(1)

Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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)

A Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Montenegro, of the other part (the Stabilisation and Association Agreement), was signed in Luxembourg on 15 October 2007. The Stabilisation and Association Agreement is in the process of ratification.

(2)

On 15 October 2007 an Interim Agreement was concluded on trade and trade-related matters between the European Community, of the one part, and the Republic of Montenegro, of the other part (2) (Interim Agreement), which was approved by Council Decision 2007/855/EC of 15 October 2007 (3). The Interim Agreement provides for the early entry into force of the trade and trade-related provisions of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement. It enters into force on 1 January 2008.

(3)

The Interim Agreement and the Stabilisation and Association Agreement provide that certain fish and fishery products originating in Montenegro may be imported into the Community, within the limits of Community tariff quotas, at a reduced or a zero-rate customs duty.

(4)

The tariff quotas provided for in the Interim Agreement and in the Stabilisation and Association Agreement are annual and have been provided for an indeterminate period. It is necessary to open the Community tariff quotas for 2008 and following years and to provide for a common system for their management.

(5)

This common management should ensure that all Community importers have equal and continuous access to the tariff quotas and that the rates laid down for the quotas are applied uninterruptedly to all imports of the products in question into all Member States until the quotas will be exhausted. In order to ensure the efficiency of the system, Member States should be authorised to draw from the quota volumes the necessary quantities corresponding to actual imports. Close cooperation between the Member States and the Commission is required and the latter must in particular be able to monitor the rate at which the quotas are used up and inform the Member States accordingly. For reasons of speed and efficiency, communication between the Member States and the Commission should, as far as possible, take place by electronic transmission.

(6)

The quotas opened by this Regulation should therefore be managed in accordance with the system for management of tariff preferences within tariff quotas designed to be used following the chronological order of dates of acceptance of customs declarations which is laid down in Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (4).

(7)

In accordance with the Stabilisation and Association Agreement and the Interim Agreement, the tariff quotas volumes for prepared or preserved sardines and for prepared or preserved anchovies should from 1 January of the fourth year following the entry into force of the Interim Agreement, be increased to 250 tonnes provided that at least 80 % of the total amount of the previous tariff quota has been used by 31 December of that year. The increased quotas volumes, if implemented, should continue to apply until the parties to the Stabilisation and Association Agreement and the Interim Agreement agree other arrangements.

(8)

As the Interim Agreement enters into force on 1 January 2008, this Regulation should apply from the same date and should remain in application after the entry into force of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement.

(9)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules of Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2) provides for surveillance of imports of the products listed in Annex XVII thereto. That surveillance is to be carried out in accordance with the rules laid down in Article 308d of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (3).

(2)

For the purposes of Article 5(4) of the Agreement on Agriculture (4) concluded during the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations and in the light of the latest data available for 2005, 2006 and 2007, the trigger levels for additional duties of tomatoes, apricots, lemons, plums, peaches, including nectarines, pears and table grapes should be adjusted.

(3)

As a result, Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 should be amended accordingly.

(4)

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

(1)

In accordance with Article 162 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 products listed in that article to be exported with or without further processing may be eligible to export refunds if they comply with specific conditions laid down in Article 167 of the said Regulation. Moreover, Article 167(7) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 gives the possibility to the Commission to establish further conditions for the granting of export refunds for one or more products. Those conditions are currently laid down in the Council regulations on the common organisation of the market in the sectors listed in Article 162(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007. Since those regulations are to be repealed pursuant to Article 201 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, horizontal provisions should be established as from the dates of application of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as provided for in Article 204 of that Regulation.

(2)

Horizontal provisions already exist in Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 of 15 April 1999 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products (3). It is therefore appropriate to adapt that Regulation in order to establish the conditions referred to in Article 167(7) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.

(3)

Council regulations on the common organisation of the markets in the poultry, eggs, pigmeat and rice sectors enabled eligibility to export refunds for non-Community originating products which were imported and subsequently exported while they were not sufficiently processed within the meaning of Article 24 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (4). The refunds in that case are limited to the import duties paid and in addition the exporter had to prove that import and export products are one and the same. As the application of the rule is cumbersome and of very low practical use, from a point of view of simplification and harmonisation it should not be maintained.

