(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)

Commission Regulation (EEC) No 75/91 (2) lays down the procedures and conditions for the disposal of paddy rice held by intervention agencies.

(2)

The French intervention agency has been storing a very significant quantity of paddy rice for a very long time. A standing invitation to tender should therefore be opened for the resale on the internal market of some 5 000 tonnes of paddy rice held by that agency.

(3)

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

(1)

Commission Regulation (EEC) No 75/91 (2) lays down the procedures and conditions for the disposal of paddy rice held by intervention agencies.

(2)

The Italian intervention agency has been storing a very significant quantity of paddy rice for a very long time. A standing invitation to tender should therefore be opened for the resale on the internal market of some 30 010 tonnes of paddy rice held by that agency.

(3)

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

(1)

Commission Regulation (EEC) No 75/91 (2) lays down the procedures and conditions for the disposal of paddy rice held by intervention agencies.

(2)

The Greek intervention agency has been storing a very significant quantity of paddy rice for a very long time. A standing invitation to tender should therefore be opened for the resale on the internal market of some 18 000 tonnes of paddy rice held by that agency.

(3)

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

(1)

Commission Regulation (EEC) No 75/91 (2) lays down the procedures and conditions for the disposal of paddy rice held by intervention agencies.

(2)

The Spanish intervention agency has been storing a very significant quantity of paddy rice for a very long time. A standing invitation to tender should therefore be opened for the resale on the internal market of some 25 021 tonnes of paddy rice held by that agency.

(3)

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

(1)

The Council, by Regulation (EEC) No 3068/92 (3), imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of potassium chloride originating, inter alia, in the Russian Federation (‘Russia’). By Regulation (EC) No 969/2000 (4), the Council amended and extended the period of application of the measures originally imposed by Regulation (EEC) No 3068/92 on imports of potassium chloride originating, inter alia, in Russia.

(2)

In March 2004, by means of a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (5), the Commission launched, on its own initiative, a partial interim review of the measures in force on imports of potassium chloride from, inter alia, Russia to examine whether they should be amended to take account of the enlargement of the European Union to 25 Member States (Enlargement).

(3)

The results of that partial interim review showed that it was in the interests of the Community to provide for the temporary adaptation of the measures so as to avoid a sudden and excessively negative economic impact on importers and users in the 10 new Member States (EU10) immediately following Enlargement.

(4)

The Council, by Regulation (EC) No 992/2004, authorised the Commission to accept undertaking offers respecting the conditions set out in recitals 27 to 32 of the same Regulation. On this basis, and pursuant to Articles 8, 11(3), 21 and 22(c) of the basic Regulation, the Commission, by Regulation (EC) No 1002/2004 (6), accepted undertaking offers from two exporting producers in Russia.

(5)

In the case of one exporting producer, the Commission accepted a joint undertaking for imports of potassium chloride produced by JSC Uralkali, Berezniki, Russia and sold by a trading company, Fertexim Ltd, Limassol, Cyprus which acted as the exclusive distributor for JSC Uralkali’s sales to the Community.

(6)

JSC Uralkali has informed the Commission that it would, henceforth, sell to the Community through a different company called Uralkali Trading SA, Geneva, Switzerland. To take account of this change, JSC Uralkali and Fertexim Ltd requested that the relevant provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1002/2004 accepting the joint undertaking be amended. To this end, JSC Uralkali and Uralkali Trading SA have jointly offered a revised undertaking.

(7)

JSC Uralkali has also pointed out that the undertaking accepted by Regulation (EC) No 1002/2004 did not allow for direct sales from JSC Uralkali to the first independent customer in the Community. By the revised undertaking, JSC Uralkali also undertakes to respect the terms thereof for direct sales to the Community.

