in conformity with Article 37 of the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement, new trading arrangements shall enter into force by 1 January 2008. This Decision shall therefore apply from 1 April 2006 until the end of 2007 pending the adoption of these new trading arrangements.

(7)

Therefore, pursuant to Article 38, a derogation can be granted to the Kingdom of Swaziland in respect of core spun yarns for 1 300 tonnes per annum from 1 April 2006 to 31 December 2007,

31.1.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 26/17

(1)

Pursuant to Directive 2001/18/EC, the placing on the market of a product containing or consisting of a genetically modified organism or a combination of genetically modified organisms is subject to written consent being granted by the competent authority of a Member State, in accordance with the procedure laid down in that Directive.

(2)

A notification concerning the placing on the market of two genetically modified maize products (Zea mays L., line MON 863 and hybrid MON 863 × MON 810) was submitted by Monsanto Europe S.A. to the competent authority of Germany (Reference C/DE/02/9). A unique identifier (MON-ØØ863-5×MON-ØØ81Ø-6) has been assigned to the MON 863 × MON 810 maize for the purposes of Regulation (EC) No 1830/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 concerning the traceability and labelling of genetically modified organisms and the traceability of food and feed products produced from genetically modified organisms and amending Directive 2001/18/EC (2) and Commission Regulation (EC) No 65/2004 of 14 January 2004 establishing a system for the development and assignment of unique identifiers for genetically modified organisms (3).

(3)

The notification originally covered importation and use as for any other maize grains including feed, with the exception of food use and cultivation in the Community of varieties derived from the MON 863 transformation event and of the MON 863 × MON 810 hybrid.

(4)

In accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 14 of Directive 2001/18/EC, the competent authority of Germany prepared an assessment report, which was forwarded in April 2003 to the Commission. The Commission forwarded the full notification and assessment report to the other Member States in May 2003. That assessment report concludes that no reasons have emerged on the basis of which consent for the placing on the market of MON 863 as well as MON 863 × MON 810 should be withheld, if specific conditions are fulfilled.

(5)

The competent authorities of other Member States raised objections to the placing on the market of MON 863 as well as MON 863 × MON 810.

(6)

The placing on the market of MON 810 maize is authorised in accordance with Commission Decision 98/294/EC of 22 April 1998 concerning the placing on the market of genetically modified maize (Zea mays L. line MON 810), pursuant to Council Directive 90/220/EEC (4). The placing on the market of MON 863 is authorised in accordance with Commission Decision 2005/608/EC of 8 August 2005 concerning the placing on the market, in accordance with Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, of a maize product (Zea mays L., line MON 863) genetically modified for resistance to corn rootworm (5).

(7)

On 2 April 2004, the European Food Safety Authority considered that it is scientifically valid to use the data from the single lines MON 863 and MON 810 to support the safety assessment of MON 863 × MON 810, but decided, with regard to the need for confirmatory data for the safety assessment of the hybrid itself, to request a 90-day sub-chronic rat study with the maize hybrid in order to complete its safety assessment.

(8)

The opinion adopted on 8 June 2005 by the European Food Safety Authority, concluded, from all evidence provided, that MON 863 × MON 810 is unlikely to have an adverse effect on human and animal health or the environment in the context of its proposed use. The European Food Safety Authority also deemed that the scope of the monitoring plan provided by the applicant was in line with the intended uses of MON 863 × MON 810.

(9)

On 8 July 2005, Monsanto Europe S.A. agreed to limit the scope of the present Decision to import and processing. An application for the placing on the market of food and feed containing, consisting of, or produced from MON 863 × MON 810 has been made by Monsanto Europe S.A. under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed (6).

(10)

An examination of the information submitted in the notification, the objections maintained by Member States in the framework of Directive 2001/18/EC, and the opinion of the European Food Safety Authority, discloses no reason to believe that the placing on the market of Zea mays L. hybrid MON 863 × MON 810 will adversely affect human or animal health or the environment.

