ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 168
European flag  

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 48
8 July 2005

Notice No

Contents

page

 

I   Information

 

Council

2005/C 168/1

EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008)

1

 

Commission

2005/C 168/2

Euro exchange rates

19

2005/C 168/3

Notice to users of controlled substances in the European Union allowed for essential uses in the Community in 2006 under Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council on substances that deplete the ozone layer

20

2005/C 168/4

Commission Communication concerning the Financial Report (activity report and financial statements) of the ECSC in liquidation, at 31 December 2004

24

2005/C 168/5

Uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature (CN) (Classification of goods)

25

2005/C 168/6

Notice to proposed exporters from the European Union in 2006 of controlled substances that deplete the ozone layer under Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council on substances that deplete the ozone layer

27

2005/C 168/7

Notice to importers in the European Union that propose to import in 2006 controlled substances that deplete the ozone layer under Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council on substances that deplete the ozone layer

33

2005/C 168/8

Communication from the French Government concerning Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons (Notice regarding an application for an exclusive licence to prospect for liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons, known as a Permis de Moret-sur-Loing)  ( 1 )

40

2005/C 168/9

State aid — United Kingdom — State aid No C 16/2005 (ex N232/2004) — Envisaged sale of the Tote to the Racing Trust — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty ( 1 )

41

2005/C 168/0

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.3873 — DAIG/Viterra) — Candidate case for simplified procedure ( 1 )

50

2005/C 168/1

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.3751 — Novartis/Hexal) ( 1 )

51

2005/C 168/2

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.3843 — Macquairie/CDPQ/Yellow Brick Road) ( 1 )

51

2005/C 168/3

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.3816 — Apax/Mölnlycke) ( 1 )

52

2005/C 168/4

Commission opinion of 1 July 2005 concerning the plan for the disposal of radioactive waste resulting from modifications of Building 131X (Pamela) at Site-1 of Belgoprocess plc in Belgium, in accordance with Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty

53

 

III   Notices

 

Commission

2005/C 168/5

Calls for proposals for indirect RTD actions under the specific programme for research, technological development and demonstration: Integrating and strengthening the European Research Area — Thematic priority area Life sciences, genomics and biotechnology for health — Call identifiers: FP6-2005-LIFESCIHEALTH-6, FP6-2005-LIFESCIHEALTH-7

54

2005/C 168/6

Call(s) for proposals for indirect RTD actions under the specific programme for research, technological development and demonstration: Integrating and strengthening the European Research Area — Thematic priority area: Aeronautics and Space, Sustainable Energy Systems and Sustainable Surface Transport — Call identifier: FP6-2005-TREN-4-Aero/FP6-2005-TREN-4

64

 

 

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

EN

 

I Information

Council

8.7.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/1

EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008)

(2005/C 168/01)

Introduction

The drugs phenomenon is one of the major concerns of the citizens of Europe and a major threat to the security and health of European society. The EU has up to 2 million problem drug users. The use of drugs, particularly among young people is at historically high levels. The incidence of HIV/AIDS among drug users is causing increasing concern in a series of Member States. The importance of taking a strong stance against drugs trafficking at all levels and the need for a trans-national and coherent approach in combating drugs trafficking has been reflected in the adoption of the Framework Decision laying down minimum provisions on the constituent elements of criminal acts and penalties in the field of drug trafficking (1). Given the global nature of the drugs problem, the EU takes action by utilising a number of political instruments, such as the dialogue on drugs with various regions of the world. Finding a realistic and effective response to this global problem remains a political priority for the European Union.

In December 2004, the European Council endorsed the EU Drug Strategy (2005-2012) which sets the framework, objectives and priorities for two consecutive four-year Action Plans to be brought forward by the Commission. This Strategy is an integral part of the multi-annual programme ‘The Hague Programme’ for strengthening freedom, security and justice in the EU (2).

The Strategy has a number of major aims:

—

to achieve a high level of health protection, well-being and social cohesion by complementing the Member States' action in preventing and reducing drug use, dependence and drug-related harms to health and society;

—

with due regard for the EU's achievements and values in terms of fundamental rights and freedoms, to ensure a high level of security for the general public by taking action against drugs production, cross-border trafficking in drugs and diversion of precursors and by intensifying preventive action against drug-related crime through effective cooperation embedded in a joint approach;

—

to strengthen the EU's coordination mechanisms to ensure that action taken at national, regional and international levels is complementary and contributes to the effectiveness of drug policies within the EU and in its relations with other international partners. The latter calls for a more clearly identifiable European position in international fora such as the UN and its specialised agencies, reflecting the EU's dominant position as a donor in this area.

The Strategy concentrates on the two major dimensions of drugs policy, demand reduction and supply reduction. It also covers a number of cross-cutting themes: international cooperation, research, information and evaluation.

The Action Plan proposed by the Commission and adopted by the Council with some amendments takes account of its Final Evaluation of the EU Drug Strategy and EU Action Plan on Drugs (2000–2004) (3). It targets in particular those areas that the evaluation highlighted as needing further progress. It reiterates a number of essential objectives that were not reached under the previous Action Plan. The Commission has also carried out an initial consultation of civil society on future policy through a dedicated web site. Such consultation will be significantly expanded by the Commission during the course of the Action Plan to include a wide range of representatives of civil society across the EU in a dialogue on how best to deal with drugs issues.

In terms of the ultimate goal it should be clearly understood that the Strategy and Action Plan are not an end in themselves; even if all the objectives they contain are reached we must conclude that they have failed if the result is not a measurable reduction of the drugs problem in our societies. The citizens of Europe expect this. The ultimate aim of the Action Plan is to significantly reduce the prevalence of drug use among the population and to reduce the social harm and health damage caused by the use of and trade in illicit drugs. It aims to provide a framework for a balanced approach to reducing both supply and demand through a number of specific actions.

These have been chosen on the basis of the following criteria:

—

Actions at EU level must offer clear added value and results must be realistic and measurable.

—

Actions must be cost-effective and contribute directly to the achievement of at least one of the goals or priorities set out in the Strategy.

—

The number of actions in each field should be targeted and realistic.

In terms of methodology, the Commission and the Council have designed this Action Plan not as a static list of political objectives, but as a dynamic policy instrument. It follows the structure and the objectives of the Strategy and focuses on concrete results in specific priority areas. Assessment tools and indicators have been introduced for each action. These have been drawn up with the help of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) and Europol, who will help the Commission to keep track of implementation of the Action Plan. On this basis the Commission will publish an annual report and, if necessary, propose adjustments.

Responsibility for implementation of actions and deadlines are clearly indicated in the Plan. To keep implementation on track, targets whose deadlines have passed or are unlikely to be met will be subject to recommendations for their implementation or identification of failure to implement. The Commission will carry out an impact assessment in 2008 in view of proposing a second Action Plan for 2009-2012. A final evaluation of the Strategy and the Action Plans will be carried out by the Commission in 2012. These evaluations will go beyond the strict confines of the Action Plan and will include, on the basis of the work of the EMCDDA and Europol, a general view of the evolution of the drugs situation in Europe.

This Action Plan is ambitious in its objectives but it matches the serious nature of the issues confronting EU citizens. It respects the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality and leaves full scope for local, regional, national and transnational actions, while at the same time encouraging all actors to examine how these actions can be mutually supportive and contribute towards achieving the objectives of the EU Drug Strategy.

COORDINATION

Identifiable Result:

Coordination is key to the establishment and conduct of a successful strategy against drugs. EU-level coordination of drugs policy should take place through the HDG. The HDG should regularly devote attention to external aspects of drugs policy. The national authorities responsible for coordinating drug issues and policies will contribute to the practical implementation of the EU Action Plans within the context of the implementation of national programmes.

(Related Strategy priorities 17, 18, 19, 20, 21)

Objective

Action

Timetable (4)

Responsible Party (5)  (6)  (7)

Assessment tool/Indicator

1.

Ensure a balanced, multidisciplinary approach

Member States, with due regard to their national legislation and administrative structures, to adopt an overall national strategy and one or several action plans on drugs and to ensure that national strategies/action plans are in line with the EU Strategy/Action Plans

2007

MS

Annual report on national strategies/action plan by the COM, in cooperation with the EMCDDA

2.

Effective coordination at EU and national level

Member States and the Commission to have a fully operational drugs coordination mechanism and to designate a person, department or body to act as drugs coordinator

2007

MS

COM

MS to report to the COM on existing national coordination structures

Annual report on national structures by the COM, in cooperation with the EMCDDA

3.

Strengthen the involvement of civil society

1.

The Commission to issue a Green Paper on ways to effectively cooperate with civil society

2006

COM

COM's Green Paper

2.

Member States to give the opportunity to civil society to present their opinion

2007

MS

MS report to the HDG by 2008

4.

Effective coordination in the Council

1.

The HDG to focus its activities on the monitoring of the implementation of the EU Action Plan

Ongoing

Council

COM's Annual Progress Review

2.

The HDG to be the leading forum in the Council for EU coordination on drugs. Effective coordination between it and other Council Working Parties dealing with drug issues, including external relations (e.g. Police cooperation WG, customs cooperation WG, Multidisciplinary Group on organised crime, Public health WG, etc.)

Ongoing

PRES

Council

Report of other Council working groups (or the PRES) to the HDG on drug related issues

Results of the HDG discussions on external relations drug issues reported to the relevant working groups and vice-versa

5.

Systematic mainstreaming of drugs policy into relations and agreements with relevant third countries

1.

Ensure that EU action plans for various regions are only adopted if adequate resources for their implementation are allocated

Ongoing

Council

COM Report by 2008

2.

Include a specific provision on drugs cooperation in new agreements with third countries/regions. HDG should be informed of the opening of relevant negotiations.

Annual

Council

COM

Number of new agreements with a specific provision on drugs

6.

Maintain regular forum for EU coordination

The Presidency to provide the opportunity to those responsible for drug coordination to meet to exchange information on national developments, to review the scope for greater cooperation and to focus on the implementation of the EU Action Plan

Twice a year

PRES

MS

COM

Outcome of meetings

DEMAND REDUCTION

Identifiable Result:

Measurable reduction of the use of drugs, of dependence and of drug-related health and social risks through the development and improvement of an effective and integrated comprehensive knowledge-based demand reduction system including prevention, early intervention, treatment, harm reduction, rehabilitation and social reintegration measures within the EU Member States. Drug demand reduction measures must take into account the health-related and social problems caused by the use of illegal psychoactive substances and of poly-drug use in association with legal psychoactive substances such as tobacco, alcohol and medicines.

(Related to Strategy priorities 23, 24 and 25)

Objective

Action

Timetable

Responsible Party

Assessment tool/Indicator

7.

Improve coverage of, access to and effectiveness of drug demand reduction measures

Improve coverage of, access to, quality and evaluation of drug demand reduction programmes and ensure effective dissemination of evaluated best practices

More effective use and regular updating of the EMCDDA based EDDRA (Exchange on Drug Demand Reduction Action) and other databases

2007

MS

EMCDDA

Quantitative and qualitative analysis of access to and effectiveness of drug demand measures (EMCDDA treatment demand indicators, EDDRA data analysis).

Drug use and risk perception on drugs in the general population and school studies (EMCDDA)

8.

Improve access to and effectiveness of school-based prevention programmes, in accordance with national legislation.

1.

Ensure that comprehensive effective and evaluated prevention programmes on both licit and illicit psychoactive substances, as well as poly-drug use, are included in school curricula or are implemented as widely as possible.

2007

MS

Number of MS having implemented comprehensive effective programmes on prevention of psychoactive substances in schools; percentage of pupils reached

2.

 Support implementation and development of joint prevention programs of public services, school communities and relevant NGO's.

2007

MS

Idem

9.

Set up, develop and improve selective prevention and new ways of reaching target groups, e.g. by using different media and new information technologies.

Develop and improve prevention programmes for selected target groups (e.g. street operators, socially disadvantaged groups, socially excluded children and families at risk, young people in the out of school sector) and specific settings (e.g. drugs and driving, drugs in the work place, drugs in recreational settings) taking into account gender differences.

2008

MS

COM

Rate of availability of prevention programmes for specific target groups (EMCDDA)

COM study on the influence of alcohol, drugs and medicines on driving by 2008

Number of Member States having implemented programs in the work place

Number, coverage and evaluated effectiveness of prevention projects in recreational settings (EMCDDA)

10.

Improve methods for early detection of risk factors and early intervention

1.

Detection of risk factors related to experimental use by different target groups, especially by young people and the dissemination thereof for the benefit of early intervention programmes and the training of professionals

Ongoing

MS

MS report on risk factors related to drug use of the different target groups, especially by young people

2.

Ensure the provision of training for relevant professionals who come into contact with potential drug users, especially young people

Ongoing

MS

MS Report on estimated percentage of professionals who receive specific training by 2008.

Age of first drug use/first treatment demand (EMCDDA)

3.

Implementation of the early intervention programmes, including measures especially related to experimental use of psychoactive substances

Ongoing

MS

Number of early intervention programmes implemented (EMCDDA)

Estimated population reached (EMCDDA)

11.

Ensure the availability of and access to targeted and diversified treatment and rehabilitation programmes

1.

Evidence based treatment options covering a variety of psychosocial and pharmacological approaches to be available and correspond to demand for treatment

Ongoing

MS

Treatment demand and availability indicators (EMCDDA)

2.

Establish strategies and guidelines for increasing availability of and access to services for drug users not reached by existing services

Ongoing

MS

Treatment demand and availability indicators (EMCDDA)

3.

Improve access to and coverage of rehabilitation and social reintegration programmes, paying special attention to specialized (social, psychological, medical) services for young people who use drugs

Ongoing

MS

Number of people covered by these programmes (EMCDDA)

4.

Organise and promote dissemination of information on the availability of treatment and rehabilitation programmes

Ongoing

MS

Number of national and local campaigns (EMCDDA)

12.

Improve the quality of treatment services

Support development of know-how on drug treatment while continuing to develop and support the exchange of best practices in this field

2008

Council

COM

COM report by 2007

13.

Further develop alternatives to imprisonment for drug abusers and drug services for people in prisons, with due regard to national legislation.

1.

Make effective use and develop further alternatives to prison for drug abusers

Ongoing

MS

MS Report to the HDG by 2008

2.

Develop prevention, treatment and harm reduction services for people in prison, reintegration services on release from prison and methods to monitor/analyse drug use among prisoners.

Ongoing

MS

COM

COM proposal for a recommendation by 2007

14.

Prevention of health risks related to drug use

Implementation of the Council Recommendation on the prevention and reduction of health related harm associated with drug dependence

Ongoing

MS

COM report by 2006

15.

Availability and access to harm reduction services

Improve access for addicts to all relevant services and treatment options designed to reduce harm, in due regard with national legislation

Ongoing

MS

Treatment demand and availability indicators (EMCDDA)

Analysis of different types of harm and damage reduction services available in the MS (EMCDDA)

16.

Prevention of the spread of HIV/AIDS, hepatitis C, other blood born infections and diseases

Ensure the implementation of comprehensive and coordinated national and/or regional programmes on HIV/AIDS, hepatitis C and other blood born diseases. These programmes should be integrated into general social and health care services.

Ongoing

MS

COM

Prevalence indicators on HIV, hepatitis C and other infections (EMCDDA)

17.

Reduction of drug related deaths

Reduction of drug related deaths to be included as a specific target at all levels with interventions specifically designed for this purpose, such as promoting outreach work, e.g. the work of street units, through well-trained healthcare operators

Ongoing

MS

Drug related deaths indicator (EMCDDA

SUPPLY REDUCTION

Identifiable Result:

A measurable improvement in the effectiveness, efficiency and knowledge base of law enforcement interventions and actions by the EU and its Member States targeting production, trafficking of drugs, the diversion of precursors, including the diversion of synthetic drug precursors imported into the EU, drug trafficking and the financing of terrorism, money laundering in relation to drug crime. This is to be achieved by focusing on drug-related organised crime, using existing instruments and frameworks, where appropriate opting for regional or thematic cooperation and looking for ways of intensifying preventive action in relation to drug-related crime.

(Related Strategy Priorities 27.1, 27.2, 27.3, and 27.4)

Objective

Action

Timetable

Responsible Party

Assessment tool/Indicator

18.

Step up and develop law enforcement cooperation between Member States and, where appropriate, with Europol, Eurojust, third countries and international organisations, against international organised drug production and trafficking

1.

Implement:

—

Operational law enforcement projects, such as joint investigation teams, joint customs operations and joint investigations.

—

Law enforcement intelligence projects to improve both the intelligence picture and interventions made. These projects should involve at least 2 Member States and should be focused on drug production, illicit cross-border trafficking and criminal networks engaged in these activities.

Ongoing

MS (8)

Europol

Eurojust

Number of operational and intelligence law enforcement projects initiated or completed

Quantity and value of precursors and drugs seized

Number of criminal groups disrupted

Number of illicit laboratories dismantled

2.

Seek to exploit to the full the operational and strategic potential of Europol, building on existing collaboration between Europol and the Europol National Units and improving the intelligence picture of supply and distribution, by:

—

Member States improving the consistency with which relevant live information (information as specified in the opening orders of Analysis Work Files) on drug trafficking groups and routes is forwarded to the agency in accordance with the provisions in the Europol Convention for such exchange of information;

—

Member States improving the consistency with which they forward seizure data to Europol;

—

Europol ensuring that the accumulated information is available for Member States' operational and strategic use;

—

Europol providing periodic strategic threat assessments based on this data;

—

Evaluating the success and operational impact of the cycle of intelligence gathering, analysis, distribution and resulting operational action, and seeking the improvements thus revealed.

Ongoing

MS

Europol

Europol reports

3.

Strengthen controls at the external borders of the EU to stem the flow of drugs from third countries.

Ongoing

MS

Quantity and value of drugs and precursors seized at the external borders

Member States reports on actions taken by services on strengthening controls at external borders

4.

