(1)

Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations, the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products and periods stipulated in the Annex thereto.

(2)

In compliance with the above criteria, the standard import values must be fixed at the levels set out in the Annex to this Regulation,

(1)

Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1159/2003 stipulates how the delivery obligations at zero duty of products of CN code 1701, expressed in white sugar equivalent, are to be determined for imports originating in signatory countries to the ACP Protocol and the Agreement with India.

(2)

Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 1159/2003 stipulates how the zero duty tariff quotas for products of CN code 1701 11 10, expressed in white sugar equivalent, are to be determined for imports originating in signatory countries to the ACP Protocol and the Agreement with India.

(3)

Article 22 of Regulation (EC) No 1159/2003 opens tariff quotas at a duty of EUR 98 per tonne for products of CN code 1701 11 10 for imports originating in Brazil, Cuba and other third countries.

(4)

In the week of 14 to 18 February 2005 applications were presented to the competent authorities in line with Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1159/2003 for import licences for a total quantity exceeding a country's delivery obligation quantity of ACP-India preferential sugar determined pursuant to Article 9 of that Regulation.

(5)

In these circumstances the Commission must set reduction coefficients to be used so that licences are issued for quantities scaled down in proportion to the total available and must indicate that the limit in question has been reached,

(1)

Articles 173 to 177 of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 provide that the Commission shall periodically establish unit values for the products referred to in the classification in Annex 26 to that Regulation.

(2)

The result of applying the rules and criteria laid down in the abovementioned Articles to the elements communicated to the Commission in accordance with Article 173(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 is that unit values set out in the Annex to this Regulation should be established in regard to the products in question,

(1)

Article 9 of Regulation (EEC) No 2075/92 introduces production quotas for the different groups of varieties of tobacco. The individual quotas are divided among producers on the basis of the guarantee thresholds for the 2005 harvest laid down in Annex II to Council Regulation (EC) No 546/2002 of 25 March 2002 fixing the premiums and guarantee thresholds for leaf tobacco by variety group and Member State for the 2002, 2003 and 2004 harvests and amending Regulation (EEC) No 2075/92 (2). Under Article 9(4) of Regulation (EEC) No 2075/92, the Commission may authorise Member States to transfer parts of their guarantee threshold quantities between groups of varieties provided that such transfers do not give rise to additional costs for the European Agriculture Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and do not involve any increase in the Member State's overall guarantee threshold allocations.

(2)

Since these conditions have been met, transfers should be authorised in the Member States which have made application to do so.

(3)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Tobacco,

(1)

Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 798/2004 lists the Burmese State-owned enterprises subject to the restrictive measures set out in Article 8a of that Regulation.

(2)

Article 12(b) of Regulation (EC) No 798/2004 empowers the Commission to amend Annex IV on the basis of decisions taken in respect of Annex II to Common Position 2004/423/CFSP (2), renewing restrictive measures against Burma/Myanmar.

(3)

Common Position 2005/149/CFSP (3) amends Annex II to Common Position 2004/423/CFSP. Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 798/2004 should, therefore, be amended accordingly,

(1)

Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 lists the persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation.

(2)

On 17 February 2005, the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council decided to amend the list of persons, groups and entities to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply. Annex I should therefore be amended accordingly.

(3)

In order to ensure that the measures provided for in this Regulation are effective, this Regulation must enter into force immediately,

(1)

By letter of 18 June 2004, the authorities of the United Kingdom applied to the Commission for a derogation allowing them to continue to apply an exemption from climate change levy (CCL) for low-value solid fuel in accordance with Article 19 of Directive 2003/96/EC.

(2)

The United Kingdom CCL is designed to encourage energy efficiency and low carbon technologies in the non-domestic sector. It applies to gas, coal, electricity and liquefied petroleum gas used for heating by business and the public sector.

(3)

Exemptions from the CCL were introduced in 2001 to encourage good environmental practice. Solid fuels with a value of less than GBP 15 per tonne, such as the mixed sweepings and debris left from coal and coke mining, have been exempted from the levy.

