(1)

On 2 June 2022, the Council authorised the opening of negotiations with Ukraine on an Agreement between the European Union and Ukraine on the carriage of freight by road (hereinafter, the ‘Agreement’).

(2)

The negotiations were successfully concluded on 14 June 2022.

(3)

In view of the important disruptions in the transport sector in Ukraine caused by the war of aggression undertaken by Russia, it is necessary to find alternative routes by road for Ukraine to export its stocks of grain, fuel, foodstuffs and other relevant goods.

(4)

Given that permits granted in the framework of the European Conference of Ministers of Transport multilateral quota system within the International Transport Forum and existing bilateral agreements with Ukraine do not allow for the necessary flexibility for Ukrainian road haulage operators to increase and plan ahead their operations through and with the European Union, it is crucial to liberalise the transport of freight by road for bilateral operations as well as for transit.

(5)

Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine has compromised the possibility for many Ukrainian drivers to follow the administrative procedures related to driver documents such as international driving permit applications or the issuance of new documents in the event of lost or stolen documents. It is thus important to address these exceptional circumstances by providing for specific measures that exempt drivers from the requirement to present an international driving permit, recognising decisions taken by Ukraine to extend the administrative validity of driver documents and facilitating the exchange of information between the competent authorities of the two Parties with the aim of combatting fraud and the forgery of driver documents.

(6)

In view of the exceptional and unique circumstances that necessitate the signature and provisional application of the Agreement and in accordance with the Treaties, it is appropriate for the Union to exercise temporarily the relevant shared competence conferred upon it by the Treaties. Any effect of this Decision on the division of competences between the Union and the Member States should be strictly limited in time. The competence exercised by the Union on the basis of this Decision and of the Agreement should therefore be exercised only during the period of application of the Agreement. Accordingly, the shared competence thus exercised will cease to be exercised by the Union as soon as the Agreement ceases to apply. Without prejudice to other Union measures, and subject to compliance with those Union measures, that competence will, in accordance with Article 2(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), again be exercised by the Member States thereafter. Furthermore, it is recalled that, as set out in Protocol No 25 on the exercise of shared competence annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the TFEU, the scope of the exercise of the competence of the Union in this Decision covers only those elements governed by this Decision and the Agreement and does not cover the whole area. The exercise of Union competence by this Decision is without prejudice to the respective competences of the Union and of the Member States in relation to any ongoing or future negotiations for, or signature or conclusion of, international agreements with any other third country in that area.

(7)

Therefore, the Agreement, which is limited in time, with a possibility for renewal, subject to a decision by the Joint Committee established by the Agreement which should follow the adoption of a Council Decision defining the position of the Union in that regard, should be urgently signed on behalf of the European Union, subject to its conclusion at a later date.

(8)

In order to start deploying the beneficial effects of the Agreement on the carriage of freight and to allow the export of Ukrainian products, in particular grains, as soon as possible, the Agreement should be applied provisionally in accordance with Article 13 thereof,

(1)

Regulation (EU) 2019/2033 requires investment firms other than small and non-interconnected investment firms to publicly disclose information on their investment policy, in order to provide transparency to their investors and the wider market participants on their influence over the companies in which they hold directly or indirectly shares to which voting rights are attached and on how they vote. The disclosure required includes information on the proportion of voting rights attached to the shares held directly or indirectly by the investment firms, information on their voting behaviour, an explanation of votes and the ratio of proposals put forward and approved, information on the use of proxy advisor firms and information on their voting guidelines.

(2)

This Regulation, as mandated in Article 52(3) of Regulation (EU) 2019/2033, aims at specifying templates for the required disclosure, in response to the need for consistent and comparable public information on the public policy of investment firms.

(3)

While proportionate, the provisions of this Regulation aim at ensuring that the templates and tables used by investment firms for investment policy disclosures convey sufficiently comprehensive and comparable information on their voting behaviour and how it influences their investee companies.