(8)

The Commission has examined the undertaking offer. It was concluded that the revised undertaking fulfilled all the necessary criteria for acceptance laid down in Regulation (EC) No 992/2004, namely that: (i) the sales prices of the companies concerned would be at levels which significantly contribute to the elimination of injury; (ii) the companies would observe certain import volumes for sales to customers in the EU10; and (iii) they would also broadly respect their traditional selling patterns to individual customers in the EU10. It was also considered, as had been argued by JSC Uralkali, that the transfer of the trading activities of Fertexim Ltd to Uralkali Trading SA did not affect the workability of the undertaking nor, on the basis of information provided by the companies, its effective monitoring.

(9)

Furthermore, the request for exemption of JSC Uralkali’s direct sales to the Community from the anti-dumping duties was considered to be acceptable as it is in line with normal practice to accept appropriate undertaking offers from producers which export directly to the Community.

(10)

In light of the above, it was considered appropriate to amend the operative part of Regulation (EC) No 1002/2004 accordingly,

(1)

The intervention agencies are, pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2571/97 of 15 December 1997 on the sale of butter at reduced prices and the granting of aid for cream, butter and concentrated butter for use in the manufacture of pastry products, ice-cream and other foodstuffs (2), to sell by invitation to tender certain quantities of butter from intervention stocks that they hold and to grant aid for cream, butter and concentrated butter. Article 18 of that Regulation stipulates that in the light of the tenders received in response to each individual invitation to tender a minimum selling price shall be fixed for butter and maximum aid shall be fixed for cream, butter and concentrated butter. It is further stipulated that the price or aid may vary according to the intended use of the butter, its fat content and the incorporation procedure, and that a decision may also be taken to make no award in response to the tenders submitted. The amount(s) of the processing securities must be fixed accordingly.

(2)

The Management Committee for Milk and Milk Products has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its chairman,

(1)

The intervention agencies are, pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2571/97 of 15 December 1997 on the sale of butter at reduced prices and the granting of aid for cream, butter and concentrated butter for use in the manufacture of pastry products, ice cream and other foodstuffs (2), to sell by invitation to tender certain quantities of butter of intervention stocks that they hold and to grant aid for cream, butter and concentrated butter. Article 18 of that Regulation stipulates that in the light of the tenders received in response to each individual invitation to tender a minimum selling price shall be fixed for butter and maximum aid shall be fixed for cream, butter and concentrated butter. It is further stipulated that the price or aid may vary according to the intended use of the butter, its fat content and the incorporation procedure, and that a decision may also be taken to make no award in response to the tenders submitted. The amount(s) of the processing securities must be fixed accordingly.

(2)

The Management Committee for Milk and Milk Products has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its chairman,

(1)

In accordance with Commission Regulation (EEC) No 429/90 of 20 February 1990 on the granting by invitation to tender of an aid for concentrated butter intended for direct consumption in the Community (2), the intervention agencies are opening a standing invitation to tender for the granting of aid for concentrated butter. Article 6 of that Regulation provides that in the light of the tenders received in response to each special invitation to tender, a maximum amount of aid is to be fixed for concentrated butter with a minimum fat content of 96 % or a decision is to be taken to make no award; the end-use security must be fixed accordingly.

(2)

In the light of the tenders received, the maximum aid should be fixed at the level specified below and the end-use security determined accordingly.

(3)

The Management Committee for Milk and Milk Products has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its chairman,

(1)

Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 2771/1999 lays down that buying-in is to be opened or suspended by the Commission in a Member State, as appropriate, once it is observed that, for two weeks in succession, the market price in that Member State is below or equal to or above 92 % of the intervention price.

(2)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 544/2005 (3) establishes the most recent list of Member States in which intervention is suspended. This list must be adjusted as a result of the market prices communicated by Sweden pursuant to Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 2771/1999. In the interests of clarity, the list in question should be replaced and Regulation (EC) No 544/2005 should be repealed,

(1)

Pursuant to Article 21 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2771/1999 of 16 December 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 as regards intervention on the market in butter and cream (2), intervention agencies have put up for sale by standing invitation to tender certain quantities of butter held by them.