(4)

Community origin as a prerequisite for eligibility to export refunds is an important safeguard against abuse of the Community budget. In particular, it is aimed at preventing diversion of trade in the form of import operations which would have no commercial purpose related to the placing of goods on the EU market, but which would be motivated solely by the opportunity to collect export refunds upon export. This safeguard has been in place for the cereals, rice, beef and veal, milk and milk products, pigmeat, eggs and poultrymeat and should be maintained. In the interest of continuous protection against abuse of the Community budget, a horizontal provision covering all sectors listed in Article 162 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 is necessary.

(5)

As regards sugar, with a view to organising flow of supplies to refineries throughout the Community, special preferential arrangement for access to the Community market has been introduced in the successive common market organisations for sugar, allowing the refining industry to import on special terms certain quantities of raw cane sugar originating in the ACP States party to Protocol No 3 to Annex IV to the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement and in India and other States under agreements with those States. This preferential import arrangement has been implemented within the framework of the common organisation of the market in sugar. Consequently, Article 27(12) (b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (5) provided that refunds had to be granted for the products imported under this arrangement. Following the same approach, the Council decided that the proof of Community origin had not to be required for eligibility of refunds under the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector established by Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 (6). The requirement of Community origin should therefore not apply to the sugar sector.

(6)

Pursuant to the abolition of export refunds for some products, the list of products for which the refunds has to be fixed on the basis of an ingredient when compound products qualify for a refund became shorter. It is therefore appropriate to mention only the remaining products in this respect.

(7)

The requirement of Community origin in the cereals sector has already been laid down in Article 12 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 of 29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 on the granting of export refunds on cereals and the measures to be taken in the event of disturbance on the market for cereals (7). For the sake of transparency and rationalisation this requirement should be replaced by the horizontal provision establishing the requirement of Community origin.

(8)

Regulations (EC) No 1501/95 and (EC) No 800/1999 should therefore be amended accordingly.

(9)

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

1.

Article 1 is replaced by the following:

(*1)   OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1."

(*2)   OJ L 179, 14.7.1999, p. 1.’ "

2.

Article 11 is replaced by the following:

(*3)   OJ L 172, 5.7.2005, p. 24.’ "

(a)

as regards the cereals, beef and veal, pigmeat, milk and milk products, eggs and poultrymeat sectors, from 1 July 2008;

(b)

as regards the rice sector, from 1 September 2008;

(c)

as regards the sugar sector, from 1 October 2008.

(1)

On 12 October 2004 the company Wacker Chemie made a request to the competent authorities of Belgium to place alpha-cyclodextrin on the market as a novel food ingredient.

(2)

On 29 June 2005 the competent food assessment body of Belgium issued its initial assessment report. In that report it came to the conclusion that alpha-cyclodextrin is safe for human consumption.

(3)

The Commission forwarded the initial assessment report to all Member States on 28 September 2005.

(4)

Within the 60-day period laid down in Article 6(4) of Regulation (EC) No 258/97 reasoned objections to the marketing of the product were raised in accordance with that provision.

(5)

Therefore the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) was consulted on 28 October 2006.

(6)

On 6 July 2007 EFSA adopted the ‘Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies on a request from the Commission related to the safety of alpha-cyclodextrin’.

(7)

In the opinion the panel came to the conclusion that there are no safety concerns at the proposed use levels and anticipated consumption of alpha-cyclodextrin.

(8)

On the basis of the scientific assessment, it is established that alpha-cyclodextrin complies with the criteria laid down in Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 258/97.

(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)

Outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease occurred in Cyprus in 2007. The emergence of that disease represents a serious risk to the Community’s livestock population.

(2)

In order to prevent the spread of the disease and to help eradicate it as quickly as possible, the Community should contribute financially towards the eligible expenditure incurred by the Member State under the measures taken to combat the disease, as provided for in Decision 90/424/EEC.

(3)

Payment of Community financial support towards measures to combat foot-and-mouth disease is subject to the rules laid down in Commission Regulation (EC) No 349/2005 of 28 February 2005 laying down rules on the Community financing of measures and of the campaign to combat certain animal diseases under Council Decision 90/424/EEC (2).

(4)

On 7 January 2008, Cyprus submitted a final rough estimate of the costs incurred in taking measures to eradicate the disease.

(5)

The Cypriot authorities have fully complied with their technical and administrative obligations as set out in Article 11(2) of Decision 90/424/EEC and Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005.