Carry out specific actions in the fight against cross-border drug trafficking inside the EU.

Ongoing

MS

Member States reports on specific actions taken

5.

Assess the feasibility of developing a strategy for the use of heroin and cocaine forensic profiling results for law enforcement strategic and operational purposes and make recommendations regarding same.

2006

MS

Feasibility report including recommendations completed

19.

Reduce the production and cross-border trafficking of heroin, cocaine and cannabis

Implement joint multidisciplinary operational and intelligence gathering projects, share best practice, and increase counter narcotics work. Focus this work on external countries and regions associated with the production of and cross-border trafficking in heroin, cocaine and cannabis into the EU.

Ongoing

MS

Europol

Number of operations initiated or completed

Quantity and value of heroin cocaine and cannabis seized

Number of criminal groups disrupted

20.

Reduce the manufacture and supply of synthetic drugs (ATS)

1.

Develop operations and intelligence gathering projects to prevent and combat synthetic drug manufacture and trafficking. These operations should involve at least 2 Member States. In this regard full use should be made of the Synergy Project.

Ongoing

MS (9)

Europol

Number of operations and intelligence gathering projects initiated or completed

Quantity and value of synthetic drugs and synthetic drug precursors seized

Number of criminal groups disrupted

Number of illicit laboratories dismantled

2.

Develop a long term solution at EU level for the use of synthetic drug forensic profiling results for law enforcement strategic and operational purposes. The development of such a solution should be done by law enforcement agencies and forensic authorities working together and building upon experiences in this field

2008

MS

COM

Europol

Report on the development of a long term solution (10)

3.

Implement fully the Council Decision on information exchange, risk assessment and control of new psychoactive substances

Ongoing

Council

MS

COM

Europol

EMCDDA

European Medicines Agency

Europol/EMCDDA annual report to the Council, European Parliament and the Commission

21.

Combat serious criminal activity in the field of chemical precursor diversion and smuggling by stepping up law enforcement cooperation between Member States and, as appropriate, with Europol, Eurojust, third countries and international organisations

Implement law enforcement projects such as the European Joint Unit on Precursors. These projects should involve at least 2 Member States

Ongoing

MS (11)

Europol

Eurojust

Number of law enforcement projects initiated or completed

Quantity and value of precursors and drugs seized

Number of criminal groups disrupted

22.

Prevent the diversion of precursors, in particular synthetic drug precursors imported into the EU

1.

Implement the Community drug precursor legislation, in particular the cooperation between MS in relation to controls of imports of synthetic drug precursors. Strengthen external border controls by customs or other competent authorities and strengthening intra-Community controls.

Ongoing

MS (12)

COM

Number of seizures/stopped shipments

2.

Support international operations of the UN INCB (International Narcotics Control Board), in particular Project Prism

Ongoing

MS

COM

Europol

Number of seizures/stopped shipments

3.

Develop cooperation between Member States' authorities competent for precursor control and Industry

Ongoing

MS

COM

Number of Memoranda of Understanding/similar arrangements with Industry and/or Number of seminars with Industry

Number of notifications and number of investigations resulting from this

23.

Target money laundering and seizure of accumulated assets in relation to drug crime

1.

Implement operational law enforcement projects such as

(i)

projects to pursue drug trafficking organisations including concurrent and in depth investigation of the criminals' finances and assets (of whatever kind) aimed at maximising recovery of assets and the compilation/sharing of associated intelligence; and

(ii)

projects aimed at detecting and disrupting criminal cash flows within the EU and from the EU to specific high-risk destinations outside the EU and source countries.

These operational law enforcement projects should involve at least 2 Member States

Ongoing

MS (13)

Europol

Eurojust

Number of operational law enforcement projects initiated or completed

Seizure of cash and assets seized as a result of drug related investigations

Value of assets recovered and confiscated relative to the number of operational law enforcement projects completed

2.

Develop cooperation in the exchange of information between Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs) by utilising FIU-Net as a means of exchanging information between them

2006

MS

Number of MS using FIU-Net

3.

Consider the possibility of creating national multidisciplinary Units for the detection and investigation of criminals' finances and assets

2008

MS

COM

COM report on the creation of such Units

4.

Identify and evaluate best practice in criminal asset confiscation legislation and procedures of the Member States taking into account all relevant EU instruments

2007

COM

 

5.

Explore best practice in Member States which have established and implemented a national fund used to provide funding for projects in the drugs field and financed from the confiscation of assets earned through drug production and trafficking.

2007

COM

Study on best practices in MS which have established and implemented such a fund.

24.

Explore possible links between drug production and trafficking and financing of terrorism

Identify possible links between drug production and trafficking and financing of terrorism and use this information to support or initiate investigations and/or actions

2007

COM

Europol

MS

Number of investigations and/or actions initiated or completed

25.

Step up work on prevention of drug related crime

1.

Adopting a common definition of the term 'drug-related crime'

2007

Council

Commission

Commission proposal on the basis of the existing studies to be brought forward by the EMCDDA

2.

Share experiences and best practices in preventing the distribution of drugs at street level and present the results

2007

MS

Council

Results presented

3.

Conduct a study on drug related crime prevention practices in third countries

2008

COM

Study completed

26.

Develop new methods and best practice to combat drug-related crimes and to prevent the diversion of precursors committed with the aid of information technology

MS to collect data on drug-related crime and precursor diversion committed with the aid of information technology with a view to developing new methods and best practice to combat these phenomena

2008

MS

Council

Results presented

27.

Increase training for law enforcement agencies

MS and CEPOL, within their respective competences, to include in their annual work (training) programmes more training courses for law enforcement officers specifically relating to combating drug production and trafficking

2006

MS

CEPOL

Additional relevant training included in the respective Annual Work Programmes

INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION

Identifiable Result:

A measurable improvement in effective and more visible coordination between Member States and between them and the Commission in promoting and furthering a balanced approach to the drugs and precursor problem in dealings with international organisations, in international fora and with third countries. This with the aim to reduce the production and drugs supply to Europe and to assist third countries in priority areas in reducing the demand for drugs as an integral part of political and development cooperation.

(Related Strategy Priorities 27.5, 30.1, 30.2, and 30.3)

Objective

Action

Timetable

Responsible Party

Assessment tool/Indicator

28.

Adopt EU common positions on drugs in international fora

EU positions at international meetings dealing with drugs issues to be prepared in the HDG and other coordination fora. EU coordination meetings to take place during Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) and other meetings

Ongoing

PRES

MS

COM

Number of EU positions for relevant international meetings in relation to the number of national positions

29.

Articulate and promote the EU approach on drugs

The Presidency and/or Commission to take the lead role in articulating and promoting the EU's balanced approach

Ongoing

PRES

MS

COM

Number of EU statements in relation to the number of national statements

30.

Bring forward EU joint resolutions and to co-sponsor other resolutions

At the UN, in particular the CND, the Presidency to endeavour to have resolutions brought forward as EU joint resolutions and/or EU co-sponsoring of other resolutions

Ongoing

PRES

MS

COM

Number of EU joint resolutions and co-sponsored resolutions in relation to the total number of resolutions

Convergence Indicator (see doc. 9099/05 CORDROGUE 27)

31.

Formulate an EU contribution to the final evaluation of the implementation of the results of the 1998 UN General Assembly Special Session on Drugs (UNGASS)

1.

Take an initiative to propose common EU criteria, in the framework of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs, for the final evaluation of the implementation of the Political Declaration, the Declaration on the guiding principles of drug demand reduction and the Measures to enhance international cooperation to counter the world drug problem adopted at UNGASS 1998

2006

COM

Council

PRES

MS

EU proposal for CND 2006 on the basis of a Commission initiative

2.

Develop an EU common position on the results of the final evaluation of the implementation of the Political Declaration, the Declaration on the guiding principles of drug demand reduction and the Measures to enhance international cooperation to counter the world drug problem adopted at UNGASS 1998

2008

COM

Council

PRES

MS

EU common position on the basis of a Commission initiative

32.

Support the candidate and stabilisation and association process countries

Provide the necessary technical and other assistance to these countries to familiarise them with the EU acquis and to assist them in carrying out the required actions

2008

MS

COM

EMCDDA

Europol

Number of projects completed; expenditure and percentage of total expenditure on assistance to these countries

33.

Enable candidate countries to participate in the work of EMCDDA, Europol and Eurojust (14)

Conclude agreements with candidate countries

2008

Council

COM

Number of cooperation agreements concluded

34.

Assist European neighbours

1.

Implement drugs sections of European Neighbourhood Policy Action Plans

2008

MS

COM

Number of drugs provisions implemented

2.

Implement drugs section of the EU-Russia Action Plan against organised crime and of the Roadmap to the Common Space of Freedom, Security and Justice; explore scope for enhanced action with Russia, especially in this roadmap, and other neighbouring countries to reduce the drug-related risk

2006

MS

COM

Number of drugs provisions implemented

35.

Ensure that the drugs concerns are taken on board when establishing priorities in the EU's cooperation with third countries/regions

Mainstream projects in the drugs field into the EU's cooperation with third countries/regions, especially those affected by drug problems. Particular attention should be paid to providing assistance to and cooperating with:

—

the countries on the Eastern border of the EU

—

the Balkan States

—

Afghanistan (particularly in the context of the delivery of its 2005 Counter-Narcotics Implementation Plan and future implementation plans) and its neighbours; the EU and Member States should aim to increase their assistance

—

the Latin American and Caribbean countries

—

Morocco

—

countries on other drug routes

This assistance and cooperation to be linked to the drugs action plans adopted by the EU with various regions and the drug sections of other action plans with EU partners, where applicable.

2008

MS

COM

Number of projects completed; expenditure and percentage of total expenditure on assistance to these countries/regions

36.

Intensify law enforcement efforts directed at non-EU countries, especially producer countries and regions along trafficking routes

1.

Create and/or further develop MS liaison officers' networks. Each network to meet, at least on a six monthly basis, to improve operational cooperation and coordination of MS action in third countries

Ongoing

MS

Number of MS liaison officer networks created and/or further developed.

Number of meetings held

2.

Provide relevant training to MS liaison officers

Ongoing

MS

Training for MS liaison officers

provided in MS Annual (training) Work Programmes

3.

Implement or support, as appropriate, operational law enforcement projects, share best practice and increase counter narcotics work in the countries/regions listed in Action 35

Ongoing

MS

Number of operational law enforcement projects initiated or completed

Quantity and value of precursors and drugs seized

Number of criminal groups disrupted

Number of illicit laboratories dismantled

4.

Provide assistance to the law enforcement agencies of the countries/regions listed in Action 35, in the field of counteracting the production and trafficking of drugs and diversion of precursors. This assistance should include assistance in the field of training

Ongoing

MS

COM

Number of law enforcement drugs projects completed

Expenditure on law enforcement drugs projects

37.

Continue and develop an active political engagement by the EU with third countries/regions

1.

Use mechanisms, such as the Coordination and Cooperation Mechanism on Drugs between the EU/Latin America and the Caribbean, UE specialized dialogue on drugs with the Andean community and Drug Troika meetings to pursue an active political dialogue with the countries and regions concerned

Ongoing

Council

COM

Annual report on the use of these mechanisms

2.

Review the activities and measures and, where appropriate, establish new priorities in the drugs action plans the EU has adopted with:

—

Latin America and the Caribbean

—

Central Asia

—

Western Balkan countries

2006

2007

2008

Council

COM

Review reports

3.

Participate fully in the work of international organisations and fora concerned with the drugs problem, such as the Council of Europe (Pompidou Group), UNODC, WHO and UNAIDS

Ongoing

Council

MS

COM

Report on EU activities within these organisations and fora

4.

Utilise fully the Dublin Group as a flexible, informal consultation and coordination mechanism for global, regional and country-specific problems of illicit drugs production, trafficking and demand

Ongoing

Council

MS

Commission

Report on EU activities within the Dublin Group

5.

Maintain an active dialogue with third countries for the implementation of Mini Dublin Groups' recommendations

Ongoing

Council

Dublin Group

Number of Dublin Group recommendations implemented (15)

38.

Improve the coherence, visibility and efficiency of the assistance to candidate countries and third countries/regions

1.

Exchange information on drug related technical assistance projects and operational activities in candidate countries and third countries/regions, in particular to identify duplication and gaps in technical assistance and operational activities

Annual

Council

COM

Annual report by COM to the Council

Update of the database on technical assistance projects in candidate and third countries by COM on the basis of information provided by MS.

2.

Evaluate EC and Member States drug projects included in cooperation programmes

2008

MS

COM

MS and COM reports to the Council

INFORMATION, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION

Identifiable Results:

(a)

A better understanding of the drugs problem and the development of an optimal response to it through a measurable and sustainable improvement in the knowledge base and knowledge infrastructure.

(b)

To give clear indications about the merits and shortcomings of current actions and activities on EU level, evaluation should continue to be an integral part of an EU approach to drugs policy.

(Related to Strategy priorities 31, 32)

Objective

Action

Timetable

Responsible Party

Assessment tool/Indicator

39.

Provide reliable and comparable data on key epidemiological indicators

Full implementation of the five key epidemiological indicators and, as appropriate, fine tuning of these indicators

2008

MS

EMCDDA

Reports from the MS identifying possible problems in implementation

40.

Provide reliable information on the drug situation

1.

Reitox National Focal Points and Europol National Drugs Units to pursue their work to ensure their annual and standardised reporting on national drugs situations

Annual

MS

Reports delivered

2.

EMCDDA and Europol to pursue annual reporting on the drug phenomenon at EU scale

Annual

EMCDDA

Europol

Reports delivered

41.

Develop clear information on emerging trends and patterns of drug use and drug markets

1.

Achieve an agreement on EU guidelines and mechanisms on detecting, monitoring and responding to emerging trends

2008

Council

COM

COM Proposal by 2007 in cooperation with the EMCDDA and Europol

2.

The Commission to provide for a Eurobarometer survey on youth attitude regarding drugs. The results of the Eurobarometer should be analysed in conjunction with the data from the EMCDDA 'Population survey' key indicator

2008

COM

Report delivered

42.

Produce estimates on public expenditure on drug issues

Member States and Commission to consider the development of compatible methodologies on direct and indirect expenditure on drug-related measures, with the support of the EMCDDA

2008

MS

COM

EMCDDA

Report based on this methodology

43.

Promote research in the field of drugs

1.

Promote research in the context of the Community Programme for Research and Development and of Member States research programmes

—

on biomedical, psychosocial and other factors contributing to drug use and addiction and

—

on other relevant issues, such as the effectiveness of primary awareness campaigns, effective interventions to prevent HIV/AIDS and hepatitis C and the long term effects of Ecstasy use

Ongoing

MS

COM

Identification and inclusion of topics in the Framework Programme and the work programmes as well as national research programmes

Amount of successful drug related applications to the Research Programme and number of projects supported at the MS level

2.

Promote research on identifying protective factors in countries with low HIV/AIDS prevalence rates in drug users.

2007

MS

with the support of EMCDDA

Study delivered

3.

Make full use of the research capacity of the Council of Europe (Pompidou Group)

Ongoing

MS

COM

Report on research activities of the Pompidou Group

44.

To create networks of excellence in drug research

Encourage research networks, universities and professionals to develop/create networks of excellence for the optimal use of resources and effective dissemination of results

2007

COM

COM report on the level of networking and acquired funding for these networks

45.

Continuous and overall evaluation

1.

Establish a consolidated list of indicators and assessment tools for the evaluation of the EU Drug Strategy and Action Plans

Ongoing

COM

EMCDDA

Europol

COM Annual review with the support of the EMCDDA and Europol

2.

Commission to present progress reviews to the Council and the European Parliament on the implementation of the Action Plan and proposals to deal with identified gaps and possible new challenges

Annual

COM

COM Annual review with the support of EMCDDA and Europol

3.

Commission to organise an impact assessment with a view of proposing a new Action Plan for 2009 — 2012

2008

COM

Impact assessment with the support of EMCDDA and Europol

46.

Follow up of the mutual evaluation of drug law enforcement systems in the Member States

Extent of implementation of recommendations for best practices

2006

Council

Council report and proposal for recommendations

(1)  OJ L 335 of 11.11.2004; evaluation report to be submitted by the Commission by 12 May 2009 at the latest in the framework of the EU Action Plan on Drugs 2009-2012.

(2)  Point 2.8 European Union Strategy on Drugs: ‘The European Council underlines the importance of addressing the drugs problem in a comprehensive, balanced and multidisciplinary approach between the policy of prevention, assistance and rehabilitation of drug dependence, the policy of combating illegal drug trafficking and precursors and money laundering, including the strengthening of international cooperation. The European Strategy on Drugs 2005-2012 will be added to the programme after its adoption by the European council in December 2004’.

(3)  COM(2004) 707 final.

(4)  Action to be completed by the end of the year indicated at the latest.

(5)  Presidency = PRES.

(6)  Member States = MS.

(7)  Commission = COM.

(8)  Relevant data in relation to the assessment tool/indicator to be provided by the lead MS for the project, unless otherwise agreed.

(9)  Relevant data in relation to the assessment tool/indicator to be provided by the lead MS for the project, unless otherwise agreed.

(10)  MS report in cooperation with the Commission and Europol.

(11)  otherwise agreed.

(12)  Relevant data in relation to the assessment tool/indicator to be provided by the Member States.

(13)  Relevant data in relation to the assessment tool/indicator to be provided by the lead MS for the project, unless otherwise agreed.

(14)  Eurojust to cooperate with the candidate countries through nomination of contact points and consideration of cooperation agreements in line with the Council conclusions on Eurojust of 2 December 2004.

(15)  The Dublin Group comprises the EU Member States/European Commission and five other countries. The EU Member States/European Commission do not therefore have exclusive ownership of their recommendations.