(4)

With the entry into force of Directive 2003/96/EC, Member States which did not tax these fuels have to introduce such taxes.

(5)

A tax exemption would support the use of low-value solid fuel for energy production instead of landfilling it. While energy use is preferable to landfilling from an environmental policy point of view, the polluter-pays principle would lead to the application of a lower rate of tax to such low-value solid fuel, in connection with its energy content. Given the varied quality and energy content of the material and the consequent difficulties to establish an exact tax rate as well as the small amounts concerned, a complete exemption could be acceptable as a temporary measure. The exemption should therefore be time-limited.

(6)

The annual cost to the UK Exchequer of the current relief across the whole sector amounts to approximately GBP 100 000. Insofar as the tax exemption constitutes State aid, the normal rules apply. It appears that the relief is covered by Commission Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to de minimis aid (2). Nevertheless, if the benefit to any single undertaking exceeds the ceiling laid down in that Regulation, it should be notified to the Commission in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (3).

(7)

The Commission regularly reviews reductions and exemptions to check that they do not distort competition or hinder the operation of the internal market and are not incompatible with Community policy on protection of the environment, energy and transport,

(1)

In Commission Decision 2003/760/EC (2), the ‘Département de la Qualité Alimentaire et de l’Action Vétérinaire (DQAAV) du Service de Développement Rural du Ministère de l’Agriculture et de l’Élevage’ is identified as the competent authority in French Polynesia for verifying and certifying compliance of fishery and aquaculture products with the requirements of Directive 91/493/EEC.

(2)

Following a restructuring of the Polynesian administration, the competent authority has changed to the ‘Département de la qualité alimentaire et de l’action vétérinaire (DQAAV) du Ministère de la promotion des ressources naturelles, chargé de la perliculture, de la pêche, de l’aquaculture, de l’agriculture, de l'élevage, des eaux et forêts et de la recherche’.

(3)

This new authority is capable of effectively verifying the application of the rules in force.

(4)

The DQAAV has provided official assurances on compliance with the standards for health controls and monitoring of fishery and aquaculture products as set out in Directive 91/493/EEC and on the fulfilment of hygienic requirements equivalent to those laid down in that Directive.

(5)

Decision 2003/760/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.

(6)

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

1.

Article 1 is replaced by the following:

2.

Annex I is replaced by the Annex to this Decision.

(1)

In Commission Decision 97/102/EC (2), the ‘State Fisheries Committee of the Russian Federation’ is identified as the competent authority in Russia for verifying and certifying compliance of fishery and aquaculture products with the requirements of Directive 91/493/EEC.

(2)

Following a restructuring of the Russian administration, the competent authority has changed to the ‘Ministry of Agriculture of the Russian Federation’. This new authority is capable of effectively verifying the application of the rules in force.

(3)

The Ministry of Agriculture has provided official assurances on compliance with the standards for health controls and monitoring of fishery and aquaculture products as set out in Directive 91/493/EEC and on the fulfilment of hygienic requirements equivalent to those laid down in that Directive.

(4)

Decision 97/102/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.

(5)

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

1.

Article 1 is replaced by the following:

2.

Annex A is replaced by the Annex to this Decision.

(1)

Provisional lists of establishments in third countries from which the Member States authorise imports of minced meat and meat preparations have been drawn up by Commission Decision 1999/710/EC (2).

(2)

Bulgaria has sent a list of establishments producing minced meat and meat preparations for which the competent authority provided satisfactory guarantees that the establishments comply with Community rules.

(3)

Those establishments should be included in the lists drawn up by Decision 1999/710/EC.

(4)

As on-the-spot inspections have not yet been carried out, imports from such establishments are not eligible for reduced physical checks pursuant to Article 10 of Council Directive 97/78/EC (3).

(5)

Decision 1999/710/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.

(6)

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