(4)

More specifically, this Regulation introduces a quantitative disclosure template on the proportion of voting rights attached to shares held by the investment firms directly, and indirectly by their subsidiaries, or associates in accordance with Article 2, (13) of Directive 2013/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (2), or any other undertakings with whom the investment firm is linked in accordance with Article 3(1)(4) of Directive (EU) 2019/2034 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3), including shares under investment firms’ management on behalf of clients, unless voting rights are retained by shareholders by virtue of a contractual arrangement prohibiting the investment firm to vote on their behalf. This Regulation also defines tables and templates for the description of the voting behaviour of the investment firm, and of the proportion of general meeting resolutions that the firm has approved or opposed, by topic, and including information on the departments or roles involved in deciding the voting position, the validation process and material changes in the rate of resolutions approved. In addition, it includes qualitative tables for the description of the use of proxy advisor firms and the links with those firms. Finally, it includes instructions on the information that investment firms must disclose regarding their voting guidelines.

(5)

This Regulation is based on the draft regulatory technical standards submitted by the European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority) (EBA) to the Commission.

(6)

EBA has conducted an open public consultation on the draft regulatory technical standards on which this Regulation is based, analysed the potential related costs and benefits and requested the opinion of the Banking Stakeholder Group established in accordance with Article 37 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council (4),

(1)

Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 provides that only novel foods authorised and included in the Union list of novel foods may be placed on the market within the Union.

(2)

Pursuant to Article 8 of Regulation (EU) 2015/2283, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2470 (2) has established a Union list of novel foods.

(3)

The Union list set out in the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2470 includes nicotinamide riboside chloride as an authorised novel food.

(4)

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/16 (3) authorised the placing on the market of nicotinamide riboside chloride as a novel food for use in food supplements as defined in Directive 2002/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (4), for the adult population.

(5)

On 2 March 2020, the company ChromaDex Inc. (‘the applicant’) submitted an application to the Commission pursuant to Article 10(1) of Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 for an amendment of the conditions of use of the novel food nicotinamide riboside chloride. The applicant requested to extend the use of nicotinamide riboside chloride to: foods for special medical purposes and total diet replacement for weight control, as defined by Regulation (EU) No 609/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (5), at 500 mg per day, and meal replacements, at 300 mg per day; all of those categories intended for the adult population, excluding pregnant and lactating women.

(6)

On 2 March 2020, the applicant also made a request to the Commission for the protection of proprietary data for a study submitted in support of the application, namely, a human study evaluating the safety and dose-dependent effects of nicotinamide riboside chloride supplementation (6).

(7)

In accordance with Article 10(3) of Regulation (EU) 2015/2283, the Commission consulted the European Food Safety Authority (‘the Authority’) on 8 June 2020, requesting it to provide a scientific opinion by carrying out an assessment of an extension of use of the novel food nicotinamide riboside chloride.

(8)

On 14 September 2021, the Authority adopted its scientific opinion on the ‘Extension of use of nicotinamide riboside chloride as a novel food pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2015/2283’ (7) in accordance with Article 11 of Regulation (EU) 2015/2283.

(9)

In its scientific opinion, the Authority concluded that nicotinamide riboside chloride, when used at levels of 500 mg per day in foods for special medical purposes and in total diet replacement for weight control intended for the adult population, excluding pregnant and lactating women, is safe. Therefore, it is appropriate to change the conditions of use of nicotinamide riboside chloride and to authorise use of nicotinamide riboside chloride in those foods.

(10)

In the same opinion, the Authority assessed the safety of meal replacements for the general population, and not only for adults, as according to Article 5(6) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2469 (8) it cannot be excluded that meal replacements containing the novel food would be consumed by other groups of the population. In its opinion, the Authority also indicated that, with the exception of infants, the intake of 300 mg per day of nicotinamide riboside chloride from meal replacements for the adult population, excluding pregnant and lactating women, would be below the established nicotinamide Upper Level (9) (‘UL’) and thus would be considered to be safe. However, in light of the assessment of the Authority on the use of the novel food in meal replacements for all population groups, except infants, demonstrating that the intake of the novel food from meal replacements will be well below the UL for nicotinamide, and in light of the fact that meal replacements are a category of food that is essentially exclusively sought after and used by adults, the Commission is of the view that the novel food may be authorised only for use in meal replacements for the adult population, excluding pregnant and lactating women, at the use level of 300 mg day, as proposed by the applicant.