(11)

Adventitious or technically unavoidable traces of genetically modified organisms in products are exempted from labelling and traceability requirements in accordance with thresholds established under Directive 2001/18/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003.

(12)

In the light of the opinion of the European Food Safety Authority, it is not necessary to establish specific conditions for the intended uses with regard to the handling or packaging of the product and the protection of particular ecosystems, environments or geographical areas.

(13)

Prior to the placing on the market of the product, the necessary measures to ensure its labelling and traceability at all stages of its placing on the market, including verification by appropriate validated detection methodology, should be applicable.

(14)

The measures provided for in this Decision are not in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established under Article 30 of Directive 2001/18/EC and the Commission therefore submitted to the Council a proposal relating to these measures. Since on the expiry of the period laid down in Article 30(2) of Directive 2001/18/EC, the Council had neither adopted the proposed measures nor indicated its opposition to them, in accordance with Article 5(6) of Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission (7), the measures should be adopted by the Commission,

(a)

the period of validity of the consent shall be 10 years starting from the date on which the consent is issued;

(b)

the unique identifier of the product shall be MON-ØØ863-5×MON-ØØ81Ø-6;

(c)

without prejudice to Article 25 of Directive 2001/18/EC, the consent holder shall, whenever requested to do so, make positive and negative control samples of the product, or its genetic material, or reference materials available to the competent authorities and inspection services of Member States as well as to the Community control laboratories;

(d)

without prejudice to specific labelling requirements provided by Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 the words ‘This product contains genetically modified maize’ or ‘This product contains genetically modified MON 863 × MON 810’ shall appear either on a label or in a document accompanying the product, except where other Community legislation sets a threshold below which such information is not required;

(e)

as long as the product has not been authorised for the placing on the market for the purpose of cultivation, the words ‘not for cultivation’ shall appear either on a label or in a document accompanying the product.

(a)

that the monitoring networks as specified in the monitoring plan contained in the notification collect the information relevant for the monitoring of the product, and

(b)

that the members of these networks have agreed to make available that information to the consent holder before the date of the submission of the monitoring reports to the Commission and competent authorities of the Member States in accordance with paragraph 3.

31.1.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 26/20

(1)

Decision 2000/258/EC designates the laboratory of the Agence française de sécurité sanitaire des aliments de Nancy (the AFSSA Laboratory, Nancy), France, as the specific institute responsible for establishing the criteria necessary for standardising the serological tests to monitor the effectiveness of rabies vaccines.

(2)

Decision 2000/258/EC also provides that the AFSSA Laboratory, Nancy, is to send the Commission the list of Community laboratories to be authorised to carry out those serological tests. Accordingly, the AFSSA Laboratory, Nancy, performs the established proficiency testing procedure for appraising laboratories prior to authorisation to perform the serological tests.

(3)

Commission Decision 2004/233/EC of 4 March 2004 authorising laboratories to check the effectiveness of vaccination against rabies in certain domestic carnivores (2), establishes a list of authorised laboratories in the Member States on the ground of the results of the proficiency tests communicated by the AFSSA Laboratory, Nancy.

(4)

An additional laboratory in Germany has been authorised by the AFSSA Laboratory, Nancy, in compliance with Decision 2000/258/EC.

(5)

That laboratory should accordingly be added to the list of authorised laboratories in the Member States set out in the Annex to Decision 2004/233/EC.

(6)

Decision 2004/233/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.

(7)

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

‘8.

31.1.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 26/21

(1)

The mandate of the European Union Special Representative (EUSR) in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH), as set out in Joint Action 2004/569/CFSP (1) on 12 July 2004, is due to expire on 28 February 2006.

(2)

On 24 November 2005, the Council adopted Joint Action 2005/824/CFSP on the European Union Police Mission (EUPM) in Bosnia and Herzegovina (2), which provides for a continuation of the EUPM with an adjusted mandate and size.

