(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)

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)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 462/2005 (2) has opened a standing invitation to tender for the export of barley held by the German intervention agency.

(2)

Article 5(4) thereof states the address where the tenders must be lodged with the German intervention agency. As a result of an internal reorganisation within the German administrative authorities, this address must be amended.

(3)

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

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 823/2000 (3) grants a general exemption to liner shipping consortia from the prohibition contained in Article 81(1) of the Treaty, subject to certain conditions.

(2)

Regulation (EC) No 823/2000 will expire on 25 April 2005. On the basis of the Commission’s experience in applying that Regulation, it appears that the justifications for a block exemption for consortia are still valid. The application of Regulation (EC) No 823/2000 should therefore be extended for a further five years.

(3)

However, in some respects the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 823/2000 are not sufficiently attuned to current practice applied in the industry. It is therefore appropriate to introduce some minor amendments in order to make Regulation (EC) No 823/2000 more suitable for its purpose, pending the outcome of the review of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4056/86 of 22 December 1986 laying down detailed rules for the application of Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty to maritime transport (4), following which more substantial amendments may prove necessary.

(4)

In particular, Regulation (EC) No 823/2000 provides that consortium agreements must give member companies the right to withdraw from the consortium without financial or other penalty, subject to certain conditions concerning the period of notice to be given. Practice has shown that it is unclear how this provision is to be interpreted in the event that the date of entry into force of the consortium agreement is earlier than the date the service actually starts, for example, when vessels are unavailable, or still under construction. Specific provision should therefore be made for that situation.

(5)

It is justifiable for consortia to seek security for new investments committed to an existing service. Therefore, the possibility for the parties to a consortium agreement to enter into a ‘non-withdrawal’ clause should also apply where the parties to an existing consortium agreement have agreed to make substantial new investments and the costs of such new investments justify a new ‘non-withdrawal’ clause.

(6)

Regulation (EC) No 823/2000 provides that the exemption is subject to compliance with certain conditions, including the existence of effective price competition between the members of the conference within which the consortium operates due to the fact that the members are expressly authorised by the conference agreement to apply independent rate action to any freight rate provided for in the conference tariff. It has been brought to the Commission’s attention that independent rate action can no longer be considered as a common general market practice. Instead, individual confidential contracts are now more important on various trades. Such confidential contracts may also bring about effective competition between liner conference members. The existence of individual confidential contracts should therefore also be regarded as an indicator of effective price competition between the members of the conference.

(7)

Regulation (EC) No 823/2000 should therefore be amended accordingly,

1.

In Article 2 the following points 6 and 7 are added:

2.

In Article 5 point (a) is replaced by the following:

3.

In Article 8 point (b) is replaced by the following:

4.

In the second paragraph of Article 14, the date ‘25 April 2005’ is replaced by ‘25 April 2010’.

(1)

Article 3 of Regulation No 136/66/EEC provides that, where prices within the Community are higher than world market prices, the difference between these prices may be covered by a refund when olive oil is exported to third countries.

(2)

The detailed rules for fixing and granting export refunds on olive oil are contained in Commission Regulation (EEC) No 616/72 (2).

(3)

Article 3(3) of Regulation No 136/66/EEC provides that the refund must be the same for the whole Community.

(4)

In accordance with Article 3(4) of Regulation No 136/66/EEC, the refund for olive oil must be fixed in the light of the existing situation and outlook in relation to olive oil prices and availability on the Community market and olive oil prices on the world market. However, where the world market situation is such that the most favourable olive oil prices cannot be determined, account may be taken of the price of the main competing vegetable oils on the world market and the difference recorded between that price and the price of olive oil during a representative period. The amount of the refund may not exceed the difference between the price of olive oil in the Community and that on the world market, adjusted, where appropriate, to take account of export costs for the products on the world market.

(5)

In accordance with Article 3(3) third indent, point (b) of Regulation No 136/66/EEC, it may be decided that the refund shall be fixed by tender. The tendering procedure should cover the amount of the refund and may be limited to certain countries of destination, quantities, qualities and presentations.

(6)

The second indent of Article 3(3) of Regulation No 136/66/EEC provides that the refund on olive oil may be varied according to destination where the world market situation or the specific requirements of certain markets make this necessary.

(7)

The refund must be fixed at least once every month. It may, if necessary, be altered in the intervening period.

(8)

It follows from applying these detailed rules to the present situation on the market in olive oil and in particular to olive oil prices within the Community and on the markets of third countries that the refund should be as set out in the Annex hereto.

(9)

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

(1)

Articles 4(2) and 16(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed (2) provide that no genetically modified food or feed shall be placed on the Community market unless it is covered by an authorisation granted in accordance with that Regulation. Articles 4(3) and 16(3) of the same Regulation lay down that no genetically modified food and feed shall be authorised unless it has been adequately and sufficiently demonstrated that it does not have adverse effects on human health, animal health or the environment and that it does not mislead the consumer or the user, and differ from the food or feed it is intended to replace to such an extent that its normal consumption would be nutritionally disadvantageous for humans or animals.