(11)

That scientific opinion gives sufficient grounds to establish that nicotinamide riboside chloride, when used at levels of 500 mg per day in foods for special medical purposes and total diet replacement for weight control intended for the adult population, excluding pregnant and lactating women fulfils the conditions for its placing on the market in accordance with Articles 9 and 12(1) of Regulation (EU) 2015/2283. Furthermore, that scientific opinion also gives sufficient grounds to establish that nicotinamide riboside chloride, when used at levels of 300 mg per day in meal replacements intended for the adult population, excluding pregnant and lactating women, fulfils the conditions for its placing on the market in accordance with Article 12(1) of Regulation (EU) 2015/2283.

(12)

Safety data and assessment of nicotinamide riboside chloride for use in foods for special medical purposes, total diet replacement for weight control and meal replacements covered only the adult population, excluding pregnant and lactating women. Therefore, a labelling requirement should be provided in order to properly inform the consumers that foods for special medical purposes, total diet replacement for weight control and meal replacements containing nicotinamide riboside chloride should only be consumed by persons above 18 years of age excluding pregnant and lactating women.

(13)

In its scientific opinion, the Authority included maximum levels for mercury, cadmium and lead in the specifications of the novel food. These levels are applicable only to foods for special medical purposes, total diet replacement for weight control and meal replacements as for these foods no maximum levels for mercury, cadmium and lead have been established by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 (10). Therefore, the specification of the novel food should be amended accordingly by setting up maximum levels for these heavy metals applicable only to new uses. As no maximum level have been set for arsenic by the same Regulation, the level set by the present Regulation shall be applicable to all authorised uses.

(14)

In its scientific opinion, the Authority indicated that the human study evaluating the safety and dose-dependent effects of nicotinamide riboside chloride supplementation (11) was not needed for the assessment and reaching the conclusion by the Authority. Therefore, that study should not be protected in accordance with Article 27(1) of Regulation (EU) 2015/2283.

(15)

The Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2470 should therefore be amended accordingly.

(16)

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

(1)

For each Member State implementing the basic payment scheme provided for in Chapter 1 of Title III of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013, the annual national ceiling referred to in Article 22(1) of that Regulation for 2022 has to be set by the Commission by deducting from the annual national ceiling set out in Annex II to that Regulation the ceilings fixed in accordance with Articles 42, 47, 49, 51 and 53 of that Regulation. In accordance with Article 22(2) of that Regulation any increases applied by Member States pursuant to that provision are to be taken into account.

(2)

For each Member State implementing the single area payment scheme provided for in Chapter 1 of Title III of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013, the annual national ceiling referred to in Article 36(4) of that Regulation for 2022 has to be set by the Commission by deducting from the annual national ceiling set out in Annex II to that Regulation the ceilings fixed in accordance with Articles 42, 47, 49, 51 and 53 of that Regulation. In accordance with Article 36(4), second subparagraph, of that Regulation, when setting the annual national ceiling for the single area payment scheme, any increases applied by Member States pursuant to that provision are to be taken into account by the Commission.

(3)

For each Member State granting the redistributive payment provided for in Chapter 2 of Title III of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013, the annual national ceiling referred to in Article 42(2) of that Regulation for 2022 has to be set by the Commission on the basis of the percentage notified by those Member States pursuant to Article 42(1) of that Regulation.