Commission

8.7.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/19

Euro exchange rates (1)

7 July 2005

(2005/C 168/02)

1 euro=

 

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1957

JPY

Japanese yen

133,53

DKK

Danish krone

7,4541

GBP

Pound sterling

0,6851

SEK

Swedish krona

9,4287

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5472

ISK

Iceland króna

78,57

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,916

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5734

CZK

Czech koruna

30,278

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

248,56

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,696

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1104

RON

Romanian leu

3,5904

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,46

SKK

Slovak koruna

38,954

TRY

Turkish lira

1,6241

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6094

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,476

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,294

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7669

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0272

KRW

South Korean won

1 254,17

ZAR

South African rand

8,1747

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,8962

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,325

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

11 717,86

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,5437

PHP

Philippine peso

67,127

RUB

Russian rouble

34,438

THB

Thai baht

49,843

(1)  

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

8.7.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/20

Notice to users of controlled substances in the European Union allowed for essential uses in the Community in 2006 under Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council on ‘substances that deplete the ozone layer’ (1)

(2005/C 168/03)

This notice concerns the following substances:

—

Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) 11, 12, 113, 114 and 115,

—

Other fully halogenated chlorofluorocarbons,

—

Carbon tetrachloride,

—

Halons,

—

1,1,1 trichloroethane,

—

Hydrobromofluorocarbons (HBFCs),

—

Bromochloromethane.

This notice is addressed to users that intend to:

1.

Use the above substances within the Community for the manufacture of Metered Dose Inhalers (MDIs),

2.

Acquire the above substances for laboratory and analytical uses directly from a producer or by import into the Community and not from distributor of the substances inside the Community.

Controlled substances for essential uses may be obtained from production within the Community and, if necessary, by import from sources outside the Community.

Decision IV/25 of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer sets out criteria and a procedure for determining ‘essential uses’ for which continued production and consumption is allowed after phase-out.

Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000, as amended in Regulation (EC) No 2038/2000, requires the determination of quantities for essential uses of the abovementioned controlled substances which may be permitted in the Community in 2006, in accordance with Decision IV/25 of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol

The Parties to the Montreal Protocol may take a Decision in December 2005 that authorises the maximum levels of production and consumption necessary to satisfy essential uses of CFCs in 2006 for metered dose inhalers (MDIs) for the treatment of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases as specified in Annex I, subject to the conditions established by the Meeting of the Parties in paragraph 2 of its Decision VII/28.

In accordance with Decision X/19 of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol, the purity of controlled substances for laboratory purposes should be at least 99,0 % for 1,1,1-trichloroethane and 99,5 % for CFCs and carbon tetrachloride. These high purity substances and mixtures containing controlled substances shall be supplied only in re-closable containers or high pressure cylinders smaller than three litres or in 10 millilitre or smaller glass ampoules, marked clearly as substances that deplete the ozone layer, restricted to laboratory use and analytical purposes and specifying that used or surplus substances should be collected and recycled, if practical. The material should be destroyed following the procedures described in Article 16(1) of the Regulation if recycling is not practical.

Decision XV/8 of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol authorises the production and consumption necessary to satisfy essential uses of controlled substances listed in Annexes A, B and C (Group II and III substances) of the Montreal Protocol for laboratory and analytical uses as listed in Annex IV to the report of the Seventh Meeting of the Parties, subject to the conditions set out in Annex II to the report of the Sixth Meeting of the Parties.

Currently there are no exemptions permitted in the Montreal Protocol for the use of methyl bromide for laboratory and analytical uses and therefore all uses of methyl bromide in the European Community are not in compliance with the Regulation. Intended users are requested to contact the Commission at the address below, or to contact the ODS website http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/ods/home/home.cfm for further information under ‘Methyl bromide Laboratory and Analytical Uses’.

The procedures for allocating quantities of controlled substances for the above essential uses carried out under Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 and Regulation (EC) No 2038/2000 is the following:

1.

An enterprise that has not been issued with a quota in 2005 and that requests consideration by the Commission for an essential use quota for the period 1 January 2006 to 31 December 2006 should make itself known to the Commission no later than 2 September 2005:

Ozone Layer Protection

European Commission

Directorate-General Environment

Unit ENV.C.4 — Industrial Emissions

BU9 6/137

B-1049 Brussels

Fax: (32-2) 299 87 64

E-mail: env-ods@cec.eu.int

2.

Essential use applications may be made by any user of substances listed at the beginning of this Notice. For CFCs for use in MDIs, each applicant should provide the information requested on the spreadsheet available on the ODS website http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/ods/home/home.cfm. For Laboratory Uses, each applicant should provide the information requested in the form on the website.

A copy of the application should also be sent to the competent authority of the Member State (refer to Annex I for appropriate address).

3.

Only applications received by 2 September 2005 will be considered by the Commission in accordance with the procedure set out in Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000.

4.

The Commission will issue quotas to those users and shall notify them of the use for which they have authorisation, the substance they are authorised to use and the quantity of the controlled substances concerned.

5.

Following the above procedure, the Commission on the basis of a Decision will notify applicants of the quantities of controlled substances authorised in the Community for 2006 for which production and importation of controlled substances will be permitted.

6.

Those users holding an essential use quota for a controlled substance for 2005 will be able to make a request to a Community producer via the ODS website or, if necessary, request an import licence from the Commission for a controlled substance up to their quota limit. The producer must be authorised by the competent authority of the Member State in which its relevant production is situated to produce the controlled substance for meeting that licensed demand. The competent authority of the Member State shall notify the Commission well in advance of any such authorisation.

(1)  OJ L 244 of 29.9.2000, p. 1 as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2077/2004, OJ L 359 of 4.12.2004, p. 28.

ANNEX I

BELGIQUE/BELGÏE

Mr Alain Wilmart

Ministère Fédéral des Affaires Sociales de la Santé Publique et de l'Environnement

Place Victor Horta, 40 — Bte 10

B-1060 Bruxelles

ČESKÁ REPUBLIKA

Mr Jakub Achrer

Ministry of the Environment of the Czech Republik

Air Pollution Prevention Department

Vršovická 65

CZ-100 10 Praha 10

DANMARK

Mr Mikkel Aaman Sørensen

Miljøstyrelsen (EPA)

Strandgade 29

DK-1401 København K

DEUTSCHLAND

Mr Rolf Engelhardt

Ministry for Environment

Dept. IG 11 5

P.O. Box 120629

DE-53048 Bonn

EESTI

Ms Valentina Laius

Ministry of the Environment of the Republic of Estonia

Environment Management and Technology Department

Narva mnt 7A

EE-15172 Tallin

ΕΛΛΑΣ

Mrs Elpida Politis

Ministry for the Environment, Physical Planning and Public Works

International Activities and EEC Department

17 Ameliedos Street

EL-115 23 Athens

ESPAŇA

Mr Alberto Moral Gonzalez

Ministerio de Medio Ambiente

Subdirección General de Calidad Ambiental

Pza San Juan de la Cruz s/n

ES-28071 Madrid

FRANCE

Mr Matthieu LASSUS

Ministère de l'Environnement

DRPR/BSPC

20, avenue de Ségur

F-75302 Paris 07 SP

IRELAND

Mr Patrick O'Sullivan

Inspector (Environment)

Dept of Environment Heritage and Local Government

Custom House

Dublin 1

Ireland

ITALIA

Mr Alessandro Giuliano Peru

Dept of Environment and Territory

DG per la ricerca Ambientale e lo Sviluppo

Via Cristoforo Colombo 44

IT-00147 Roma

ΚΥΠΡΟΣ

Dr. Charalambos Hajipakkos

Environment Service

Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environment

CY-Nicosia

LATVIJA

Mr Armands Plate

Ministry of Environment

Environmental Protection Department

Peldu Iela 25

LV-1494 — Riga

LIETUVA

Ms Marija Teriosina

Ministry of Environment

Chemicals Management Division

Jaksto str. 4/9

LT-2600 Vilnius

LUXEMBOURG

Mr Pierre Dornseiffer

Administration de l'Environnement

Division Air/Brut

16, rue Eugène Ruppert

L-2453 Luxembourg

MAGYARORSZÁG

Mr Robert Toth

PO Box 351

Ministry of Environment and Water

Department for Air Pollution and Noise Control

HU-1394 Budapest

MALTA

Ms Charmaine Vassallo

Malta Environment and Planning Authority

Environment Protection Directorate

Pollution Control, Wastes and Minerals

C/o Quality Control Laboratory

Industrial Estate Kordin

MT-PAOLA

NEDERLAND

Mr M. Hildebrand

Ministry of Environment

Rijnstraat 8

2500 GX Den Haag

Nederland

ÖSTERREICH

Mr Paul Krajnik

Ministry of the Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management

Chemicals Department

Stubenbastei 5

AT-1010 Wien

POLSKA

Pan Janusz Kozakiewicz

Instytut Chemii Przemysłowej

Biuro Ochrony Warstwy Ozonowej

ul. Rydygiera 8

PL-01-793 Warszawa

PORTUGAL

Dra. Cristina Vaz Nunes

Ministério do Ambiente

Rua da Murgueira 9/9A –Zambujal Ap. 7585

PT-2611-865 Amadora

SLOVENIJA

Ms Irena Malešič

Ministry of the Environment and Spacial Planning

Environmental Agency of the Republic of Slovenia

Vojkova 1b

SL-1000 Ljubljana

SLOVENSKO

Mr Lubomir Ziak

Ministry of the Environment

Air Protection Department

Nam. L. Stura 1

SK-812 35 Bratislava

SUOMI/FINLAND

Mrs Eliisa Irpola

Finnish Environment Institute

Chemicals Division

Mechelininkatu 34a

FIN-00260 Helsinki

SVERIGE

Ms Maria Ujfalusi

Swedish Environmental Protection Agency

Naturvårdsverket

Blekholmsterassen 36

SE-106 48 Stockolm

UNITED KINGDOM

Mr Stephen Reeves

Global Atmosphere Division

UK Dept of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

3rd floor — zone 3/A3

Ashdown House

123 Victoria Street

London SW1E 6DE

United Kingdom

8.7.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/24

Commission Communication concerning the Financial Report (activity report and financial statements) of the ECSC in liquidation, at 31 December 2004

(2005/C 168/04)

On 6 July 2005 the Commission approved the Financial report for 2004 (document C(2005)2033), comprising the report on the activities of the ECSC in liquidation and its financial statements as at 31 December 2004, drawn up in accordance with Article 3 of Council Decision No 2003/76/EC of 1 February 2003 and Article 6 of the annex to Council Decision No 2003/77/EC of 1 February 2003.

This document can be consulted at:

 

http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex (reference C(2005)2033)

 

http://europa.eu.int/comm/economy_finance/publications/ecsc_en.htm

8.7.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/25

UNIFORM APPLICATION OF THE COMBINED NOMENCLATURE (CN)

(Classification of goods)

(2005/C 168/05)

Publication of Explanatory Notes adopted under Article 10(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987, on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1)

The Explanatory Notes to the combined nomenclature of the European Communities (2) shall be amended as follows:

Page 227

6104 41 00

to

6104 49 00

dresses

Insert the following text after the second sentence of the explanatory note:

‘This term also encompasses transparent dresses.’

Page 232

Insert the following text after the explanatory note to ‘6112 11 00 to 6112 19 00’:

‘6112 31 10

to

6112 49 90

Men's or boys' swimwear

and

Women's or girls' swimwear

See the HS Explanatory Notes to heading 6112, (C), mentioning that heading 6112 includes inter alia swimming shorts and trunks, whether or not elastic.

Swimming shorts are garments which, because of their general appearance, cut and nature of fabric, are intended to be worn solely or mainly as swimwear and not as “shorts” of heading 6103 or 6104. In general they are entirely or mainly made of man-made fibres.

 

Swimming shorts must have all the following characteristics:

 

have inner briefs sewn to the garment or at least

—

a lining in the front or the crotch

—

be tight at the waist (e.g. have a drawstring or a fully elasticated waist)

 

Swimming shorts may have pockets provided that

—

the outside pockets have a firm fastening system (e.g. they have to have a zip fastening or velcro type fastening to close the pocket completely, i.e. they may not be fastened at intervals)

—

the inside pockets have the same firm fastening system as the outside pockets mentioned above. However, inside pockets when fixed to the waist may merely have an overlap closing system provided that it assures complete closure of the pocket opening.

 

Swimming shorts cannot have any of the following characteristics:

—

a front opening even if closed by a closing system

—

an opening at the waist even if closed by a closing system.’

Page 238

Insert the following text after the heading text of ‘6211’:

‘6211 11 00

to

6211 12 00

Men's or boys' swimwear

and

Women's or girls' swimwear

See the HS Explanatory Notes to heading 6211, 1st paragraph.

The Explanatory Notes to subheadings 6112 31 10 to 6112 49 90 apply, mutatis mutandis.’

(1)  OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 493/2005 (OJ L 82, 31.3.2005, p. 1).

(2)  OJ C 256, 23.10.2002, p. 1.

8.7.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/27

Notice to proposed exporters from the European Union in 2006 of controlled substances that deplete the ozone layer under Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council on ‘substances that deplete the ozone layer’ (1)

(2005/C 168/06)

This Notice is addressed to undertakings that intend to export the following substances from the European Union during the period 1 January 2006 to 31 December 2006.

Group I:

CFC 11, 12, 113, 114 or 115

Group II:

other fully halogenated CFCs

Group III:

halon 1211, 1301 or 2402

Group IV:

carbon tetrachloride

Group V:

1,1,1 trichloroethane

Group VI:

methyl bromide

Group VII:

hydrobromofluorocarbons

Group VIII:

hydrochlorofluorocarbons

Group IX:

bromochloromethane

Exports of chlorofluorocarbons, other fully halogenated chlorofluorocarbons, halons, carbon tetrachloride, 1,1,1-trichloroethane and hydrobromofluorocarbons and bromochloromethane or products and equipment, other than personal effects containing those substances or whose continuing function relies on the supply of these substances, are prohibited. Note that exceptions to this prohibition are exports of:

—

Controlled substances produced under Article 3(6) to satisfy the Basic Domestic Needs of Parties operating under Article 5(1) of the Montreal Protocol;

—

Controlled substances produced under Article 3(7) to satisfy Essential or Critical Uses;

—

Products and equipment containing controlled substances produced under Article 3(5) or imported under Article 7(b) of the Regulation;

—

Products and equipment containing HCFCs to be exported to countries where the use of HCFCs in such products is still permitted, according to Article 5(5) of the Regulation;

—

Recovered, recycled and reclaimed halon stored for critical uses in facilities authorised or operated by the competent authority to satisfy critical uses listed in Annex VII until 31 December 2009, and products and equipment containing halon to satisfy critical uses listed in Annex VII;

—

Controlled substances to be used for feedstock and processing agent applications;

—

Used products and equipment that contain rigid insulating foam or integral skin foam which have been produced with chlorofluorocarbons. This exemption does not apply to:

—

Refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment and products;

—

Refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment and products which contain chlorofluorocarbons, or whose continuing function relies on the supply of chlorofluorocarbons used as refrigerants, in other equipment and products;

—

Building insulation foam and products.

—

Under Article 4(2), production and import of methyl bromide for non-QPS uses is prohibited.

—

Under Article 11(2), export of:

—

Methyl bromide to any state not party to the Protocol is prohibited.

—

Under Article 11(3), export of:

—

Hydrochlorofluorocarbons to any State not Party to the Protocol is prohibited from 1 January 2004, unless the Party meets the criteria set out in Decision XV/3 of the Montreal Protocol.

Article 12 requires the authorisation of exports of the substances listed under Groups I to IX of Annex I to this Notice (cf. also Annex I of the Regulation). Such export authorisations should be issued by the European Commission after verification of compliance to Article 11 (2).

For the purposes of the Regulation, quantities are measured in ODP kilograms to reflect the ozone-depleting potential of the substance (3).

A user that wishes to export controlled substances listed under Group I to IX of Annex 1 of this Notice for the period from 1 January 2006 to 31 December 2006, should make itself known to the European Commission, preferably no later than 2 September 2005.

Ozone Layer Protection

European Commission

Directorate-General Environment

BU9 6/137

Unit ENV.C.4 — Industrial Emissions

B-1049 Brussels

Fax: (32-2) 299 87 64

E-mail: env-ods@cec.eu.int

Other applicants that have been issued with an export authorisation in 2005 should complete and submit the relevant form(s) according to the export substance(s) on the ODS website http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/ods/index.htm in order to receive an Export Authorisation Number (EAN).

A copy of the application should also be sent to the competent authority of the Member State (cf. Annex II).

An EAN will be provided and the applicant notified providing the application meets the eligibility criteria for an Export Authorisation Number. A user may export the controlled substances listed in Annex I to this Notice during the course of 2006 only if it is in possession of an EAN issued by the European Commission. The European Commission reserves the right to withhold issuing an EAN where it is not satisfied with the information provided.

(1)  OJ L 244 of 29.9.2000, p. 1 as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2077/2004, OJ L 359 of 4.12.2004, p. 28.

(2)  Amended by Regulation (EC) 1804/2003, published in OJ L 265 of 16 October 2003, p. 1.

(3)  For mixtures: only the quantity of the controlled substances in the mixture should be included in the quantity. 1,1,1-trichloroethane is always put on the market with stabilisers. Exporters should establish from their supplier what is the percentage of stabiliser to be deducted before calculating the weighted tonnage.