(2)

In the light of the tenders received in response to each individual invitation to tender a minimum selling price shall be fixed or a decision shall be taken to make no award, in accordance with Article 24a of Regulation (EC) No 2771/1999.

(3)

In the light of the tenders received, a minimum selling price should be fixed.

(4)

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

(1)

Pursuant to Article 21 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 214/2001 of 12 January 2001 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 as regards intervention on the market in skimmed milk (2), intervention agencies have put up for sale by standing invitation to tender certain quantities of skimmed-milk powder held by them.

(2)

In the light of the tenders received in response to each individual invitation to tender a minimum selling price shall be fixed or a decision shall be taken to make no award, in accordance with Article 24a of Regulation (EC) No 214/2001.

(3)

In the light of the tenders received, a minimum selling price should be fixed.

(4)

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

(1)

Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 provides that the rates of duty in the Common Customs Tariff are to be charged on import of the products referred to in Article 1 of that Regulation. However, in the case of the products referred to in paragraph 2 of that Article, the import duty is to be equal to the intervention price valid for such products on importation and increased by 55 %, minus the cif import price applicable to the consignment in question. However, that duty may not exceed the rate of duty in the Common Customs Tariff.

(2)

Pursuant to Article 10(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003, the cif import prices are calculated on the basis of the representative prices for the product in question on the world market.

(3)

Regulation (EC) No 1249/96 lays down detailed rules for the application of Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 as regards import duties in the cereals sector.

(4)

The import duties are applicable until new duties are fixed and enter into force.

(5)

In order to allow the import duty system to function normally, the representative market rates recorded during a reference period should be used for calculating the duties.

(6)

Application of Regulation (EC) No 1249/96 results in import duties being fixed as set out in Annex I to this Regulation,

(1)

The quantities for which licence applications have been lodged by traditonal importers and by new importers on 11 and 12 April 2005, pursuant to Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 565/2002 exceed the quantities available for products originating in China and all third countries other than China and Argentina.

(2)

It is now necessary to establish the extent to which the licence applications sent to the Commission on 14 April 2005 can be met and to fix, for each category of importer and product origin, the dates until which the issue of certificates must be suspended,

(1)

The Agreement between the European Community and the Government of Canada on sanitary measures to protect public and animal health applicable to trade in live animals and animal products (hereafter the Agreement) provides for the possibility of recognising equivalence for sanitary measures after the exporting Party has objectively demonstrated that its measures achieve the importing Party’s appropriate level of protection. The determination of equivalence was carried out and concluded with Canada on animal health measures concerning bovine semen, and on public health measures concerning pig meat. Equivalence has been concluded on a reciprocal basis.

(2)

As regards equivalence for Canadian exports of pig meat to the EU ante- and post-mortem provisions, the definition of market hogs and other hygiene requirements are to be reviewed when the new EU Food Hygiene Regulations will be applied. Similarly, as regards equivalence for EU exports of pig meat to Canada, some provisions are to be reviewed when the Canadian Meat Inspection Regulation will be amended.

(3)

The Joint Management Committee for the Agreement, at its meeting on 16 and 17 February 2004, issued a recommendation concerning the determination of equivalence for bovine semen and pig meat. At the same meeting, the Committee recommended to update the references to EU and Canadian legislation in the annexes to the Agreement. The Committee, at its meeting on 16 and 17 July 2003, based on recent amendments of the Canadian legislation, issued a recommendation to delete paragraph 2 of Chapter I of footnote B in Annex V to the Agreement as regards automatic temperature recorders in frozen fish storage areas and non-hand operated wash-basins in processing areas. At the same meeting, the Committee, based on the Community experience with imports of certain Canadian fish and fishery products from Canada and animal welfare considerations, issued a recommendation for reducing the frequency of the EC identity and physical import checks for such consignments.

(4)

As a result of these recommendations it is appropriate to modify the relevant parts in Annex V and Annex VIII to the Agreement.