(4)

In relation to the payment for agricultural practices beneficial for the climate and the environment provided for in Chapter 3 of Title III of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013, the annual national ceilings referred to in Article 47(3) of that Regulation for 2022 have to be calculated in accordance with Article 47(1) of that Regulation and amounting to 30 % of the national ceiling of the relevant Member State as set out in Annex II to that Regulation.

(5)

For Member States granting the payment for areas with natural constraints provided for in Chapter 4 of Title III of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013, the annual national ceilings referred to in Article 49(2) of that Regulation for 2022 have to be set by the Commission on the basis of the percentage notified by the relevant Member States pursuant to Article 49(1) of that Regulation.

(6)

In relation to the payment for young farmers provided for in Chapter 5 of Title III of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013, the annual national ceilings referred to in Article 51(4) of that Regulation for 2022 have to be set by the Commission on the basis of the percentage notified by Member States pursuant to Article 51(1) of that Regulation and have not to be higher than 2 % of the annual ceiling set out in Annex II to that Regulation.

(7)

Where the total amount of the payment for young farmers applied for in 2022 in a Member State exceeds the ceiling set pursuant to Article 51(4) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 for that Member State, the difference has to be financed by the Member State in accordance with Article 51(2) of that Regulation whilst respecting the maximum amount laid down in Article 51(1) of that Regulation. For the sake of clarity, it is appropriate to set this maximum amount for each Member State.

(8)

For each Member State granting voluntary coupled support provided for in Chapter 1 of Title IV of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 in 2022, the Commission has to set the annual national ceilings referred to in Article 53(7) of that Regulation for 2022 on the basis of the percentage notified by the relevant Member State pursuant to Article 54(1) of that Regulation.

(9)

Concerning the year 2022, the implementation of direct support schemes provided for in Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 started on 1 January 2022. For the sake of consistency between the applicability of that Regulation for the claim year 2022 and the applicability of the corresponding budgetary ceilings, this Regulation should apply from the same date.

(10)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for Direct Payments,

(1)

On 17 July 2018, the Commission (‘the Commission’) adopted Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1012 (3) imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of electric bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘the provisional Regulation’).

(2)

On 17 January 2019, the Commission adopted Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/73 (4) and Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/72 (5) (the regulations at issue).

(3)

Giant Electric Vehicle Kunshan Co. Ltd (Giant) brought annulment actions before the General Court challenging the legality of the regulations at issue. Giant challenged the adjustment made on its export price for sales via related traders established in the Union using by analogy Article 2(9) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation in the calculation of price undercutting. In particular, Giant claimed that the adjustment – the deduction of the related importer’s SG&A and a notional profit – changed the level of trade of its export sales, which resulted in the comparison of its export price at the level of an importer with the Union prices at retailers’ level. This adjusted export price was compared to the Union industry’s sale prices to their first independent customers through sales via related selling entities in the EU for the purpose of the undercutting and underselling calculations. Giant also challenged the treatment of Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) sales for the purpose of the undercutting calculation. In Giant’s view, the Union producers’ sales of own-brand products to retailers should have been adjusted to bring them to the level of a sale to an unrelated OEM customer in the Union before they were compared with its OEM sales.

(4)

On 27 April 2022, the General Court issued its judgements in cases T-242/19 and T-243/19, annulling both Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/73 (anti-dumping) and Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/72 (anti-subsidy) as far as Giant is concerned.

(5)

The General Court found that the Commission was not obliged to determine price undercutting margins and that it was entitled to base its injury analysis and, therefore, the causal link, on other price phenomena listed, respectively, in Article 3(3) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation, and in Article 8(2) of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation such as significant depression of Union industry prices or prevention of price increases to a notable extent. However, in both cases, since the Commission relied on the calculation of price undercutting in the context of Article 3(3) and Article 8(2), the General Court found that by taking into account, in relation to the prices of Union producers, certain elements which it had nevertheless deducted from the applicant’s prices (or were not present as regards OEM sales since the downstream marketing of the product concerned (6) was carried out by the independent buyer itself), the Commission did not make a fair comparison when calculating the applicant’s price undercutting margin. The General Court noted that that methodological error found had the effect of identifying undercutting of those prices, the importance or existence of which had not been properly established.