ANNEX I

Substances covered

Group

Substances

Ozone-depleting potential (1)

Group I

CFCl3

(CFC 11)

1,0

CF2Cl2

(CFC 12)

1,0

C2F3Cl3

(CFC 113)

0,8

C2F4Cl2

(CFC 114)

1,0

C2F5Cl

(CFC 115)

0,6

Group II

CF3Cl

(CFC 13)

1,0

C2FCl5

(CFC 111)

1,0

C2F2Cl4

(CFC 112)

1,0

C3FCl7

(CFC 211)

1,0

C3F2Cl6

(CFC 212)

1,0

C3F3Cl5

(CFC 213)

1,0

C3F4Cl4

(CFC 214)

1,0

C3F5Cl3

(CFC 215)

1,0

C3F6Cl2

(CFC 216)

1,0

C3F7Cl

(CFC 217)

1,0

Group III

CF2BrCl

(halon 1211)

3,0

CF3Br

(halon 1301)

10,0

C2F4Br2

(halon 2402)

6,0

Group IV

CCl4

(carbon tetrachloride)

1,1

Group V

C2H3Cl3 (2)

(1,1,1-trichloroethane)

0,1

Group VI

CH3Br

(methyl bromide)

0,6

Group VII

CHFBr2

 

1,00

CHF2Br

 

0,74

CH2FBr

 

0,73

C2HFBr4

 

0,8

C2HF2Br3

 

1,8

C2HF3Br2

 

1,6

C2HF4Br

 

1,2

C2H2FBr3

 

1,1

C2H2F2Br2

 

1,5

C2H2F3Br

 

1,6

C2H3FBr2

 

1,7

C2H3F2Br

 

1,1

C2H4FBr

 

0,1

C3HFBr6

 

1,5

C3HF2Br5

 

1,9

C3HF3Br4

 

1,8

C3HF4Br3

 

2,2

C3HF5Br2

 

2,0

C3HF6Br

 

3,3

C3H2FBr5

 

1,9

C3H2F2Br4

 

2,1

C3H2F3Br3

 

5,6

C3H2F4Br2

 

7,5

C3H2F5Br

 

1,4

C3H3FBr4

 

1,9

C3H3F2Br3

 

3,1

C3H3F3Br2

 

2,5

C3H3F4Br

 

4,4

C3H4FBr3

 

0,3

C3H4F2Br2

 

1,0

C3H4F3Br

 

0,8

C3H5FBr2

 

0,4

C3H5F2Br

 

0,8

C3H6FBr

 

0,7

Group VIII

CHFCl2

(HCFC 21) (3)

0,040

CHF2Cl

(HCFC 22) (3)

0,055

CH2FCl

(HCFC 31)

0,020

C2HFCl4

(HCFC 121)

0,040

C2HF2Cl3

(HCFC 122)

0,080

C2HF3Cl2

(HCFC 123) (3)

0,020

C2HF4Cl

(HCFC 124) (3)

0,022

C2H2FCl3

(HCFC 131)

0,050

C2H2F2Cl2

(HCFC 132)

0,050

C2H2F3Cl

(HCFC 133)

0,060

C2H3FCl2

(HCFC 141)

0,070

CH3CFCl2

(HCFC 141b) (3)

0,110

C2H3F2Cl

(HCFC 142)

0,070

CH3CF2Cl

(HCFC 142b) (3)

0,065

C2H4FCl

(HCFC 151)

0,005

C3HFCl6

(HCFC 221)

0,070

C3HF2Cl5

(HCFC 222)

0,090

C3HF3Cl4

(HCFC 223)

0,080

C3HF4Cl3

(HCFC 224)

0,090

C3HF5Cl2

(HCFC 225)

0,070

CF3CF2CHCl2

(HCFC 225ca)  (3)

0,025

CF2ClCF2CHClF

(HCFC 225cb) (3)

0,033

C3HF6Cl

(HCFC 226)

0,100

C3H2FCl5

(HCFC 231)

0,090

C3H2F2Cl4

(HCFC 232)

0,100

C3H2F3Cl3

(HCFC 233)

0,230

C3H2F4Cl2

(HCFC 234)

0,280

C3H2F5Cl

(HCFC 235)

0,520

C3H3FCl4

(HCFC 241)

0,090

C3H3F2Cl3

(HCFC 242)

0,130

C3H3F3Cl2

(HCFC 243)

0,120

C3H3F4Cl

(HCFC 244)

0,140

C3H4FCl3

(HCFC 251)

0,010

C3H4F2Cl2

(HCFC 252)

0,040

C3H4F3Cl

(HCFC 253)

0,030

C3H5FCl2

(HCFC 261)

0,020

C3H5F2Cl

(HCFC 262)

0,020

C3H6FCl

(HCFC 271)

0,030

Group IX

CH2BrCl

Halon 1011/bromochloromethane

0,120

(1)  These ozone-depleting potentials are estimates based on existing knowledge and will be reviewed and revised periodically in the light of decisions taken by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.

(2)  This formula does not refer to 1,1,2-trichloroethane.

(3)  Identifies the most commercially-viable substance as prescribed in the Protocol.

ANNEX II

Belgique/Belgïë

Mr Alain Wilmart

Ministère Fédéral des Affaires Sociales de la Santé Publique et de l'Environnement

Place Victor Horta, 40 — Bte 10

B-1060 Bruxelles

Česká Republika

Mr Jakub Achrer

Ministry of the Environment of the Czech Republik

Air Pollution Prevention Department

Vršovická 65

CZ-100 10 Praha 10

Danmark

Mr Mikkel Aaman Sørensen

Miljøstyrelsen (EPA)

Strandgade 29

DK-1401 København K

Deutschland

Mr Rolf Engelhardt

Ministry for Environment

Dept. IG 11 5

P.O. Box 120629

DE-53048 Bonn

Eesti

Ms Valentina Laius

Ministry of the Environment of the Republic of Estonia

Environment Management and Technology Department

Narva mnt 7A

EE-15172 Tallin

Ελλάς

Mrs Elpida Politis

Ministry for the Environment, Physical Planning and Public Works

International Activities and EEC Department

17 Ameliedos Street

EL-115 23 Athens

Espaňa

Mr Alberto Moral Gonzalez

Ministerio de Medio Ambiente

Subdirección General de Calidad Ambiental

Pza San Juan de la Cruz s/n

ES-28071 Madrid

France

Mr Matthieu LASSUS

Ministère de l'Environnement

DRPR/BSPC

20, avenue de Ségur

F-75302 Paris 07 SP

Ireland

Mr Patrick O'Sullivan

Inspector (Environment)

Dept of Environment Heritage and Local Government

Custom House

Dublin 1

Ireland

Italia

Mr Alessandro Giuliano Peru

Dept of Environment and Territory

DG per la ricerca Ambientale e lo Sviluppo

Via Cristoforo Colombo 44

IT-00147 Roma

Κύπρος

Dr. Charalambos Hajipakkos

Environment Service

Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environment

CY-Nicosia

Latvija

Mr Armands Plate

Ministry of Environment

Environmental Protection Department

Peldu lela 25

LV-1494 — Riga

Lietuva

Ms Marija Teriosina

Ministry of Environment

Chemicals Management Division

Jaksto str. 4/9

LT-2600 Vilnius

Luxembourg

Mr Pierre Dornseiffer

Administration de l'Environnement

Division Air/Brut

16, rue Eugène Ruppert

L-2453 Luxembourg

Magyarország

Mr Robert Toth

PO Box 351

Ministry of Environment and Water

Department for Air Pollution and Noise Control

HU-1394 Budapest

Malta

Ms Charmaine Vassallo

Malta Environment and Planning Authority

Environment Protection Directorate

Pollution Control, Wastes and Minerals

C/o Quality Control Laboratory

Industrial Estate Kordin

MT-PAOLA

Nederland

Mr M. Hildebrand

Ministry of Environment

Rijnstraat 8

2500 GX Den Haag

Nederland

Österreich

Mr Paul Krajnik

Ministry of the Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management

Chemicals Department

Stubenbastei 5

AT-1010 Wien

Polska

Pan Janusz Kozakiewicz

Instytut Chemii Przemysłowej

Biuro Ochrony Warstwy Ozonowej

ul. Rydygiera 8

PL-01-793 Warszawa

Portugal

Dra. Cristina Vaz Nunes

Ministério do Ambiente

Rua da Murgueira 9/9A -Zambujal Ap. 7585

PT-2611-865 Amadora

Slovenija

Ms Irena Malešič

Ministry of the Environment and Spacial Planning

Environmental Agency of the Republic of Slovenia

Vojkova 1b

SL-1000 Ljubljana

Slovensko

Mr Lubomir Ziak

Ministry of the Environment

Air Protection Department

Nam. L. Stura 1

SK-812 35 Bratislava

Suomi/Finland

Mrs Eliisa Irpola

Finnish Environment Institute

Chemicals Division

Mechelininkatu 34a

FIN-00260 Helsinki

Sverige

Ms Maria Ujfalusi

Swedish Environmental Protection Agency

Naturvårdsverket

Blekholmsterassen 36

SE-106 48 Stockolm

United Kingdom

Mr Stephen Reeves

Global Atmosphere Division

UK Dept of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

3rd floor — zone 3/A3

Ashdown House

123 Victoria Street

London SW1E 6DE

United Kingdom

8.7.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/33

Notice to importers in the European Union that propose to import in 2006 controlled substances that deplete the ozone layer under Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council on ‘substances that deplete the ozone layer’ (1)

(2005/C 168/07)

I.

This Notice is addressed to undertakings that intend to import the following substances into the European Community from sources outside the European Community from 1 January 2006 to 31 December 2006.

Group I:

CFC 11, 12, 113, 114 or 115

Group II:

other fully halogenated CFCs

Group III:

halon 1211, 1301 or 2402

Group IV:

carbon tetrachloride

Group V:

1,1,1 trichloroethane

Group VI:

methyl bromide

Group VII:

hydrobromofluorocarbons

Group VIII:

hydrochlorofluorocarbons

Group IX:

Bromochloromethane

II.

Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 requires that quantitative limits be determined and quotas allocated to producers and importers for 1 January 2006 to 31 December 2006 in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 18(2) for the import of the substances listed under Groups I to IX of Annex I to this Notice (2).

Quotas shall be allocated for:

a.

Methyl bromide, for Quarantine and Pre-Shipment (QPS) uses as defined by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol; and to users for critical uses, in accordance with Decisions IX/6, Ex.I/3, Ex.I/4 and any other relevant criteria agreed by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol and Article 3(2)(ii) of the Regulation; both QPS and critical uses approved by the Commission, pursuant to Article 18 of the Regulation;

b.

Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs);

c.

Essential uses in accordance with the criteria set out in Decisions IV/25 of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol and Article 3(1) of the Regulation; and as approved by the Commission, pursuant to Article 18 of the Regulation. A separate notice regarding Essential Uses has been published;

d.

Feedstock uses, as controlled substances transformed in a process in which it is entirely converted from its original composition;

e.

Process agents, as controlled substances used as chemical processing agents in existing installations, where emissions are insignificant;

f.

Destruction, as controlled substances that are to be destroyed by a technology approved by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol which results in the permanent transformation, or decomposition of all or a significant portion of the substance.

The quantitative limit, which producers and importers may place on the market and/or use for their own account within the European Community in 2006, is calculated:

—

For methyl bromide for QPS use from 1996-1998 (average) according to Article 4(2)(iii);

—

According to Article 4(4), the placing on the market and use of methyl bromide is permitted to meet the licensed requests for critical uses of those users identified as laid down in Article 3(2);

—

For HCFCs according to Article 4(3)(i)(e).

III.

Undertakings engaged in the importation of HCFCs can be either:

—

Importers who imported in 1999 and who wish to place HCFCs on the European Community market and who are not engaged in the production of HCFCs,

—

European Community producers who imported in 1999 on their own account additional HCFCs to place on the European Community market.

IV.

The quantities imported from 1 January 2006 to 31 December 2006 are subject to import licences. In accordance with Article 6 of the Regulation, undertakings may import the controlled substances only if they are in possession of an import licence issued by the Commission.

V.

Under Article 22 of the Regulation, the importation of new substance listed in Annex II of the Regulation is prohibited, except for feedstock uses.

VI.

For the purposes of the Regulation, quantities of substances are measured according to their Ozone Depleting Potential (3).

VII.

The Commission hereby gives notice to an undertaking that is not in possession of a quota for 2005 and who wishes to apply to the Commission for an import quota from 1 January 2006 to 31 December 2006, to make itself known to the Commission no later than 2 September 2005.

Ozone Layer Protection

European Commission

Directorate-General Environment

Unit ENV.C.4 — Industrial Emissions

BU9 6/137

B-1049 Brussels

Fax: (32-2) 299 87 64

Email: env-ods@cec.eu.int

VIII

Enterprises with a quota in 2005 should make a declaration by completing and submitting the relevant form(s) on page http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/ozone/ods.htm of EUROPA internet site. Only applications received by 2 September 2005 will be considered by the Commission.

A copy of the application should also be sent to the competent authority of the Member State (cf. Annex II).

IX.

Once the applications have been received, they will be considered by the European Commission and import quotas will be set for each importer and producer in consultation with the Management Committee following the procedures specified under Article 18 of the Regulation. The allocated quota will be available on the ODS-website http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/ozone/ods.htm and all applicants will have the Decision notified by post.

X.

In order to import controlled substances in 2006, undertakings in receipt of a quota must apply to the Commission via the ODS-website for an import licence using the import licence application. Provided the Commission services are satisfied that the request is in accordance with the quota authorised and conforms to the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000, an import licence will be issued. The Commission reserves the right to withhold an import licence when the substance to be imported is not as described or may not be used for the purposes authorised or cannot be imported in compliance with Regulation.

XI.

Producers who import recovered or reclaimed substances, if any, are required to submit additional information with each licence application regarding the source and destination of the substance, and the processing to be undertaken. A certificate of analysis may also be requested. Importers are obliged to have destruction facilities and therefore the owner of the destruction facility would be expected to apply for the licence to import ODS for destruction.

(1)  OJ L 244 of 29.9.2000, p. 1, as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2077/2004, OJ L 359 of 4.12.2004, p. 28.

(2)  Controlled substances or mixtures which are imported in a manufactured product (other than a container used for the transport or storage of the substance) are excluded from the scope of this notice.

(3)  For mixtures: only the quantity of the controlled substances in the mixture should be included in the ODP quantity. 1,1,1-trichloroethane is always put on the market with stabilisers. Importers should establish from their supplier what is the percentage of stabiliser to be deducted before calculating the ODP-weighted tonnage.

ANNEX I

Substances covered

Group

Substances

Ozone-depleting Potential (1)

Group I

CFCl3

(CFC 11)

1,0

CF2Cl2

(CFC 12)

1,0

C2F3Cl3

(CFC 113)

0,8

C2F4Cl2

(CFC 114)

1,0

C2F5Cl

(CFC 115)

0,6

Group II

CF3Cl

(CFC 13)

1,0

C2FCl5

(CFC 111)

1,0

C2F2Cl4

(CFC 112)

1,0

C3FCl7

(CFC 211)

1,0

C3F2Cl6

(CFC 212)

1,0

C3F3Cl5

(CFC 213)

1,0

C3F4Cl4

(CFC 214)

1,0

C3F5Cl3

(CFC 215)

1,0

C3F6Cl2

(CFC 216)

1,0

C3F7Cl

(CFC 217)

1,0

Group III

CF2BrCl

(halon 1211)

3,0

CF3Br

(halon 1301)

10,0

C2F4Br2

(halon 2402)

6,0

Group IV

CCl4

(carbon tetrachloride)

1,1

Group V

C2H3Cl3  (2)

(1,1,1-trichloroethane)

0,1

Group VI

CH3Br

(methyl bromide)

0,6

Group VII

CHFBr2

 

1,00

CHF2Br

 

0,74

CH2FBr

 

0,73

C2HFBr4

 

0,8

C2HF2Br3

 

1,8

C2HF3Br2

 

1,6

C2HF4Br

 

1,2

C2H2FBr3

 

1,1

C2H2F2Br2

 

1,5

C2H2F3Br

 

1,6

C2H3FBr2

 

1,7

C2H3F2Br

 

1,1

C2H4FBr

 

0,1

C3HFBr6

 

1,5

C3HF2Br5

 

1,9

C3HF3Br4

 

1,8

C3HF4Br3

 

2,2

C3HF5Br2

 

2,0

C3HF6Br

 

3,3

C3H2FBr5

 

1,9

C3H2F2Br4

 

2,1

C3H2F3Br3

 

5,6

C3H2F4Br2

 

7,5

C3H2F5Br

 

1,4

C3H3FBr4

 

1,9

C3H3F2Br3

 

3,1

C3H3F3Br2

 

2,5

C3H3F4Br

 

4,4

C3H4FBr3

 

0,3

C3H4F2Br2

 

1,0

C3H4F3Br

 

0,8

C3H5FBr2

 

0,4

C3H5F2Br

 

0,8

C3H6FBr

 

0,7

Group VIII

CHFCl2

(HCFC 21) (3)

0,040

CHF2Cl

(HCFC 22) (3)

0,055

CH2FCl

(HCFC 31)

0,020

C2HFCl4

(HCFC 121)

0,040

C2HF2Cl3

(HCFC 122)

0,080

C2HF3Cl2

(HCFC 123)  (3)

0,020

C2HF4Cl

(HCFC 124)  (3)

0,022

C2H2FCl3

(HCFC 131)

0,050

C2H2F2Cl2

(HCFC 132)

0,050

C2H2F3Cl

(HCFC 133)

0,060

C2H3FCl2

(HCFC 141)

0,070

CH3CFCl2

(HCFC 141b)  (3)

0,110

C2H3F2Cl

(HCFC 142)

0,070

CH3CF2Cl

(HCFC 142b) (3)

0,065

C2H4FCl

(HCFC 151)

0,005

C3HFCl6

(HCFC 221)

0,070

C3HF2Cl5

(HCFC 222)

0,090

C3HF3Cl4

(HCFC 223)

0,080

C3HF4Cl3

(HCFC 224)

0,090

C3HF5Cl2

(HCFC 225)

0,070

CF3CF2CHCl2

(HCFC 225ca)  (3)

0,025

CF2ClCF2CHClF

(HCFC 225cb)  (3)

0,033

C3HF6Cl

(HCFC 226)

0,100

C3H2FCl5

(HCFC 231)

0,090

C3H2F2Cl4

(HCFC 232)

0,100

C3H2F3Cl3

(HCFC 233)

0,230

C3H2F4Cl2

(HCFC 234)

0,280

C3H2F5Cl

(HCFC 235)

0,520

C3H3FCl4

(HCFC 241)

0,090

C3H3F2Cl3

(HCFC 242)

0,130

C3H3F3Cl2

(HCFC 243)

0,120

C3H3F4Cl

(HCFC 244)

0,140

C3H4FCl3

(HCFC 251)

0,010

C3H4F2Cl2

(HCFC 252)

0,040

C3H4F3Cl

(HCFC 253)

0,030

C3H5FCl2

(HCFC 261)

0,020

C3H5F2Cl

(HCFC 262)

0,020

C3H6FCl

(HCFC 271)

0,030

Group IX

CH2BrCl

Halon 1011/bromochloromethane

0,120

NEW SUBSTANCES

(1)  These ozone-depleting potentials are estimates based on existing knowledge and will be reviewed and revised periodically in the light of decisions taken by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.