(6)

The payment of the Community financial contribution must be subject to the condition that the planned activities were actually implemented and the authorities provide all necessary information within the set deadlines.

(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,

(1)

Decision 90/424/EEC lays down the procedures governing the Community’s financial contribution towards specific veterinary measures, including emergency measures. Pursuant to Article 3a of that Decision, Member States may obtain a Community financial contribution towards the costs of certain measures to eradicate avian influenza.

(2)

Article 3a(3) of Decision 90/424/EEC lays down rules on the percentage of the costs incurred by Member States that may be covered by the Community’s financial contribution.

(3)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 349/2005 of 28 February 2005 laying down rules on the Community financing of emergency measures and of the campaign to combat certain animal diseases under Council Decision 90/424/EEC (2), following the amendment of Decision 90/424/EEC by Decision 2006/53/EC (3), no longer covers avian influenza. It is therefore necessary to expressly provide in the present Decision that the granting of a financial contribution to the United Kingdom is subject to compliance with certain rules laid down in Regulation (EC) No 349/2005.

(4)

Outbreaks of avian influenza occurred in the United Kingdom in 2007. The emergence of that disease represents a serious risk to the Community’s livestock population. The United Kingdom took measures, as referred to in Article 3a(2) of Decision 90/424/EEC, to combat those outbreaks.

(5)

The United Kingdom has fully complied with its technical and administrative obligations as set out in Articles 3(3) and 3a(2) of Decision 90/424/EEC and Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005.

(6)

The United Kingdom submitted to the Commission information on the costs incurred on 13 December 2007, and has continued to provide all necessary information on costs of compensation and operational expenditure.

(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,

(1)

When relaunching the Lisbon Strategy in 2005, the Heads of State or Government stressed the key role that better links between public research organisations, including universities, and industry can play in facilitating the circulation and use of ideas in a dynamic knowledge society and in enhancing competitiveness and welfare.

(2)

An effort should be made to better convert knowledge into socioeconomic benefits. Therefore, public research organisations need to disseminate and to more effectively exploit publicly funded research results with a view to translating them into new products and services. Means to realise this include in particular academia-industry collaborations — collaborative or contract research conducted or funded jointly with the private sector — licensing and the creation of spin-offs.

(3)

Effectively exploiting publicly funded research results depends on the proper management of intellectual property (i.e. knowledge in the broadest sense, encompassing e.g. inventions, software, databases and micro-organisms, whether or not they are protected by legal instruments such as patents), on the development of an entrepreneurial culture and associated skills within public research organisations, as well as on better communication and interaction between the public and private sector.

(4)

The active engagement of public research organisations in intellectual property management and knowledge transfer is essential for generating socioeconomic benefits, and for attracting students, scientists and further research funding.

(5)

Member States have in recent years taken initiatives to facilitate knowledge transfer at national level, but significant discrepancies between national regulatory frameworks, policies and practices, as well as varying standards in the management of intellectual property within public research organisations, prevent or hamper transnational knowledge transfer across Europe and the realisation of the European Research Area.

(6)

Following the 2007 Commission Communication (1), setting out approaches for a common European framework for knowledge transfer, the European Council therefore invited the Commission, in June 2007, to develop guidance on the management of intellectual property by public research organisations in the form of a Recommendation to Member States.

(7)

This Recommendation seeks to provide Member States and their regions with policy guidelines for the development or updating of national guidelines and frameworks, and public research organisations with a Code of Practice, in order to improve the way public research organisations manage intellectual property and knowledge transfer.

(8)

Collaboration in the field of research and development as well as knowledge transfer activities between the Community and third countries should be based on clear and uniform recommendations and practices that ensure equitable and fair access to intellectual property generated through international research collaborations, to the mutual benefit of all partners involved. The attached Code of Practice should be used as a reference in that context.

(9)

A number of good practices have been identified that should help Member States to implement this Recommendation. It is for each Member State to choose the procedures and practices best designed to ensure that the principles of this Recommendation are followed, having regard to what would be most effective in the context of that Member State, since practices that are effective in one Member State may not be as effective in another. Existing guidance provided at Community and OECD level should also be taken into account.

(10)

The Commission and the Member States should monitor the implementation of this Recommendation and its impact, and foster the exchange of good practices regarding knowledge transfer,