(6)

Considering the importance the Commission had attached to the existence of price undercutting as an indicator of primary importance in its injury analysis and that it was a decisive element in the conclusion on the causal link between the dumped or subsidised imports and that injury, the General Court found that the error in the calculation of price undercutting was sufficient to invalidate the Commission’s analysis of the respective causal links, existence of which is an essential element for the imposition of measures.

(7)

Finally, the General Court noted that irrespective of the application by analogy of Article 2(9) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation for the purposes of assessing the existence of injury within the meaning of Article 3 of that Regulation, or Article 8 of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation, the unfair nature of the comparison found under the second part of that plea vitiated, in any event, the Commission’s analysis under those provisions (7) (8).

(8)

The General Court also noted that the injury elimination level was determined on the basis of a comparison involving the weighted average import price of the sampled exporting producers, duly adjusted for importation costs and customs duties, as had been established for the price undercutting calculation (9) (10). It consequently held that it cannot be ruled out that, were it not for the methodological error relating to the undercutting of the applicant’s prices, the injury margin of the Union industry would have been established at a level even lower than that established in the regulations at issue and lower still than the dumping margin or amount of countervailable subsidies established therein. In that case, in accordance with Article 9(4) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation and Article 15(1) of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation the amount of the respective duties should be reduced to a rate which would be adequate to remove the injury (11) (12).

(9)

Based on those findings, the General Court annulled both regulations at issue insofar as Giant was concerned.

(10)

The Commission analysed whether it is appropriate to make the imports of the product concerned subject to registration. In that context, the Commission took the following considerations into account.

(11)

Article 266 TFEU provides that the Institutions must take the necessary measures to comply with the judgments. In case of annulment of an act adopted by the Institutions in the context of an administrative procedure, such as anti-dumping or anti-subsidy investigations, compliance with the General Court’s judgement consists in the replacement of the annulled act by a new act, in which the illegality identified by the Court is eliminated (13).

(12)

According to the case-law of the Court of Justice, the procedure for replacing the annulled act may be resumed at the very point at which the illegality occurred (14). That implies in particular that in a situation where an act concluding an administrative procedure is annulled, that annulment does not necessarily affect the preparatory acts, such as the initiation of the anti-dumping procedure. In a situation where for instance a Regulation imposing definitive anti-dumping measures is annulled, that means that subsequent to the annulment, the anti-dumping proceeding is still open, because the act concluding the anti-dumping proceeding has disappeared from the Union legal order (15), except if the illegality occurred at the stage of initiation.

(13)

As explained in the reopening Notice (16), and since the illegality did not occur at the stage of initiation but at the stage of the investigation, the Commission decided to reopen the anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations insofar as they concern Giant, and resumed them at the point at which the irregularity occurred.

(14)

According to the case-law of the Court of Justice, the resumption of the administrative procedure and the eventual re-imposition of duties cannot be seen as contrary to the rule of non-retroactivity (17). The Notice of reopening informed interested parties, including importers, that any future liability, if warranted, would emanate from the findings of the re-examination.

(15)

Based on its new findings and the outcome of the reopened investigations, which is unknown at this stage, the Commission may adopt regulations revising, where warranted, the applicable duty rates. Those revised rates, if any, will take effect as from the date on which the anti-dumping and anti-subsidy Regulations at issue entered into force.

(16)

For this purpose, the Commission requested national customs authorities to await the outcome of the re-examination before deciding on any repayment claim concerning the anti-dumping and/or countervailing duties annulled by the General Court with respect to Giant. Customs authorities are thus directed to put on hold any claims for reimbursements of the annulled duties until the outcome of the re-examination is published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

(17)

Furthermore, should the reopening investigations lead to the re-imposition of measures, duties should also be collected for the period during which the reopening investigations are carried out.