(2)  This formula does not refer to 1,1,2-trichloroethane.

(3)  Identifies the most commercially-viable substance as prescribed in the Protocol.

ANNEX II

BELGIQUE/BELGÏE

Mr Alain Wilmart

Ministère Fédéral des Affaires Sociales de la Santé Publique et de l'Environnement

Place Victor Horta, 40 — Bte 10

B-1060 Bruxelles

ČESKÁ REPUBLIKA

Mr Jakub Achrer

Ministry of the Environment of the Czech Republik

Air Pollution Prevention Department

Vršovická 65

CZ-100 10 Praha 10

DANMARK

Mr Mikkel Aaman Sørensen

Miljøstyrelsen (EPA)

Strandgade 29

DK-1401 København K

DEUTSCHLAND

Mr Rolf Engelhardt

Ministry for Environment

Dept. IG 11 5

P.O. Box 120629

DE-53048 Bonn

EESTI

Ms Valentina Laius

Ministry of the Environment of the Republic of Estonia

Environment Management and Technology Department

Narva mnt 7A

EE-15172 Tallin

ΕΛΛΑΣ

Mrs Elpida Politis

Ministry for the Environment, Physical Planning and Public Works

International Activities and EEC Department

17 Ameliedos Street

EL-115 23 Athens

ESPAŇA

Mr Alberto Moral Gonzalez

Ministerio de Medio Ambiente

Subdirección General de Calidad Ambiental

Pza San Juan de la Cruz s/n

ES-28071 Madrid

FRANCE

Mr Matthieu LASSUS

Ministère de l'Environnement

DRPR/BSPC

20, avenue de Ségur

F-75302 Paris 07 SP

IRELAND

Mr Patrick O'Sullivan

Inspector (Environment)

Dept of Environment Heritage and Local Government

Custom House

Dublin 1

Ireland

ITALIA

Mr Alessandro Giuliano Peru

Dept of Environment and Territory

DG per la ricerca Ambientale e lo Sviluppo

Via Cristoforo Colombo 44

IT-00147 Roma

ΚΥΠΡΟΣ

Dr. Charalambos Hajipakkos

Environment Service

Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environment

CY-Nicosia

LATVIJA

Mr Armands Plate

Ministry of Environment

Environmental Protection Department

Peldu lela 25

LV-1494 — Riga

LIETUVA

Ms Marija Teriosina

Ministry of Environment

Chemicals Management Division

Jaksto str. 4/9

LT-2600 Vilnius

LUXEMBOURG

Mr Pierre Dornseiffer

Administration de l'Environnement

Division Air/Brut

16, rue Eugène Ruppert

L-2453 Luxembourg

MAGYARORSZÁG

Mr Robert Toth

PO Box 351

Ministry of Environment and Water

Department for Air Pollution and Noise Control

HU-1394 Budapest

MALTA

Ms Charmaine Vassallo

Malta Environment and Planning Authority

Environment Protection Directorate

Pollution Control, Wastes and Minerals

C/o Quality Control Laboratory

Industrial Estate Kordin

MT-PAOLA

NEDERLAND

Mr M. Hildebrand

Ministry of Environment

Rijnstraat 8

2500 GX Den Haag

Nederland

ÖSTERREICH

Mr Paul Krajnik

Ministry of the Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management

Chemicals Department

Stubenbastei 5

AT-1010 Wien

POLSKA

Pan Janusz Kozakiewicz

Instytut Chemii Przemysłowej

Biuro Ochrony Warstwy Ozonowej

ul. Rydygiera 8

PL-01-793 Warszawa

PORTUGAL

Dra. Cristina Vaz Nunes

Ministério do Ambiente

Rua da Murgueira 9/9A –Zambujal Ap. 7585

PT-2611-865 Amadora

SLOVENIJA

Ms Irena Malešič

Ministry of the Environment and Spacial Planning

Environmental Agency of the Republic of Slovenia

Vojkova 1b

SL-1000 Ljubljana

SLOVENSKO

Mr Lubomir Ziak

Ministry of the Environment

Air Protection Department

Nam. L. Stura 1

SK-812 35 Bratislava

SUOMI/FINLAND

Mrs Eliisa Irpola

Finnish Environment Institute

Chemicals Division

Mechelininkatu 34a

FIN-00260 Helsinki

SVERIGE

Ms Maria Ujfalusi

Swedish Environmental Protection Agency

Naturvårdsverket

Blekholmsterassen 36

SE-106 48 Stockolm

UNITED KINGDOM

Mr Stephen Reeves

Global Atmosphere Division

UK Dept of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

3rd floor — zone 3/A3

Ashdown House

123 Victoria Street

London SW1E 6DE

United Kingdom

8.7.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/40

Communication from the French Government concerning Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons (1)

(Notice regarding an application for an exclusive licence to prospect for liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons, known as a ‘Permis de Moret-sur-Loing’)

(2005/C 168/08)

(Text with EEA relevance)

By request of 17 January 2005, Géopétrol SA, a company with registered offices at 9, rue Nicolas Copernic BP 20, 93151 (Seine Saint-Denis) Le Blanc-Mesnil Cedex, France, applied for an exclusive licence, for a period of four years, to prospect for liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons known as a ‘Permis de Moret-sur-Loing’, over an area of approximately 200 km2 in the department of Seine et Marne.

The perimeter of the area covered by this licence is made up of the meridian and parallel arcs successively joining the vertices of a polygon defined below by their geographical coordinates, the original meridian being that of Paris:

VERTICES

LONGITUDE

LATITUDE

1

0.30 degrees E

53.80 degrees N

2

0.60 degrees E

53.80 degrees N

3

0.60 degrees E

53.70 degrees N

4

0.30 degrees E

53.70 degrees N

Interested companies may, within ninety days of the publication of this notice, submit a competing application in accordance with the procedure summarised in the ‘Notice regarding the granting of mining rights for hydrocarbons in France’ published in Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 of 30 December 1994, page 11, and established by Decree 95-427 of 19 April 1995 regarding mining rights (Official Journal of the French Republic of 22 April 1995).

Further information can be obtained from the Ministry of Economic Affairs, Finance and Industry (Directorate-General for Energy and Raw Materials, Directorate for Energy and Mineral Resources, Bureau of Mining Legislation), 61, Boulevard Vincent Auriol, Télédoc 133, F-75703 Paris Cedex 13, France, (tel. (33) 44 97 23 02, fax (33) 44 97 05 70).

(1)  OJ L 164, 30.6.1994, p. 3.

8.7.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/41

STATE AID — UNITED KINGDOM

State aid No C 16/2005 (ex N232/2004)

Envisaged sale of the Tote to the Racing Trust

Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty

(2005/C 168/09)

(Text with EEA relevance)

By means of the letter dated 1 June 2005 reproduced in the authentic language on the pages following this summary, the Commission notified the United Kingdom of its decision to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty concerning the abovementioned measure.

Interested parties may submit their comments on the measure in respect of which the Commission is initiating the procedure within one month of the date of publication of this summary and the following letter, to:

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

State-Aid Registry

B-1049 Brussels

Fax (32-2) 296 12 42

These comments will be communicated to the United Kingdom. Confidential treatment of the identity of the interested party submitting the comments may be requested in writing, stating the reasons for the request.

SUMMARY

Procedure

By letter dated 27 May 2004, the UK Government notified the envisaged sale of the Horserace Totalisator Board (‘Tote’) to a consortium of British racing interests (‘Racing’), pursuant to Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty. The notification was on various occasions supplemented, most recently by letter dated 15 March 2005.

Description of the measure

The Tote is entrusted with the provision of so-called pool betting services (subject to a statutory monopoly), but is also active in the so-called fixed odds betting market (in competition with other bookmakers). In the context of a proposal to open the pool betting market to competition, the UK Government intends to abolish the existing statutory monopoly and to privatise the Tote. Given the unusual situation that the Tote is not owned by anyone, the sales process is preceded by a transfer of the Tote's assets to a new entity held by the Government which will afterwards sell the Tote in a closed sales transaction to Racing. The new Tote would, for a transitional period of 7 years, be awarded an exclusive licence for pool betting activities. When acquiring the new Tote, Racing would not pay a price reflecting the market value of the Tote but only 50 % of the so-called ‘fair value’ of the Tote to Racing. This fair value would be established by an independent expert shortly before the sales transaction.

Assessment

Based on the information submitted by the UK Government, the Commission has doubts concerning the compatibility of the envisaged sales transaction.

In line with established Commission practice, the sale of public companies can only be regarded as being free of aid if either the sale is preceded by an open, transparent and unconditional procedure or if the sales price corresponds to or exceeds the market value of the company as established by an independent expert. In the case at issue, the presence of aid cannot be excluded given that Racing is to acquire the Tote at 50 % of the ‘fair value’ instead of paying the full ‘market value’.

The UK Government has maintained that the aid is be compatible under Article 87(3)(c) EC Treaty. The Commission has doubts that the aid is necessary and proportionate. As regards aid in favour of the horseracing sector, the Commission has doubts because the UK Government has not demonstrated which activities needed State support and that the aid channelled into the sector was limited to what was necessary. Furthermore, the aid could also benefit the Tote's betting activities and thus lead to distortions on the betting market. Also in this respect, the Commission has doubts about the compatibility because the UK Government has not shown that the aid was necessary to maintain an adequate level of pool betting activities. The UK Government also maintained that the aid was compatible under Article 87(3)(d) EC Treaty. However, the Commission has doubts that the aid resulting from the envisaged sales transaction could be regarded as a measure promoting culture. The aid is not mainly targeted at a cultural product or project.

Therefore, at the present stage of the procedure the Commission has doubts on the compatibility of the envisaged sales transaction with the EC Treaty. Consequently, the Commission has decided to initiate the formal investigation procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty.

Pursuant to Article 88(3) of the Treaty, the measure may not be put into effect before the Commission has reached a final decision. Furthermore, all unlawful aid can be subject to recovery from the recipient pursuant to Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.

TEXT OF LETTER

‘The Commission wishes to inform the United Kingdom that, having examined the information supplied by your authorities on the measures referred to above, it has decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty.

I.   PROCEDURE

(1)

By letter registered on 27 May 2004, the UK authorities notified the envisaged sale of the Horserace Totalisator Board (the “Tote”) to a consortium of British racing interests (“Racing”), pursuant to Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty. The Commission requested additional information on the notified transaction by letter of 29 June 2004. Following an extension of the deadline, the UK Government submitted additional information by letter registered on 9 September 2004.

(2)

After a meeting between the UK authorities and the Commission took place on 23 September 2004, the UK authorities announced, by letter of 24 September, that they would submit additional information. This information was finally submitted by letter registered on 15 March 2005. By letter dated 13 April 2005, the UK Government agreed to extend the deadline for adopting a decision on the notified transaction.

II.   DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURE

(3)

The UK Government is currently in the process of modernising the British gambling industry. To this end, the UK government has brought forward the Horserace Betting and Olympic Lottery Act, which gained Royal Assent on 28 October 2004. One of the objectives of the overall reform is to open up the pool betting sector to competition. In this context, the UK Government is seeking to transfer ownership of the Tote (a public law betting operator) to the private sector and to abolish the Tote's current monopoly for pool betting on horseracing. The Tote would cease to exist and all assets and liabilities would be vested into a new company limited by shares wholly owned by the UK authorities. In order to ensure a smooth transition to full competition, the current statutory monopoly will be replaced with a 7-year exclusive licence for this successor company (1).

(4)

The UK authorities envisage selling the successor company in a closed sale transaction to the Racing Consortium (“Racing”), which represents the various constituent parts (mainly trade associations) of the horseracing sector. Among the various sales options, the Government rejected the sale by competitive auction, which — while likely to maximise proceeds — would probably lead to a break-up of the Tote's business and might have resulted in a reduction in the Tote's contributions to Racing over time.

(5)

In order to ensure that Racing will pay a fair price, the UK authorities have instructed an independent consultancy to carry out a valuation of the Tote, including the exclusive licence, on the basis of a well established, commonly-used methodology (2). According to the UK authorities, the evaluation as well as the sales transaction itself needed to take into account the various objectives pursued by the Government, namely that the Tote was to be sold as a single entity, that the sale should not impede Tote's commercial development, that the sale should not reduce horsebetting opportunities, that the financial interests of both the taxpayers and Racing were safeguarded and that the sale should reduce uncertainty over Tote's future.

(6)

The thus determined “fair value of the Tote to Racing” was estimated by PriceWaterhouseCoopers (in May 2004) as being between […] (3) and […] (or including an increase due to possible synergies: […]). The UK authorities recognised that the market value of the Tote which could be achieved in an open tender would probably be 10-30 % higher (i.e. in the range between […] and […] million, based on a calculation in May 2004). However, there are indications that the market is willing to pay substantially more (i.e. around GBP 500 million).

(7)

For reasons explained in more detail below (cf. para. 21 and 22), the Government plans to sell the Tote to Racing at 50 % of the “fair value” as established by the independent expert in the course of a final valuation nearer the time of the sale. In this context, the UK Government also explained that Racing would not and could not pay the full market value.

III.   BACKGROUND INFORMATION

A.   Parties involved in the envisaged transaction

1.   The Tote

(8)

The Tote (Horserace Totalisator Board) was established in 1928 as a statutory corporation with no equity shares (i.e. no owner). Since its inception, the Tote enjoys a legal monopoly for pool betting on horseracing. The purpose of this was to provide punters with an alternative to fixed odds betting and to secure a stable source of income for the British horseracing industry. According to the UK, the Tote was, ever since its establishment, effectively run in the interests of the racing sector. The profits generated by the Tote would not be paid to the Government as dividends but would either remain within the corporation or be distributed on a voluntary basis to the horseracing sector (for instance, in the form of direct payments to racecourses and through a commercial sponsorship programme). Furthermore, the Tote pays, as all other bookmakers, the so-called Horseracing Betting Levy, plus additional contributions as agreed with the Horseracing Levy Board (4).

(9)

In 1961, betting away from racecourses became legalised and licensed betting shops opened throughout the UK. From 1972, the Tote was also allowed to offer fixed-odds bets on horseracing and other sporting events.

(10)

Following a recent re-branding, the Tote is operating two divisions: “Totesport” and “Totepool”. Totesport represents the Tote's retail, phone and internet businesses. As part of its retail business, the Tote owns 78 betting shops at 47 racecourses and over 450 licensed betting shops in the UK. Totepool comprises the Tote's pool betting business and the retailing of pool betting products on British racecourses (5).

(11)

The Tote generated a turnover (all figures for the year to 31 March 2004) of GBP 1,471 million, a profit before taxation of GBP 11,7 and contributions to Racing of GBP 11,5 million. Pool betting on horseracing, for which the Tote still holds a legal monopoly, accounted in that same period for a turnover of GBP 269 million, approximately 18 % of the total turnover (6).

2.   The Racing consortium

(12)

The UK authorities envisage selling the Tote to the Racing consortium (or Racing Trust) which comprises representatives of the racing sector. The Racing consortium includes the Racecourse Association (an association of owners and organisers of racecourses that markets the supply of TV pictures and rights), the Racehorse Owners Association (a private company having as its principal activity the promotion and protection of interests of racehorse owners), the Jockey Club (responsible for the governance and regulation of horseracing), the Industry Committee for horseracing (an umbrella organisation comprising representatives from trade bodies for jockeys, trainers, stable lads, bloodstock agents and others) and the British Horseracing Board (BHB). The BHB's main responsibilities include: strategic planning of, and formulating policy for, British horseracing; encouraging the breeding of bloodstock; central marketing and promotion of British racing; controlling the fixture list and race planning. Some of the members of the Racing consortium are represented on the Board of the Tote.

B.   Markets concerned by the envisaged transaction

1.   Betting market

(13)

Horserace betting is available in most Member States and generally operated by state sponsored or state run exclusive pool betting operators similar to the Tote. In many countries, these systems exist to provide financial support to the horseracing sectors of the respective Member States.

(14)

Horserace betting in the UK can take two distinct forms: pool betting and bookmaking (fixed odds betting). In pool betting, all the stakes on a race are pooled and a deduction is made to cover costs and to allow for a reasonable profit for the betting organiser with nobody knowing the precise return for a given ticket until after the race. The remainder of the pool is then equally divided among the winning tickets. Hence, pool customers bet against each other whereas in fixed-odds betting, customers bet against the bookmaker on the basis of fixed odds set by the betting operator. Whereas pool betting in the UK is at present subject to a statutory monopoly, fixed odds betting is an activity in a fully competitive environment.