(5)

Pursuant to Article 16(3) of the Agreement, amendments to the Annexes shall be agreed upon by an Exchange of Notes between the Parties.

(6)

Those modifications should be approved on behalf of the Community.

(7)

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

(1)

Article 2(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 3220/84 provides that the grading of pig carcases must be determined by estimating the content of lean meat in accordance with statistically proven assessment methods based on the physical measurement of one or more anatomical parts of the pig carcase. The authorisation of grading methods is subject to compliance with a maximum tolerance for statistical error in assessment. This tolerance was defined in Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2967/85 of 24 October 1985 laying down detailed rules for the application of the Community scale for grading pig carcases (2).

(2)

The Government of Latvia has requested the Commission to authorise one method for grading pig carcases and has submitted the results of its dissection trial which was executed before the day of accession, by presenting part two of the protocol provided for in Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 2967/85.

(3)

The evaluation of this request has revealed that the conditions for authorising this grading method are fulfilled.

(4)

In Latvia commercial practice may require that the head, the hind feet and the tail are removed from the pig carcase. This should be taken into account in adjusting the weight for standard presentation.

(5)

No modification of the apparatus or the grading method may be authorised except by means of a new Commission Decision adopted in the light of experience gained. For this reason, the present authorisation may be revoked.

(6)

The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Pigmeat,

—

7,61 % for the missing head

—

1,61 % for the missing hind feet

—

0,11 % for the missing tail.

(1)

Article 2(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 3220/84 provides that the grading of pig carcases must be determined by estimating the content of lean meat in accordance with statistically proven assessment methods based on the physical measurement of one or more anatomical parts of the pig carcase; the authorisation of grading methods is subject to compliance with a maximum tolerance for statistical error in assessment; this tolerance was defined in Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2967/85 of 24 October 1985 laying down detailed rules for the application of the Community scale for grading pig carcases (2).

(2)

The Government of Estonia has requested the Commission to authorise two methods for grading pig carcases and has submitted the results of its dissection trial which was executed before the day of accession, by presenting part two of the protocol provided for in Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 2967/85.

(3)

The evaluation of this request has revealed that the conditions for authorising these grading methods are fulfilled.

(4)

In Estonia commercial practice may require that the head, the fore feet and the tail are removed from the pig carcase; this should be taken into account in adjusting the weight for standard presentation.

(5)

No modification of the apparata or the grading methods may be authorised except by means of a new Commission Decision adopted in the light of experience gained; for this reason, the present authorisation may be revoked.

(6)

The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Pigmeat,

(a)

the apparatus termed ‘Intrascope (Optical Probe)’ and the assessment methods related thereto, details of which are given in Part 1 of the Annex;

(b)

the apparatus termed ‘Ultra-FOM 300’ and the assessment methods related thereto, details of which are given in Part 2 of the Annex.

(1)

Member States transposing Directives into national law can choose the form and methods for such transposition, but are bound by the terms of the Directive as to the result to be achieved and the deadline by which transposition should take place.

(2)

At several summit meetings, including those held in Stockholm in March 2001, Barcelona in March 2002 and Brussels in March 2003 and 2004, the European Council, recognising the importance of a properly functioning internal market (1) for the competitiveness of the European economy, has repeatedly urged Member States to accord high priority to the transposition into national law of Directives affecting the internal market.

(3)

The European Parliament (2), the European Economic and Social Committee (3) and the Committee of the Regions (4) have repeatedly expressed concern about the poor records of Member States in transposing internal market Directives correctly and on time. The Interinstitutional Agreement on better law-making of 16 December 2003 (5) also emphasised the need for Member States to comply with Article 10 of the Treaty and called upon Member States to ensure that Community law is properly and promptly transposed into national law within the prescribed deadlines.