(18)

In this respect, the Commission notes that registration is a tool provided in Articles 14(5) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation and Article 24(5) of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation so that measures may subsequently be applied against imports from the date of the registration. In the present case, the Commission deems it appropriate to register imports concerning Giant with a view to facilitating the collection of anti-dumping and countervailing duties once their levels are revised in line with the General Court ruling (18).

(19)

In line with the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice (19), contrary to registration taking place during the period before the adoption of provisional measures, the conditions of Article 10(4) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation and Article 16(4) of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation are not applicable to the case at hand. Indeed, the purpose of registration in the context of Court implementation is not to allow the possible retroactive collection of trade defence measures as envisaged in those provisions. The purpose is rather to safeguard the effectiveness of the measures in place, without undue interruption from the date of entry into force of the regulations at issue until the re-imposition of the corrected duties, by ensuring that the collection of the correct amount of duties is possible in the future.

(20)

In light of the above considerations, the Commission considered that there were grounds for registration pursuant to Article 14(5) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation and Article 24(5) of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation.

(21)

On the basis of the above, imports of the product concerned produced by Giant Electric Vehicle Kunshan Co. Ltd. under TARIC additional code C383 must be made subject to registration.

(22)

As indicated in the reopening Notice, the final liability for payment of anti-dumping and countervailing duties, if any, from the date of entry into force of the anti-dumping and anti-subsidy regulations at issue will emanate from the findings of the re-examination.

(23)

No duties higher than the duties established in the regulations at issue may be collected for the period between the publication of the Notice of reopening and the date of entry into force of the results of the reopening investigations.

(24)

The current anti-dumping and anti-subsidy duties applicable to Giant Electric Vehicle Kunshan Co. Ltd are 20,7 % and 3,9 % respectively,

(1)

The objectives of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund for Displaced Workers (EGF) are to demonstrate solidarity and promote decent and sustainable employment in the Union by providing support for workers made redundant and self-employed persons whose activity has ceased in the case of major restructuring events and assisting them in returning to decent and sustainable employment as soon as possible.

(2)

The EGF is not to exceed a maximum annual amount of EUR 186 000 000 (in 2018 prices), as laid down in Article 8 of Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2093 (3).

(3)

On 21 December 2021, Greece submitted an application to mobilise the EGF, in respect of workers’ displacements in the economic sector classified under the Statistical classification of economic activities in the European Community (‘NACE’) (4) Revision 2 division 27 (Manufacture of electrical equipment) in the Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics (‘NUTS’) (5) level 2 region of Attica (EL30) in Greece. It was supplemented by additional information provided in accordance with Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2021/691. That application complies with the conditions for a financial contribution from the EGF as laid down in Article 13 of Regulation (EU) 2021/691.

(4)

The EGF should, therefore, be mobilised in order to provide a financial contribution of EUR 1 495 830 in respect of the application submitted by Greece.

(5)

In order to minimise the time taken to mobilise the EGF, this decision should apply from the date of its adoption,

(1)

The objectives of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund for Displaced Workers (EGF) are to demonstrate solidarity and promote decent and sustainable employment in the Union by providing support for workers made redundant and self-employed persons whose activity has ceased in the case of major restructuring events and assisting them in returning to decent and sustainable employment as soon as possible.

(2)

The EGF is not to exceed a maximum annual amount of EUR 186 000 000 (in 2018 prices), as laid down in Article 8 of Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2093 (3).

(3)

On 21 January 2022, France submitted an application to mobilise the EGF, in respect of workers’ displacements in Air France in France. It was supplemented by additional information provided in accordance with Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2021/691. That application complies with the conditions for a financial contribution from the EGF as laid down in Article 13 of Regulation (EU) 2021/691.

(4)

The EGF should, therefore, be mobilised in order to provide a financial contribution of EUR 17 742 607 in respect of the application submitted by France.

(5)

In order to minimise the time taken to mobilise the EGF, this decision should apply from the date of its adoption,