(15)

Bookmakers operate at horse racecourses, through licensed betting offices, over the telephone and through the Internet. Five companies account for around two thirds of betting turnover — Ladbrokes (26 % of off-course turnover), William Hill (22 %), Coral (12 %), Stanley Racing (6 %) and the Tote (2 %). A number of companies, known as betting exchanges, also offer services over the Internet where consumers can accept and offer bets on horseracing. The largest of these companies is “Betfair” (7).

2.   The racing sector

(16)

The racing sector comprises various commercial activities and markets like the organisation of racecourses, an important spectator sport in the UK with more than five million people attending races every year. There are 59 horse racecourses in Great Britain where the British Horseracing Board runs races. Half of these race courses are managed by three large groups: Northern Racing Ltd, Arena Leisure Plc and The Jockey Club (through their subsidiary, the Racecourse Holdings Trust). The remaining courses are owned independently (8).

(17)

Another important activity of the racing sector is horsebreeding. There are several thousands thoroughbred breeders in the UK, though only a fraction of these, about 350, are engaged full time. The principal firms involved in the sale of horses at auction are Tattersalls and Doncaster Bloodstock Sales, which together accounted for over 95 % of the market in 1999 (9).

(18)

Further commercial activities in the racing sector consist of the supply of TV pictures/TV rights, horseracing being an important televised sport in the UK. The racing sector also supplies pre-race data which include data for each race, names of riders and horses running in specific races. Bookmakers need this data to take bets on races and broadcasters use it to prepare their horseracing programmes. All players which are part of the Racing consortium are important constituents of the racing sector.

(19)

The Racing sector receives financial support through the Horserace Betting Levy Board (“Levy Board”). The Levy Board has the responsibility of collecting the betting levy from bookmakers and Tote and to apply the funds to the improvement of horseracing, improvement of breeds of horses as well as the advancement of veterinary science or veterinary education. In the context of the current reform plans, the levy system would be abolished and replaced by income from commercial sources (10). In addition, the racing sector benefited from voluntary contributions made by the Tote, in particular in the form of sponsorships.

IV.   OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE UK GOVERNMENT AS WELL AS THIRD PARTIES

A.   Arguments brought forward by the UK Government maintaining that the envisaged sales transaction should be deemed compatible with the EC Treaty

1.   The envisaged sales transaction does not involve State aid to Racing

(20)

The UK authorities are of the opinion that the envisaged sales transaction does not involve State aid, and, as a subsidiary line of argument, even if there was aid, the aid should be deemed compatible.

(21)

In the notification of May 2004, the UK authorities argued that the closed sale to Racing for a monetary consideration representing 50 % of the Tote's “fair value to Racing” reflected the government's recognition of the racing industry's stake in the Tote (11). Such a split would also avoid potential subsequent litigation if the Tote were not sold to Racing.

(22)

In its latest submission of March 2005, however, the UK Government clarified that, in its view, Racing was unlikely to sustain a successful proprietary claim in the Tote in private or public law. However, the UK Government maintains that — even in the absence of a legally enforceable claim — the racing industry had a legitimate interest in the Tote. In the absence of any other logic, it was only equitable to settle that interest by a “50:50 split”.

(23)

As regards the envisaged payment by Racing of a consideration taking into account “the fair value of the Tote to Racing” instead of the market value, the UK Government argues that this was justified because Racing did not benefit from synergies with betting activities, since it was not yet active in the betting market. Other potential buyers (bookmakers, alone or with financial investors) with purely commercial considerations would be able to reap these synergies.

(24)

Finally, the UK Government argued that the Government would retain certain claw back rights under the terms of the envisaged sale agreement. If Racing were to sell its share in the successor company or if the successor company were to sell its assets or any significant proportion of them to a third party within a specified period, it would have to pay back to the Government a percentage of any profits the Government would have made from such a sale had the Government not sold its stake (12).

2.   Even if the envisaged sales transaction involved aid, this aid should be regarded as compatible with the EC Treaty either under Article 87(3)(c) or Article 87(3)(d) of the EC Treaty

(25)

With regard to Article 87(3)(c) EC Treaty, the UK Government stressed that the envisaged sales transaction was in the Community interest because it was part of the Government's plans to open up the pool betting sector to competition and to reduce the level of State involvement in the industry. Selling the Tote to Racing would also preserve the Tote as an independent player in the UK betting industry which is dominated by three mayor players.

(26)

Furthermore, the closed sale of the Tote to Racing facilitated the development of certain economic activities such as horseracing and pool betting because it ensured the self-financing of the horseracing sector and helped to preserve and develop pool betting.

(27)

The UK Government argued that the closed sale would adequately address market failures arising in the horseracing sector: The racing sector generates positive externalities for the betting industry which base some of their activities on horseracing. On the other hand, the racing industry is not able to reap the full benefits of these externalities. The financing of the racing sector by means of charging bookmakers for the value of the horseracing products through a mandatory betting levy or other revenues generated through the commercial exploitation of the racing product (e.g. sale of TV pictures) have been insufficient and/or fraught with uncertainties. In the absence of sufficient financial funds channelled from e.g. the betting industry back into racing, an economically inefficient level of activity in the racing sector would take place. It was also argued that market forces alone did not ensure a fair distribution of revenues between all stakeholders of the racing sector (race course owners, horse breeders, etc.).

(28)

If Racing were the owner of the Tote, it could directly exploit some of the positive externalities which the horseracing product provides for the betting industry. This would — according to the UK authorities — be an efficient way to address the identified market failure. The income from the Tote would be used for the development of the whole horseracing sector.

(29)

As regards the development of pool betting, the UK Government claims that the universal coverage and development of pool betting across Britain at the end of the seven year transitional period (after the exclusive licence has come to an end) could only be assured if the Tote is owned by Racing rather than by a commercial bookmaker.

(30)

In addition, the UK Government maintains that the closed sale did not affect trading conditions and competition in the Community to an extent that was contrary to the common interest. There were almost no negative effects on competition and effects on Intra-Community trade were negligible. This was in particular due to the fact that the Tote held only a very small share of the overall betting market in the UK.

(31)

Finally, the UK Government argued that the closed sale was also compatible with the EC Treaty pursuant to Article 87(3)(d) EC Treaty, because the measure promoted culture and heritage conservation, while not adversely affecting trading conditions and competition in the Community. The UK Government argues that horseracing forms an important part of British culture, being a major national sport deeply entrenched in British society and with an important influence on English language and art.

3.   The exclusive licence for pool betting

(32)

Concerning the award of the exclusive licence for pool betting to the successor company of the Tote, the UK authorities explained that the licence was only a technical means to phase out the monopoly over a temporary period of seven years. The UK authorities underline that the licence is not a contract but rather a regulatory act whereby a prohibition on the provision of certain services is relaxed in a limited period of transition from a monopoly to an open market for those services. Furthermore, the licence lacks certain remedies which are typical for a contract. Notably, if the licence holder fails to carry out the activities covered by the licence, the grantor has no remedy of specific performance or damage: it can only revoke the licence. Consequently, the UK authorities do not consider this licence to be a service concession within the meaning of Directive 2004/18/EC (13) and of the Commission's interpretative communication on concessions under Community law (14). Therefore, a closed sale of the Tote to Racing, including the exclusive licence on pool betting was justified.

B.   Arguments brought forward by third parties alleging that the envisaged sales transaction could not be regarded as compatible with the EC Treaty

(33)

Subsequent to the notification of the envisaged sale of the Tote, the Commission received comments from several third parties. These parties claim that the envisaged closed sale at 50 % of the so-called “fair value”, including the award of an exclusive pool betting licence for a period of 7 years, was incompatible with Community law.

(34)

It is claimed that the envisaged sales transaction would enable Racing to acquire a pool betting and fixed-odds betting business with a recognised and unique brand without paying a market price. Competitors or other new entrants looking to establish a similar fixed-odds business would need to incur much higher cost. Furthermore, since the transaction was comparable to a “leveraged buyout”, Racing would not have to pay for the Tote but the price for the transaction would be effectively financed through the Tote itself. Since the debt level of the Tote would be lower than if the Racing Trust had to pay the true market value, it would enjoy greater facility to borrow from capital markets for upcoming investment programmes, competing directly with the established bookmakers. Hence, the transaction granted a considerable financial advantage to Racing. With reference to estimates made by investment banks in London, it is claimed that the value of the Tote would be at least GBP 500 million.

(35)

Moreover, some parties assert that various conflicts of interest could arise if the Racing Trust would gain ownership of the Tote as Racing provides various inputs to bookmakers with which they, as owners of the Tote, would compete downstream in the betting market.

(36)

The aid resulting from this transaction could not be declared compatible under Article 87(3)(c) EC Treaty because it was doubtful whether the racing industry actually needed State support in addition to the existing means and revenues generated by normal commercial activities of this sector. Moreover, the adverse effects on competition — in particular as regards fixed odds betting — would be severe and disproportionate.

V.   PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT

A.   State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC Treaty

(37)

According to the EC Treaty and consolidated case-law there is State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) when:

—

there is an intervention by the State or through State resources;

—

it confers an advantage on the recipient;

—

it distorts or threatens to distort competition;

—

the intervention is liable to affect trade between Member States;

State resources

(38)

Pursuant to the Horserace Betting and Olympic Lottery Act 2004 assets of the Tote shall be transferred to the successor company, which is wholly owned by the UK Government. Consequently, when selling the newly established Tote to Racing, the Government disposes of public property. By selling the Tote below market value, the UK Government foregoes revenues resulting from the sale of public property, which involves State resources within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC.

Advantage

(39)

In accordance with established practice, the Commission considers that the privatisation of a publicly-owned company does not involve a financial advantage to the acquirer within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC provided that:

—

the company is sold by a competitive tender or an equivalent procedure, that is open, transparent and unconditional;

—

the company is sold to the highest bidder;

—

bidders have enough time and information to carry out a proper valuation of the assets on which to base their bids (15).

(40)

If, on the other hand, there is no public tender the transaction needs to be examined for possible State aid implications. The Commission has to ascertain that the company is sold at a price corresponding to its actual market value. The determination of the market price may rely on studies carried out by independent experts. Provided that the potential sales price was actually fixed at or above the market value established by the expert, it can be assumed that the State behaved like a private investor operating under normal market economy conditions, trying to obtain a maximum return from the sale without pursuing other policy objectives, including possible support measures. Under such circumstances, the notified measure can be assumed not to include State aid elements.

(41)

Based on the information submitted by the UK authorities, the Commission has serious doubts that the transaction can be regarded as being free of aid because, instead of paying the market price, Racing is supposed to pay only 50 % of what is called a “fair value” of the Tote as estimated by PwC.

(42)

In principle, only an independent evaluation of the “market value” may replace the tender as a means of determining the “market price”, with the consequence that “no aid” is being given. However, the estimation of the value of the Tote is lowered by the fact that PwC takes into account that the Tote is to be sold to a specific buyer (16). The UK authorities admit that the sale of the Tote through an auction would probably yield higher revenues for the seller.

(43)

The reasons for a closed sale to Racing were concerns about the Tote's future (in case of a sale of different business segments) as well as concerns about a possible reduction of the Tote's contributions to racing over time (if sold to another commercial bookmaker). In the preliminary view of the Commission, these are policy considerations and not those of a private investor aiming at maximising his revenues.

(44)

The UK Government argued that the envisaged “clawback”-clause (17) would eliminate any undue financial advantage to Racing in case of a re-sale of the acquired assets. The Commission does not share this view. First of all, the “clawback”-clause is limited in time (“within a specified period”) and in scope (sale of the company or “any significant proportion” of company's assets). Furthermore, it would only apply in the case of a re-sale thus not eliminating the advantage resulting from the ownership of the Tote (i.e. it would only limit the possibilities of Racing cashing in the advantage) (18). The fact that Racing had also benefited from financial flows from the Tote prior to the sales transaction, and will continue to benefit from such flows after the transaction as the new owner of the Tote does not exclude the presence of (new) aid. The legal position of Racing as the new owner of the Tote is more advantageous than its previous position (e.g. it has the legally recognised ownership of the Tote and enjoys more commercial freedom as regards its business activities).

(45)

The Commission is therefore of the preliminary view that the envisaged sale of the Tote to Racing at a “fair value” instead of the market value gives Racing a financial advantage.

(46)

Furthermore, the Commission considers that the payment of only 50 % of the “fair value” constitutes an additional advantage to Racing.

(47)

There may be circumstances in which a reduction of the sales price could be regarded as not constituting aid, e.g. conceivably where it were demonstrated that the reduction in the sales price merely reflects the recognition of Racing's stake (ownership) in the existing Tote or where it is demonstrated that the reduction is in fact a compensation for losses suffered by Racing due to expropriation or similar action as a consequence of the transfer of the Tote to State ownership (19). It may also be in line with the behaviour of a private investor to come to an equitable agreement in order to avoid costs and uncertainties linked to possible litigation. That would be the case where the existence of the respective claims has in principle been demonstrated and quantified and where a proper risk analysis has been carried out by the State authorities leading to the conclusion that such an agreement is in the State's interest (20). In any case, the sales price could only be reduced by an amount which corresponds to (or is less than) the value of the legal claim.

(48)

However, the Commission is of the preliminary view that the UK authorities have not demonstrated any such circumstances.

(49)

The UK authorities have not demonstrated that Racing had a legal claim regarding the Tote. In the absence of a legal obligation on the UK Government vis-à-vis Racing, the conditions of the transaction cannot be regarded as being free of aid. The Commission does not share the UK Government's argumentation that also in the absence of a legally enforceable claim a recognition of what is called a “legitimate interest” of Racing in Tote could be regarded as justified and thus not involving State aid. This legitimate interest (i.e. the interest to continue receiving financial flows from the Tote) has neither been demonstrated nor quantified. Even if there was such a legitimate interest of Racing to continue to receive funding, the fact that the UK Government honours that interest does not exclude the presence of aid, rather the contrary.

(50)

Furthermore, the UK Government explicitly stated that the transfer of the Tote into State ownership was not a nationalisation infringing property rights of Racing. Consequently, the 50 % reduction of the sales price cannot be regarded as a compensation for an expropriation or similar action by the State.

(51)

Finally, the Commission considers that, in the absence of a legally recognised and enforceable claim by Racing, the Government was not exposed to any financial risks concerning the sale of the Tote to a party other than Racing. Therefore, the 50 %-arrangement cannot be regarded as being in the State's interest.

(52)

In light of these considerations, the Commission comes to the preliminary conclusion that the envisaged payment by Racing, that is limited to 50 % of the “fair value”, constitutes an advantage to racing.

(53)

In summary, based on the currently available figures it is difficult to establish the exact amount of aid resulting from the envisaged closed sale of the Tote to Racing. Based on the fair value estimated by PwC, within a range between […] and […], and the 50 % reduction, Racing would be obliged to pay a price amounting to approximately between […] and […]. When comparing this with the market value of around GBP 500 million estimated by some market players, the envisaged sale would provide Racing with an advantage of at least […].

Distortion of competition and effect on trade

(54)

Finally, the Commission considers that this financial advantage to Racing and the Tote may distort competition and affect trade on the respective markets (horseracing and betting).

(55)

In line with the Commission's assessment in previous decisions, the Commission considers that the betting market is a European market (21). The competitors of the Tote (the three main players in the UK Ladbrokes, William Hill and Coral) are established in several Member States and betting operators accept bets on foreign races (and other sporting events). The effects on trade are also evidenced by the fact that the Tote offers its betting services also over the Internet, which is easily accessible from other Member States. Furthermore, competition and trade in the racing market and the betting market takes place notably through the exchange of television pictures including foreign operators.

(56)

As regards the horseracing industry, there are many activities with an international dimension, for example the organisation of horse racecourses (in particular of international reputation), horse breeding or the marketing of television rights. Any aid granted to horseracing by the envisaged transaction therefore can have an effect on trade.

(57)

The fact that the Tote holds a small market share on the UK betting market does not exclude effects on competition and trade. In particular given the increased commercial freedom enjoyed by the new Tote, it can be expected that the Tote will expand its competitive activities.

(58)

Horseracing products are important input factors for the betting market. The constituents of the Racing consortium are very strong players in the racing market. The fact that they also — moreover jointly — become active in the downstream market of betting services, competing directly with other betting operators (for which they provide important inputs such as pre-race data and have access to commercially sensitive about these betting operators), may lead to additional distortions of competition.

B.   Compatibility under Article 87(3) EC Treaty

1.   Compatibility assessment under Article 87(3)(c) EC Treaty

(59)

Pursuant to Article 87(3)(c) of the EC Treaty, aid to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas may be considered to be compatible with the common market, where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest.

(60)

In applying this Treaty provision, the Commission needs to ascertain that the proposed aid contributes to the achievement of Community objectives and is necessary and proportionate to attain those objectives.

Does the proposed aid contribute to the achievement of Community objectives?

(61)

The UK Government referred to some of the underlying objectives of the proposed sales transaction, namely the withdrawal of government intervention in the governance of the Tote and the gradual opening of the pool betting market to competition, while ensuring an adequate support for racing as being in the Community interest.

(62)

The liberalisation of markets in general and the establishment of a level playing field between various operators may have positive effects for competition within the European Union. However, the UK Government has, in any event, not demonstrated that the aid granted to Racing is necessary for the attainment of these objectives and proportionate. It has neither been demonstrated that the smooth transition from a statutory monopoly situation to full competition could not be achieved by requesting Racing to pay the full market price, nor has it been demonstrated that the aid resulting from the sales transaction actually leads to a long-term decrease of State support for the racing industry. Furthermore, there are no safeguards against Racing and the Tote using funds received through the envisaged transaction to distort competition in the betting market. Finally, as regards the use of funds for the benefit of the racing sector it has not been demonstrated to what extent such funds are limited to what is necessary and proportionate (for a detailed assessment of the necessity and proportionality of the aid measure, see below).

Is the proposed aid necessary to attain these objectives?

(63)

Based on the explanations provided by the UK Government, the Commission assessed the necessity of the envisaged aid both as regards the racing industry and the betting industry.