(2)

On 22 March 2005, the authorities of the United States of America (the US authorities) informed the Commission that maize products contaminated with the genetically modified maize called Bt10 (the contaminated products), which have not been authorised for placing on the market in the Community, were likely to have been exported to the Community since 2001 and to continue to be exported. In addition, these authorities informed the Commission that those products were not authorised for placing on the market in the United States of America either.

(3)

Without prejudice to the control obligations of the Member States, the measures to be adopted further to the likely imports of contaminated products should be subject to a comprehensive and common approach allowing rapid and effective action to be taken and avoiding disparities between Member States in the treatment of the situation.

(4)

Article 53 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 provides for the possibility to adopt appropriate Community emergency measures for food and feed imported from a third country in order to protect human health, animal health or the environment, where the risk can not be contained satisfactorily by means of measures taken by the Member States concerned.

(5)

Although the contamination of products was reported by Syngenta, which is the company that developed the genetically modified maize Bt10, to the US authorities in December 2004, no data enabling a safety assessment of the genetically modified maize Bt10 by the European Food Safety Authority (the Authority) according to the standards laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 were provided by Syngenta or the US authorities. According to the Authority (3), in the absence of this information, the safety of Bt10 has yet to be confirmed.

(6)

Considering the absence of sufficient data enabling a safety assessment of the genetically modified maize Bt10 in order to achieve the high level of health protection chosen in the Community, and the presumption of risk on products not authorised according to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, which takes into account the precautionary principle laid down in Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002, it is appropriate to take emergency measures in order to prevent the placing on the market in the Community of the contaminated products.

(7)

According to the general requirements laid down in Regulation (EC) No 178/2002, food and feed business operators have primary legal responsibility for ensuring that foods or feeds within the businesses under their control satisfy the requirements of food law and for verifying that such requirements are met. The duty to prove the absence of placing on the market of the contaminated products should therefore rely on the operator responsible for the first placing on the market. To this end, the emergency measures should require that consignments of specific products originating from the United States of America may be placed on the market only if an analytical report demonstrating that the products are not contaminated with the genetically modified maize Bt10 is provided. The analytical report should be issued by an accredited laboratory according to internationally recognised standards.

(8)

In order to facilitate controls, all genetically modified food and feed placed on the market should be subject to a validated method of detection. Syngenta has been requested to provide the method for the event-specific detection of the genetically modified maize Bt10 as well as control samples. Consequently, the Community reference laboratory referred to in Article 32 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (the CRL) has been asked to validate the detection method for this product on the basis of data provided by Syngenta. The detection method is made available by Syngenta and can also be found at the following address: http://gmo-crl.jrc.it

(9)

Considering that the measures provided for in this Decision must be proportionate and no more restrictive of trade than is required, only products considered as likely to be contaminated with genetically modified maize Bt10 should be covered. According to the information received from the US authorities, neither genetically modified maize grain nor any product derived therefrom are imported from the United States of America to the Community, with the exception of corn gluten feed and brewers grains for feed use. Accordingly, the latter products should be the subject of the said measures.

(10)

Despite requests made by the Commission, the US authorities were not in a position to provide any guarantee on the absence of Bt10 in corn gluten feed and brewers grains containing or produced from genetically modified organisms, which are imported in the Community, considering the lack of segregation or traceability measures in the United States of America on these products.

(11)

With regard to food products, according to the information made available to the Commission, no genetically modified maize imported from the United States of America is used in the production of food in the Community. Member States should however monitor whether genetically modified maize food products are present on the market and whether these have been contaminated by Bt10. On the basis of the information provided by Member States, the Commission will consider the need of any appropriate measure.

(12)

These measures should be evaluated after six months in order to assess whether they are still necessary.

(13)

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

—

corn gluten feed containing or produced from genetically modified maize within CN code 2309 90 20,

—

brewers grains containing or produced from genetically modified maize within CN code 2303 30 00.

(1)

The Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic (hereinafter referred to as new Member States), acceded to the European Union on 1 May 2004.

(2)

The trade between the new Member States and the Swiss Confederation (hereinafter referred to as Switzerland), is covered upon accession by the Agreement and the application of the trade agreements concluded between Switzerland and the new Member States concerned is discontinued.

(3)

After accession of the new Member States, goods originating in these countries imported into Switzerland in the framework of the Agreement are to be treated as of Community origin.

(4)

The accession of the new Member States requires some technical amendments to the text of Protocol No 3, as well as transitional measures, to ensure the transition process and guarantee legal security.

(5)

Annex IV No 5 of the 2003 Act of Accession provides similar transitional measures and procedures,