(4)

Despite these calls and the fact that timely and correct transposition is a legal obligation, Member States regularly do not transpose internal market Directives correctly by the deadlines they themselves have agreed, most Member States do not even meet the interim transposition targets set by the European Council, and many such Directives have still not been transposed into national law in all Member States long after the deadline for transposition has passed.

(5)

Late or incorrect transposition of internal market Directives is causing harm to businesses and citizens, as it often deprives them of their rights.

(6)

Late or incorrect transposition also deprives businesses and consumers of the full economic benefits of a properly functioning internal market and harms the competitiveness of the European economy as a whole, undermining the ability of the Community to generate economic growth while sustaining a high level of social cohesion.

(7)

In a European Union of 25 or more Member States, there is an increased risk that late or incorrect transposition of Directives will cause fragmentation of the internal market and a consequent dwindling of its economic benefits.

(8)

The Commission will continue, as a matter of priority, to take vigorous legal action against Member States for late or incorrect transposition, and to encourage peer pressure through the regular publication of the transposition records of Member States in the Internal Market Scoreboard; however, while these actions have had some success in the past, transposition deficits nevertheless persist and a more proactive approach by the Commission and Member States is therefore necessary.

(9)

The Commission indicated, in its 2002 Communication on better monitoring of the application of European Community law (6), how it can and does assist Member States with transposition of Directives into national law.

(10)

It is up to Member States, however, to ensure that they transpose Directives correctly and on time.

(11)

Article 10 of the Treaty requires Member States to take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular, to ensure fulfilment of their obligations arising out of the Treaty or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the Community.

(12)

The Court of Justice of the European Communities has consistently held that Member States may not plead provisions, practices or circumstances existing in their own internal legal systems to justify failure to comply with obligations and time limits laid down in Directives.

(13)

There is a need for Member States, given the repetitive nature of their failure to transpose Directives correctly and on time, to re-examine their procedures and practices to ensure that they consistently meet this legal obligation.

(14)

Some Member States have consistently much better transposition records than others, reflecting the existence or adoption of more effective structures, procedures and practices; however, the fact that no Member State has a perfect record suggests that all need to look to improve. In accordance with the Interinstitutional Agreement on better law-making, the Member States should draw up, for themselves and in the interests of the Community, correlation tables illustrating as far as possible the correspondence between Directives and transposition measures, and should make those tables public.

(15)

The Commission announced in its Communication ‘Internal Market Strategy 2003-2006’ (7) that it would issue a Recommendation setting out a number of good practices which should be followed by Member States to ensure better and faster transposition of internal market Directives.

(16)

Member States have expressed an interest in learning from one another’s practices, and have been consulted, through the Internal Market Advisory Committee, on their good transposition practices and their different national constitutional, legal and administrative rules and practices insofar as they may affect transposition.

(17)

A number of good practices have been identified that help Member States to transpose internal market Directives into national law in a timely and correct way.

(18)

It is for each Member State to choose the procedures and practices best designed to ensure the correct and timely transposition of internal market Directives, having regard to what would be most effective in the context of that Member State, since procedures and practices that are effective in one Member State may not be as effective in another.

(19)

In view of the legal uncertainty and confusion engendered by the late transposition of internal market Directives, businesses and citizens should be informed when Directives are not transposed on time and of their legal rights in such cases.

(20)

Where draft implementing provisions are submitted to national Parliaments, they should be accompanied by a declaration concerning their compliance with Community law and informing the Parliament whether they transpose in full or in part the Directive concerned.

(21)

Without prejudice to the Commission’s role and obligations as guardian of the Treaty, the Commission should be informed, when national implementing provisions are notified to it, whether the Directive concerned is thus fully or partly transposed into national law and whether the provisions are believed to comply with Community law.

(22)

Where Member States decide to include the transposition of a Directive as part of a wider legislative exercise, this can lead to their not meeting the transposition deadline; the insertion of conditions and requirements additional to those necessary to transpose a Directive can also hinder the objectives pursued by the Directive concerned,