(64)

As regards the alleged necessity of the proposed aid measure for the horseracing industry, the Commission is not convinced that there is a market failure as maintained by the UK Government. In particular, it has not been shown that the alleged positive externalities stemming from the provision of horseracing are not adequately remunerated by the betting industry through levies and other means. Furthermore, the UK Government has not shown which activities within the horseracing industry actually need additional support. It has also not explained in the necessary detail how the revenues stemming from the Tote would be distributed to the various components of the horseracing industry, let alone the specific purposes for which the revenues would be used. The general reference to improvements of racecourses, horse breeding, etc. cannot be regarded as sufficient, without there being detailed rules and conditions according to which revenues would be allocated. Therefore, the Commission does not share the UK Government's argument that the aid in question would ensure a fair distribution of financing between the different stakeholders of the racing sector.

(65)

It appears that in particular the responsibilities of the British Horseracing Board comprise support measures for racing, including e.g. general marketing, breeding of bloodstock, training and education. Aid channelled into these activities could be regarded as compatible provided that the support granted is in compliance with the respective Community guidelines (22). However, the Commission observes that the UK Government has not shown that any such funds would be granted in compliance with the respective Community rules. Therefore, the Commission has, based on the currently available information, doubts about the compatibility of any such aid for these activities.

(66)

To the extent that the aid may be used to the benefit of commercial activities carried out by the constituent parts of Racing, including the organisation of racecourses, breeding, supply of TV pictures and rights and supply of pre-race data, the Commission has doubts about the compatibility of such aid, since the UK Government has not demonstrated that additional financial support for these activities is necessary.

(67)

As regards the pool betting sector, the Commission is not convinced that the proposed aid is necessary. The UK Government has not demonstrated that only the Tote if owned by Racing would be a reliable provider of — what the Government considers as — adequate pool betting services. Neither has it been shown that commercial bookmakers would limit their offerings of pool betting services and that a reduction of the scope of pool betting services could not be overcome by other — in particular regulatory — means. Furthermore, and even assuming that only the Tote if owned by Racing would guarantee the maintenance of adequate pool betting activities, the UK Government has not demonstrated that the envisaged aid would be necessary to compensate the Tote/Racing for this. The above considerations are certainly valid for the duration of the exclusive licence. In respect of the time after the transitional period of seven years, it has to be borne in mind that pool betting will be organised in a different way and not necessarily by the Tote (alone). Therefore, after the seven year transitional period and the expiry of the exclusive license, the aid granted to Racing cannot now be considered to have any incentive effect. Finally, the UK Government has not substantiated that the preservation of the Tote as an independent market player could only be achieved by means of selling the Tote to Racing below market value.

Is the proposed aid proportionate?

(68)

Since the Tote will be sold to Racing, the direct beneficiary of the aid is Racing as the new owner of the Tote. However, the assessment of the proportionality of the aid is not limited to the markets on which the constituent parts of Racing are present (racing sector) but extends to the betting market on which the newly acquired Tote is present.

(69)

There is no certainty that the profits generated by the Tote would be channelled in their entirety into the racing sector. Part of these profits might remain within the company. With increased commercial freedom, such retentions for reinvestment (in fixed odds betting activities competing with other bookmakers) may even increase. With the acquisition of the Tote below its market value, Racing as the new owner may distort competition on this highly competitive market for fixed odds betting. It also receives a competitive advantage as regards pool betting allowing it to be better prepared for the full market opening in pool betting services at the end of the exclusive licence. Under these circumstances, the Commission considers that aid benefiting the betting activities of the Tote cannot be regarded as compatible.

2.   Compatibility assessment under Article 87(3)(d) EC Treaty

(70)

It is recalled that the Treaty of Maastricht introduced an article which defines the role of the Community in the field of culture (Article 151) and a possible compatibility clause for State aid aimed at promoting culture (Article 87(3)(d)).

(71)

In accordance with Article 151(4) of the Treaty, the Community is to take cultural aspects into account in its action under other provisions of the Treaty, in particular in order to respect and to promote the diversity of its cultures.

(72)

Pursuant to Article 87(3)(d) EC Treaty, aid to promote culture and heritage conservation may be considered to be compatible with the common market, where such aid does not affect trading conditions and competition in the Community to an extent that is contrary to the common interest.

(73)

It should be recalled that this exemption needs to be interpreted in a restrictive manner (23).

(74)

The Commission has doubts that the proposed aid resulting from the closed sale of the Tote to Racing can be regarded as justified under Article 87(3)(d) EC Treaty as a measure promoting culture. This measure would not seem to be mainly targeted at a cultural product or project and the award of the proposed aid does not seem to be linked to the alleged cultural value of horseracing. Any funds generated by the measure which would be allocated to the horseracing industry would not primarily benefit activities which could be regarded as related to culture and/or heritage conservation.

VI.   CONCLUSIONS

In the light of the foregoing considerations, the Commission has doubts about the compatibility of the proposed closed sale of the Tote to Racing. Based on the information submitted by the UK authorities and other interested parties in the course of the preliminary investigation, the Commission has come to the preliminary conclusion that the proposed transaction contains aid. Furthermore, the Commission has doubts that the proposed aid can be declared compatible under Article 87(3)(c) or (d) of the EC Treaty.

Consequently, the Commission, acting under the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty, requests that the United Kingdom submit its comments and to provide all such information as may help to assess the measure, within one month of the date of receipt of this letter. It also requests that the UK authorities forward a copy of this letter to the potential recipient(s) of the aid immediately.

The Commission wishes to remind the United Kingdom that Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty has suspensory effect. It would also like to draw the United Kingdom's attention to Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, which provides that, where negative decisions are taken in cases of unlawful aid, the Commission shall decide that the Member State concerned shall take all the necessary measures to recover the aid from the beneficiary, unless this would be contrary to a general principle of Community law.

The Commission wishes to remind the United Kingdom that it will inform interested parties by publishing this letter and a meaningful summary of it in the Official Journal of the European Union. It will also inform interested parties in the EFTA countries which are signatories to the EEA Agreement, by publication of a notice in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union and will inform the EFTA Surveillance Authority by sending a copy of this letter. All such interested parties will be invited to submit their comments within one month of the date of such publication.’

(1)  The proposed exclusive licence would be different from the present statutory monopoly in so far as the licence contains certain obligations imposed on the licence holder which do not exist at present (e.g. regarding the scope of pool betting activities and relationship to other operators).

(2)  PwC performed a discounted cash flow valuation for the first ‘indicative valuation of the Tote’. In a final evaluation, the results would be crosschecked against other valuation techniques.

(3)  Covered by the obligation of professional secrecy.

(4)  Bookmakers have to pay a percentage of their profits to the Horseracing Levy Board to finance the racing industry. The Tote's payment in respect of fixed odds betting are similar to other bookmakers whereas the payments for its pool betting operations are settled between the Tote and the Horseracing Levy Board.

(5)  Source: Tote Annual report 2004.

(6)  Op. cit.

(7)  Source: ‘Horserace Betting and Olympic Lottery Bill — Regulatory Impact Assessment’, prepared by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, December 2003, p. 6. These figures are based on 1997 data and the Tote's market share as of today is higher (around 5 %).

(8)  Source: Op. cit., p. 5.

(9)  Source: Op. cit., p. 6.

(10)  However, these plans have been postponed at least until 2009, apparently because of difficulties in finding viable solutions for replacing the levy income with commercial revenues.

(11)  As explained above (cf. para. 8), the UK Government maintained that the Tote was, ever since its establishment, run in the interests of Racing.

(12)  The circumstances in which the clawback clause could be triggered would still need to be negotiated with Racing.

(13)  OJ 2004, L 134/114.

(14)  OJ 2000, C 121/2.

(15)  XXIII report on competition policy (1993), point 402 and further.

(16)  In the introduction to the interim report, PwC states that they were asked to ‘…calculate an updated indicative valuation range of 100 % of the equity of the Tote, which reflects the value of the Tote to Racing.’

(17)  According to that clause, the Government would get a certain percentage of the profits generated by any future sale of the Tote or a significant proportion of its assets.

(18)  For similar reasoning, cf. Commission's decision of 20 January 1999 on the acquisition of land under the German Indemnification and Compensation Act, OJ L 107/21, 24.4.1999.

(19)  Cf. Commission's decision of 20 January 1999 on the acquisition of land under the German Indemnification and Compensation Act, OJ L 107/21, 24.4.1999.

(20)  Cf. Commission's decision of 13 March 2000 regarding the settlement agreement Leuna 2000/Elf/Mider (State aid N 94/98 — Germany).

(21)  In the Commission decision regarding PMU, the Commission considered the betting market to be a European market. The decision points out that ‘While horse-races are organised and run on national racecourses, betting on such races is organised internationally’. The Commission also stated that there was ‘…some competition in the Community market in [the betting] sector, and it can reasonably be stated that there is trade between Member States in the taking of bets, notably through the exchange of television pictures’. See Commission Decision of 22 September 1993 concerning aid granted by the French Government to the Pari mutuel urbain (PMU) and to the racecourse undertakings, published in the OJ L 300, 7.12.1993, pp. 15.

(22)  See e.g. the Commission's decision regarding the Irish ‘Thoroughbred Foal Levy’ (State aid NN 118/02), where the Commission declared an aid scheme pursuing the objective of providing technical assistance to breeders, breeding stock and their foals, market development and promotion of sales of bloodstock as being compatible with the EC Treaty.

(23)  See for example in para. 26 of the Commission's communication on State aid in the field of public service broadcasting, where it is stated: ‘It should be recalled that the provisions granting exemption from the prohibition of State aid have to be applied strictly. Therefore, the notion of “culture” within the meaning of Article 87(3)(d) must be interpreted restrictively.’

8.7.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/50

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.3873 — DAIG/Viterra)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(2005/C 168/10)

(Text with EEA relevance)

1.

On 29 June 2005, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the Deutsche Annington Immobilien GmbH (‘DAIG’, Germany) belonging to the group Terra Firma acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation control of the whole of Viterra Gruppe (‘Viterra’, Germany) by way of purchase of shares.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—

for Terra Firma: Private Equity Investor,

—

for DAIG: real estate sales and rental,

—

for Viterra: real estate sales, rental and development.

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

4.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (No (32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.3873 — DAIG/Viterra, to the following address:

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition,

Merger Registry

J-70

B-1049 Brussels

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

(2)  OJ C 56, 5.3.2005, p. 32.

8.7.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/51

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3751 — Novartis/Hexal)

(2005/C 168/11)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 27 May 2005, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3751. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

8.7.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/51

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3843 — Macquairie/CDPQ/Yellow Brick Road)

(2005/C 168/12)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 1 July 2005, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3843. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

8.7.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/52

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3816 — Apax/Mölnlycke)

(2005/C 168/13)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 15 June 2005, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3816. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

8.7.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/53

COMMISSION OPINION

of 1 July 2005

concerning the plan for the disposal of radioactive waste resulting from modifications of Building 131X (Pamela) at Site-1 of Belgoprocess plc in Belgium, in accordance with Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty

(2005/C 168/14)

(Only the Dutch text is authentic)

On 6 December 2004, the European Commission received from the Belgian Government, in accordance with Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty, General Data relating to the plan for the disposal of radioactive waste resulting from modifications of Building 131X (Pamela) at Site-1 of Belgoprocess plc.

On the basis of these data and following consultation with the group of experts, the Commission has drawn up the following opinion:

1.

The planned modifications relate to Building 131X in which the Pamela installation will be converted into a multi-functional processing and conditioning unit for intermediate and high level radioactive waste containing alpha radioactivity. The modified Pamela building will only entail gaseous effluents which are channelled to the Main Stack-120X. For the discharges originating from the Pamela building specific discharge limits are envisaged. However, existing regulatory limits for the Main Stack-120X releases will not be changed.

2.

The distance between the Building 131X and the nearest neighbour Member State, in this case the Netherlands, is 11 km.

3.

During normal operation, discharges of gaseous effluent from Building 131X will not cause an exposure of the population in other Member States that is significant from the point of view of health.

4.

Liquid and solid radioactive waste resulting from the operation of the Pamela Installation will be treated, conditioned and stored on-site.

5.

In the event of unplanned discharges of radioactive waste, which may follow an accident of the type and magnitude considered in the General Data, the doses likely to be received by the population in other Member States would not be significant from the point of view of health.

In conclusion, the Commission is of the opinion that the implementation of the plan for the disposal of radioactive waste in whatever form resulting from modifications of Building 131X (Pamela) at Site-1 of Belgoprocess plc in Belgium, both in normal operation and in the event of an accident of the type and magnitude considered in the General Data, is not liable to result in the radioactive contamination, significant from the point of view of health, of the water, soil or airspace of another Member State.

III Notices

Commission

8.7.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/54

Calls for proposals for indirect RTD actions under the specific programme for research, technological development and demonstration: ‘Integrating and strengthening the European Research Area’

Thematic priority area ‘Life sciences, genomics and biotechnology for health’

Call identifiers: FP6-2005-LIFESCIHEALTH-6, FP6-2005-LIFESCIHEALTH-7

(2005/C 168/15)

1.

In accordance with Decision No 1513/2002/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 27 June 2002, concerning the sixth framework programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities contributing to the creation of the European Research Area and to innovation (2002 to 2006) (1), the Council adopted on 30 September 2002 the specific programme for research, technological development and demonstration: ‘Integrating and strengthening the European Research Area’ (2002-2006) (2) (referred to as ‘the specific programme’).

In accordance with Article 5(1) of the specific programme, the Commission of the European Communities (referred to as ‘the Commission’) has adopted on 9 December 2002 a work programme (3) (referred to as ‘the work programme’) setting out in greater detail the objectives and scientific and technological priorities of the specific programme, and the timetable for implementation.

In accordance with Article 9(1) of the Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 16 December 2002, concerning the rules for the participation of undertakings, research centres and universities in, and for the dissemination of research results for, the implementation of the European Community Sixth Framework Programme (2002 to 2006) (4) (referred to as ‘the rules for participation’), proposals for indirect RTD actions should be submitted under the terms of calls for proposals.

2.

The present calls for proposals for indirect RTD actions (referred to as ‘the calls’) comprises the present general part and the specific conditions that are described in the annexes. The annexes indicate in particular, the dates of closure for the submission of proposals for indirect RTD actions, an indicative date for the completion of the evaluations, the indicative budget, the instruments and the areas concerned, the evaluation criteria for the evaluation of proposals for indirect RTD actions, the minimum number of participants, and any applicable restrictions.

3.

Natural or legal persons fulfilling the conditions stated in the rules for participation and that do not fall under any of the exclusion cases in the rules for participation or in Article 114(2) of the Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (5) (referred to as ‘the proposers’) are invited to submit to the Commission proposals for indirect RTD actions subject to the conditions in the rules for participation and in the call concerned being fulfilled.

The conditions of participation of the proposers will be verified within the framework of the negotiation of the indirect RTD action. Before that however, proposers will have signed a declaration stating that they do not fall under any of the cases given by Article 93(1) of the Financial Regulation. They will also have given the Commission the information listed in Article 173(2) of the Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002, of 23 December 2002, laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (6).

The European Community has adopted an equal opportunities policy and, on this basis, women are particularly encouraged to either submit proposals for indirect RTD actions or participate in the submission of proposals for indirect RTD actions.

4.

The Commission makes available to proposers guides for proposers relating to the calls which contain information on the preparation and the submission of a proposal for an indirect RTD action. The Commission also makes available Guidelines on Proposal Evaluation and Selection Procedures (7). These guides and guidelines, as well as the work programme and other information relating to the calls, can be obtained from the Commission via the following addresses:

European Commission

The FP6 Information Desk

Directorate General RTD

B-1049 Brussels

Internet address: http://fp6.cordis.lu/lifescihealth/calls.cfm

5.

Proposals for indirect RTD actions are invited to be submitted only as an electronic proposal via the web-based Electronic Proposal Submission System (EPSS (8)). In exceptional cases, however, a co-ordinator may request permission from the Commission to submit on paper in advance of a call deadline. This should be done by writing to one of the following addresses:

European Commission

Timothy Hall

Directorate General RTD

CDMA 2/173

B-1049 Brussels

Email addresses:

rtd-genomics-biotec@cec.eu.int or,

rtd-diseases@cec.eu.int

The request must be accompanied by an explanation of why the exception is being sought. Proposers wishing to use paper submission take the responsibility for ensuring that such requests for exemption and the associated procedures are completed in time for them to meet the call deadline.

All proposals for indirect RTD actions must contain two parts: the forms (Part A) and the content (Part B).

Proposals for indirect RTD actions may be prepared off-line or on-line and submitted on-line. Part B of proposals for indirect RTD actions can only be submitted in PDF (‘portable document format’, compatible with Adobe Version 3 or higher with embedded fonts). Compressed (‘zipped’) files will be excluded.

The EPSS software tool (for off-line or on-line usage) is available via the Cordis website www.cordis.lu.

Proposals for indirect RTD actions that are submitted on-line and which are incomplete, illegible or contain viruses will be excluded.

Versions of proposals for indirect RTD actions submitted on a removable electronic storage medium (eg, CD-ROM, diskette), by email or by fax will be excluded.

Any proposal for indirect RTD actions that has been allowed to be submitted on paper and which is incomplete will be excluded.

Further details on the various proposal submission procedures are given in Annex J of the Guidelines on Proposal Evaluation and Selection Procedures.

6.

Proposals for indirect RTD actions have to reach the Commission at the latest on the closure date and at the time specified in the call concerned. Proposals for indirect RTD actions arriving after this date and time will be excluded.

Proposals for indirect RTD actions not satisfying the conditions relating to the minimum number of participants indicated in the call concerned will be excluded.

This also applies regarding any additional eligibility criteria given in the work programme.

7.