(3)

On 14 December 2005, the Peace Implementation Council Steering Board appointed Mr Christian Schwarz-Schilling as High Representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina, as the successor to Lord Ashdown, with effect from 1 February 2006.

(4)

Mr Schwarz-Schilling should be appointed as the new EUSR in Bosnia and Herzegovina with effect from 1 February 2006 and Joint Action 2004/569/CFSP should be repealed with effect from the same date.

(5)

On the basis of a review of Joint Action 2004/569/CFSP, the mandate of the EUSR should be extended until 28 February 2007.

(6)

The EUSR's mandate should be implemented in coordination with the Commission in order to ensure consistency with other relevant activities falling within Community competence.

(7)

The EUSR will implement his mandate in the context of a situation which may deteriorate and could harm the objectives of the CFSP as set out in Article 11 of the Treaty on European Union,

(a)

offer the EU's advice and facilitation in the political process;

(b)

promote overall EU political coordination in BiH;

(c)

promote overall EU coordination of, and give local political direction to, EU efforts in tackling organised crime, without prejudice to the European Union Police Mission (EUPM)'s leading role in the coordination of policing aspects of these efforts and to the ALTHEA (EUFOR) military chain of command;

(d)

provide the EU Force Commander with local political advice, including with respect to the Integrated Police Unit style capability, on which the EUSR may draw, in agreement with the said Commander, without prejudice to the chain of command;

(e)

contribute to reinforcement of internal EU coordination and coherence in BiH, including through briefings to EU Heads of Mission and through participation in, or representation at, their regular meetings, through chairing a coordination group composed of all EU actors present in the field with a view to coordinating the implementation aspects of the EU's action, and through providing them with guidance on relations with the BiH authorities;

(f)

ensure consistency and coherence of EU action towards the public. The EUSR spokesperson shall be the main EU point of contact for BiH media on Common Foreign and Security Policy/European Security and Defence Policy (CFSP/ESDP) issues;

(g)

maintain an overview of the whole range of activities in the field of the rule of law and in this context provide the Secretary-General/High Representative (SG/HR) and the Commission with advice as necessary;

(h)

provide the Head of Mission of the EUPM with local political guidance as part of his wider responsibilities and his role in the chain of command for EUPM;

(i)

as part of the international community's and the BiH authorities' broader approach to the rule of law, and drawing upon the EUPM's provision of technical policing expertise and assistance in this respect, support the preparation and implementation of police restructuring;

(j)

provide support for a reinforced and more effective BiH criminal justice/police interface, in close liaison with EUPM;

(k)

as far as activities under Title VI of the Treaty, including Europol, and related Community activities are concerned, provide the SG/HR and the Commission with advice as necessary, and take part in the required local coordination;

(l)

with a view to coherence and possible synergies, continue to be consulted on priorities for Community Assistance for Reconstruction, Development and Stabilisation.

31.1.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 26/24

(1)

On 10 February 2004, the Council adopted Common Position 2004/133/CFSP on restrictive measures against extremists in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) (1).

(2)

Common Position 2004/133/CFSP was amended by Council Common Position 2005/80/CFSP of 31 January 2005 (2) and extended until 9 February 2006.

(3)

Following a review of Common Position 2004/133/CFSP, it is considered appropriate to extend its application for a further period of 12 months, as well as to review the list of persons contained in the Annex thereto,

31.1.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 26/28

(1)

On 19 February 2004, the Council adopted Common Position 2004/161/CFSP (1) renewing restrictive measures against Zimbabwe for a period of 12 months from 21 February 2004.

(2)

Council Common Position 2005/146/CFSP (2), adopted on 21 February 2005, extended Common Position 2004/161/CFSP until 20 February 2006.

(3)

In view of the situation in Zimbabwe, Common Position 2004/161/CFSP should be extended for a further period of 12 months,

31.1.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 26/29