In the case of successive submissions of the same proposal for an indirect RTD action, the Commission will examine the last version received before the closure date and time specified in the call concerned.

8.

If foreseen in the relevant call, proposals for indirect RTD actions could be evaluated in the framework of a future evaluation.

9.

In all correspondence relating to a call (e.g. when requesting information, or submitting a proposal for an indirect RTD action), proposers are invited to cite the relevant call identifier.

(1)  OJ L 232, 29.8.2002, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 294, 29.10.2002, p. 1

(3)  Commission Decision C(2002)4789, as modified by C(2003)577, C(2003)955, C(2003)1952, C(2003)3543, C(2003)3555, C(2003)4609, C(2003)5183, C(2004)433, C(2004)2002, C(2004)2727, C(2004)3324, C(2004)4178, C(2004)5286, C(2005)27, C(2005)961, and C(2005)2076, all decisions unpublished.

(4)  OJ L 355, 30.12.2002, p. 23.

(5)  OJ L 248, of 16.9.2002, p. 1.

(6)  OJ L 357, of 31.12.2002, p. 1.

(7)  C(2003)883 of 27/3/2003, as last modified by C(2004)1855 of 18.5.2004.

(8)  The EPSS is a tool to assist proposers to develop and submit their proposals electronically.

ANNEX 1

FP6-2005-LIFESCIHEALTH-6

Call information (Thematic call)

1.   Specific Programme: ‘Integrating and strengthening the European Research Area’

2.   Activity: Priority thematic area of research ‘Life sciences, genomics and biotechnology for health’.

3.   Call title: Thematic call in the area of ‘Life sciences, genomics and biotechnology for health’.

4.   Call identifier: FP6-2005-LIFESCIHEALTH-6

5.   Date of publication:

6.   Closure date: 9 November 2005 at 17.00 (Brussels local time).

7.   Total indicative budget: EUR 381,6 million, broken down as follows:

8.   Areas called and Instruments: Proposals are invited in the following areas, which are described using activity codes only. For the full title and definition of topic, applicants must refer to the Work Programme (Section 1.3 Technical Content). The evaluation of proposals will be based on the full definition of topic as described in the Work Programme. For the topic the instrument to be used is indicated.

SSAs across Thematic Priority 1

9.   Minimum number of participants (2):

Instrument

Minimum number of participants

IP, NoE, STREP and CA

3 independent legal entities from 3 different MS or AS, with at least 2 MS or ACC.

SSA

1 legal entity from a MS or AS.

10.   Restriction on participation: None.

11.   Consortia agreements:

—

Participants in IP and NOE are required to conclude a consortium agreement.

—

Participants in STREP, CA and SSA resulting from this call are encouraged, but not required, to conclude a consortium agreement.

12.   Evaluation procedure:

—

The evaluation shall follow a single stage procedure;

—

Proposals will not be evaluated anonymously;

—

The evaluation process may involve ‘remote’ evaluation of proposals;

—

Applicants may be invited to discuss their proposal.

13.   Evaluation criteria: See Annex B of the work programme for the applicable criteria (including their individual weights and thresholds and the overall threshold) per instrument.

14.   Indicative evaluation and contractual timetable:

—

Evaluation results: expected to be available some 4 months after the closure date

—

Contract signature: it is estimated that the first contracts related to this call will come into force by the end of 2006.

(1)  IP = Integrated project; NOE = Network of excellence; STREP = Specific targeted research project; CA = Coordination action; SSA = Specific support action

(2)  MS = Member States of the EU; AS (incl. ACC) = Associated States; ACC = Associated candidate countries.

Any legal entity established in a Member State or Associated State and which is made up of the requested number of participants may be the sole participant in an indirect action.

ANNEX 2

FP6-2005-LIFESCIHEALTH-7

Call information (STREPs dedicated to SMEs)

1.   Specific Programme: ‘Integrating and strengthening the European Research Area’

2.   Activity: Priority thematic area of research ‘Life sciences, genomics and biotechnology for health’.

3.   Call title: Call for STREPs dedicated to SMEs in the area of ‘Life sciences, genomics and biotechnology for health’.

4.   Call identifier: FP6-2005-LIFESCIHEALTH-7

5.   Date of publication:

6.   Closure date: 9 November 2005 at 17.00 (Brussels local time).

7.   Total indicative budget: EUR 171 million, broken down as follows:

8.   Areas called and Instruments: Proposals are invited in the following areas, which are described using activity codes only. For the full titles and definition of areas, applicants must refer to the Work Programme (Section 1.3 Technical Content). The evaluation of proposals will be based on the full definition as described in the Work Programme.

9.   Minimum number of participants (2):

Instrument

Minimum number of participants

STREP

3 independent legal entities from 3 different MS or AS, with at least 2 MS or ACC.

10.   Restriction on participation: All consortia should aim at having 30-50 % of the requested EC contribution budget going to SMEs.

11.   Consortia agreements: Participants in STREP resulting from this call are encouraged, but not required, to conclude a consortium agreement.

12.   Evaluation procedure: The evaluation shall follow a single stage procedure;

Proposals will not be evaluated anonymously;

The evaluation process may involve ‘remote’ evaluation of proposals;

Applicants may be invited to discuss their proposal.

13.   Evaluation criteria: See Annex B of the work programme for the applicable criteria (including their individual weights and thresholds and the overall threshold) per instrument.

14.   Indicative evaluation and contractual timetable:

—

Evaluation results: expected to be available some 4 months after the closure date

—

Contract signature: it is estimated that the first contracts related to this call will come into force by the end of 2006.

(1)  STREP = Specific targeted research project.

(2)  MS = Member States of the EU; AS (incl. ACC) = Associated States; ACC = Associated candidate countries.

Any legal entity established in a Member State or Associated State and which is made up of the requested number of participant may be the sole participant in an indirect action.

8.7.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/64

Call(s) for proposals for indirect RTD actions under the specific programme for research, technological development and demonstration: ‘Integrating and strengthening the European Research Area’

Thematic priority area: ‘Aeronautics and Space’, ‘Sustainable Energy Systems’ and ‘Sustainable Surface Transport’

Call identifier: FP6-2005-TREN-4-Aero/FP6-2005-TREN-4

(2005/C 168/16)

1.

In accordance with Decision No 1513/2002/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 27 June 2002, concerning the sixth framework programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities contributing to the creation of the European Research Area and to innovation (2002 to 2006) (1), the Council adopted on 30 September 2002 the specific programme for research, technological development and demonstration: ‘Integrating and strengthening the European Research Area’ (2002-2006) (2) (referred to as ‘the specific programme’).

In accordance with Article 5(1) of the specific programme, the Commission of the European Communities (referred to as ‘the Commission’) has adopted on 9 December 2002 a work programme (3) (referred to as ‘the work programme’) setting out in greater detail the objectives and scientific and technological priorities of the specific programme, and the timetable for implementation.

In accordance with Article 9(1) of the Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 16 December 2002, concerning the rules for the participation of undertakings, research centres and universities in, and for the dissemination of research results for, the implementation of the European Community Sixth Framework Programme (2002 to 2006) (4) (referred to as ‘the rules for participation’), proposals for indirect RTD actions should be submitted under the terms of calls for proposals.

2.

The present call(s) for proposals for indirect RTD actions (referred to as ‘the call(s)’) comprise(s) the present general part and the specific conditions that are described in the annex(es). The annex(es) indicate(s) in particular, the date(s) of closure for the submission of proposals for indirect RTD actions, an indicative date for the completion of the evaluations, the indicative budget, the instruments and the areas concerned, the evaluation criteria for the evaluation of proposals for indirect RTD actions, the minimum number of participants, and any applicable restrictions.

3.

Natural or legal persons fulfilling the conditions stated in the rules for participation and that do not fall under any of the exclusion cases in the rules for participation or in Article 114(2) of the Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (5) (referred to as ‘the proposers’) are invited to submit to the Commission proposals for indirect RTD actions subject to the conditions in the rules for participation and in the call concerned being fulfilled.

The conditions of participation of the proposers will be verified within the framework of the negotiation of the indirect RTD action. Before that however, proposers will have signed a declaration stating that they do not fall under any of the cases given by Article 93(1) of the Financial Regulation. They will also have given the Commission the information listed in Article 173(2) of the Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002, of 23 December 2002, laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (6).

The European Community has adopted an equal opportunities policy and, on this basis, women are particularly encouraged to either submit proposals for indirect RTD actions or participate in the submission of proposals for indirect RTD actions.

4.

The Commission makes available to proposers guides for proposers relating to the call(s) which contain information on the preparation and the submission of a proposal for an indirect RTD action. The Commission also makes available Guidelines on Proposal Evaluation and Selection Procedures (7). These guides and guidelines, as well as the work programme and other information relating to the call(s), can be obtained from the Commission via the following addresses:

European Commission

The FP6 Information Desk (A1/CCR)

Directorate General TREN

B-1049 Brussels

E-mail address: TREN-FP6@cec.eu.int

Internet address: www.cordis.lu/fp6

5.

Proposals for indirect RTD actions are invited to be submitted only as an electronic proposal via the web-based Electronic Proposal Submission System (EPSS (8)). In exceptional cases, however, a co-ordinator may request permission from the Commission to submit on paper in advance of a call deadline. This should be done by writing to one of the following addresses:

European Commission

Directorate General TREN

Unit A1/CCR

B-1049 Brussels

or TREN-FP6@cec.eu.int. The request must be accompanied by an explanation of why the exception is being sought. Proposers wishing to use paper submission take the responsibility for ensuring that such requests for exemption and the associated procedures are completed in time for them to meet the call deadline.

All proposals for indirect RTD actions must contain two parts: the forms (Part A) and the content (Part B).

Proposals for indirect RTD actions may be prepared off-line or on-line and submitted on-line. Part B of proposals for indirect RTD actions can only be submitted in PDF (‘portable document format’, compatible with Adobe Version 3 or higher with embedded fonts). Compressed (‘zipped’) files will be excluded.

The EPSS software tool (for off-line or on-line usage) is available via the Cordis website www.cordis.lu.

Proposals for indirect RTD actions that are submitted on-line and which are incomplete, illegible or contain viruses will be excluded.

Versions of proposals for indirect RTD actions submitted on a removable electronic storage medium (eg, CD-ROM, diskette), by email or by fax will be excluded.

Any proposal for indirect RTD actions that has been allowed to be submitted on paper and which is incomplete will be excluded.

Further details on the various proposal submission procedures are given in Annex J of the Guidelines on Proposal Evaluation and Selection Procedures.

6.

Proposals for indirect RTD actions have to reach the Commission at the latest on the closure date and at the time specified in the call concerned. Proposals for indirect RTD actions arriving after this date and time will be excluded.

Proposals for indirect RTD actions not satisfying the conditions relating to the minimum number of participants indicated in the call concerned will be excluded.

This also applies regarding any additional eligibility criteria given in the work programme.

7.

In the case of successive submissions of the same proposal for an indirect RTD action, the Commission will examine the last version received before the closure date and time specified in the call concerned.

8.

If foreseen in the relevant call, proposals for indirect RTD actions could be evaluated in the framework of a future evaluation.

9.

In all correspondence relating to a call (e.g. when requesting information, or submitting a proposal for an indirect RTD action), proposers are invited to cite the relevant call identifier.

(1)  OJ L 232, 29.8.2002, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 24, 29.10.2002, p. 1

(3)  Commission Decision C(2002)4789, as modified by C(2003)577, C(2003)955, C(2003)1952, C(2003)343, C(2003)3555, C(2003)4609, C(2003)5183, C(2004)433, C(2004)2002, C(2004)2727, C(2004)324, C(2004)4178, C(2004)5286, C(2005)27, C(2005)961, and C(2005)2076, all decisions unpublished.

(4)  OJ L 355, 30.12.2002, p. 23.

(5)  OJ L 248, of 16.9.2002, p. 1.

(6)  OJ L 357, of 31.12.2002, p. 1.

(7)  C(2003)883 of 27.3.2003, as last modified by C(2004)1855 of 18.5.2004.

(8)  The EPSS is a tool to assist proposers to develop and submit their proposals electronically.

ANNEX

1.   Specific Programme: Integrating and strengthening the European Research Area

2.   Activities:

—

Priority thematic area of research ‘Aeronautics and Space’.

—

Priority thematic area of research ‘Sustainable development, global change and ecosystems’. Sub-priority ‘Sustainable energy systems’

—

Priority thematic area of research ‘Sustainable development, global change and ecosystems’. Sub-priority ‘Sustainable surface transport’

3.   Call title: Periodic call in the area of ‘Aeronautics and Space’, ‘Sustainable energy systems’ and ‘Sustainable surface transport’.

4.   Call identifier: FP6-2005-TREN-4-Aero (for ‘Aeronautics and Space’)/FP6-2005-TREN-4 (for ‘Sustainable energy systems’ and ‘Sustainable surface transport’).

5.   Date of publication: 8 July 2005.

6.   Closure date(s): 4 November 2005 at 17.00 (Brussels local time) (for ‘Aeronautics and Space’) and 22 December 2005 at 17.00 (Brussels local time) (for ‘Sustainable energy systems’ and ‘Sustainable surface transport’).

7.   Total indicative budget: EUR 214 million, broken down as follows

‘Aeronautics and space’: EUR 53 million

‘Sustainable energy systems’: EUR 125 million

‘Sustainable surface transport’: EUR 36 million

8.   Areas called and Instruments:

—

Aeronautics and Space

Area

Topic

Instrument

Open Upstream Research

(See Section 1.3.1.4.)

Reduced separation standards

Research Domain 4.c

STREP

Innovative air traffic management research

Research Domain 4.g

STREP

Co-ordination Action

Research Domain 4.h

CA

Air Transport System Wide Information Management

Research Domain 4.j

STREP

ATM Safety regulation and supervisory functions

Research Domain 4.k

STREP

Mitigating capacity constraints due to Wake vortex

Research Domain 4.l

STREP

Environmentally responsible air transport

Research Domain 4.m

STREP

1.3.2

Integrated Focused Downstream Research

Subject 13. Improvement of ATM system processes through validation

IP

—

Sustainable energy systems

Area

Topic

Instrument

Section 6.1.3.1.1.1

‘Cost effective supply of renewable energies’

Demonstrations of innovative designs of automated biomass heating systems

STREP

Solar heating and cooling

STREP

Geothermal energy

STREP

Innovative wind farms, components and design tools

STREP

Demonstrations of the next generation of PV technologies/products

STREP

Ocean/marine energy technologies

STREP

All

CA, SSA

Section 6.1.3.1.1.2

‘Large scale integration of renewable energy sources and energy efficiency’ and Section 6.1.3.1.2.2 ‘Polygeneration’

Grid issues — Distributed electricity generation

STREP, CA and SSA

Grid issues — Management of electricity grids linked to large scale decentralised wind power generation

STREP, CA and SSA

Section 6.1.3.1.2.1

 ‘Eco-buildings’

Eco-buildings

STREP

Section 6.1.3.1.2.2

‘Polygeneration’

Polygeneration

STREP

Section 6.1.3.1.1.2

‘Large scale integration of renewable energy sources and energy efficiency’

CONCERTO II– Managing energy demand and renewable energy supply in high performance communities

IP

Section 6.1.3.1.2.1

‘Eco-buildings’

Section 6.1.3.1.2.2

‘Polygeneration’

Section 6.1.3.1.

‘Thematic promotion and dissemination’

Renewable electricity technologies

SSA

Renewable heating and cooling technologies

SSA

Production and distribution of liquid and gaseous biofuels

SSA

Eco-buildings

SSA

Polygeneration

SSA

Energy demand management and renewable energy supply in high performance communities

SSA

Alternative motor fuels

SSA

Section 6.1.3.1.3

‘Alternative Motor fuels’

CIVITAS Dissemination and Best Practice Transfer Action

SSA

—

Sustainable surface transport

Area

Topic

Instrument

Objective 1

‘New technologies and concepts for all surface transport modes (road, rail and waterborne)’

CIVITAS Dissemination and Best Practice Transfer Action

SSA

Objective 3

‘Re-balancing and integrating different transport modes’

New concepts for trans-European rail freight services

IP

Motorways of the sea (MoS)

IP

EU co-ordination and promotion forum on intermodal passenger travel

CA

Knowledge base for intermodal passenger travel

STREP

Vessel data management (Voyage data recorder, Electronic logbooks)

STREP

Objective 4

‘Increasing road, rail and waterborne safety and avoiding traffic congestion’

Improve infrastructure cost allocation methods

STREP

Design appropriate contractual relationships

STREP

9.   Minimum number of participants (2):

Instrument

Minimum number of participants

IP, STREP and CA

3 independent legal entities from 3 different MS or AS, with at least 2 MS or ACC

SSA

One legal entity from a MS or AS.

10.   Restriction on participation: None.

11.   Consortia agreements:

—

Participants in IP are required to conclude a consortium agreement.

—

Participants in STREP, CA and SSA resulting from this call are encouraged, and may be required, to conclude a consortium agreement.

12.   Evaluation procedure:

—

The evaluation shall follow a single stage procedure.

—

Proposals will not be evaluated anonymously.

13.   Evaluation criteria: See Annex B of the work programme for the applicable criteria (including their individual weights and thresholds and the overall threshold) per instrument.

14.   Indicative evaluation and contractual timetable:

—

Evaluation results: estimated to be available within some 3 — 4 months after the closure date;

—

Conclusion of first contracts: it is estimated that the first contracts related to this call will come into force 10 months after the closure date.

15.   Additional terms:

—

It is expected that this call should not result in more than 60 to 70 projects.

(1)  IP = Integrated project; STREP = Specific targeted research project; CA = Coordination action; SSA = Specific support action.

(2)  MS = Member States of the EU; AS (incl. ACC) = Associated States; ACC = Associated candidate countries.

Any legal entity established in a Member State or Associated State and which is made up of the requested number of participant may be the sole participant in an indirect action.