(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)

The third indent of Article 31(10) of Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 stipulates that in the case of differentiated refunds the refund is to be paid on presentation of proof that the products have reached the destination indicated on the licence or another destination for which a refund was fixed. Exceptions may be made to this rule in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 42 of the same Regulation, provided conditions are laid down which offer equivalent guarantees.

(2)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 351/2004 of 26 February 2004 fixing the export refunds on milk and milk products (2) has introduced refunds differentiated according to destination for all milk products from 27 February 2004.

(3)

Article 16 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 of 15 April 1999 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products (3) indicates which documents may serve as proof that customs formalities for importation have been completed in a third country in cases where the refund rate is differentiated according to destination. Under that Article, the Commission may decide, in certain specific cases to be determined, that proof of import as referred to in that Article may be furnished by a specific document or in any other way.

(4)

Since subjecting the payment of refunds to the requirements of Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 entails a substantial change in the administrative procedures for both the national authorities and exporters, it has administrative implications and represents a significant financial burden. Obtaining the proof referred to in Article 16 of that Regulation can pose considerable administrative difficulties in some countries. Furthermore, the particular conditions of export of dairy products may render obtaining such proofs even more difficult and burdensome.

(5)

To alleviate some of the administrative and financial constraints imposed on exporters, and in order to allow the authorities and exporters to set up the new arrangements for the products concerned and introduce the procedures needed to ensure that all the formalities to be completed run smoothly, Commission Regulation (EC) No 519/2004 of 19 March 2004 derogating from Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 as regards exports of milk and milk products (4) and Commission Regulation (EC) No 450/2005 of 18 March 2005 on proof that customs formalities for importation of milk and milk products in third countries have been completed as provided for in Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 (5) provide for a transitional period during which the proof that customs formalities for importation have been completed is made easier. That period expired on 31 December 2005.

(6)

However, in many of the countries of destination appropriate procedures and adequate means to provide for the necessary documents are still not in place. In order to prevent traders from not being granted the export refund for that reason, it is necessary to continue to provide for a transitional regime for the year 2006. The transitional provisions of Regulation (EC) No 450/2005 have caused some confusion and interpretation questions among the national competent authorities. It is appropriate therefore to re-establish, for the year 2006, the transitional provisions laid down in Regulation (EC) No 519/2004, which have not caused any interpretation problem.

(7)

It is appropriate to recall the provisions of Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 allowing the competent authorities of the Member States, in case any doubt exists as to the destination of the exported products, to require additional evidence for all refunds proving to their satisfaction that the product has actually been placed on the market in the importing third country.

(8)

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

(1)

The quantities for which licence applications have been lodged by traditional importers and by other importers under Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 658/2004 exceed the quantities available for products originating in the People’s Republic of China (PRC).

(2)

It is now necessary to fix, for each category of importer, the proportion of the quantity for which application is made which may be imported under licence,

(1)

In the case of cereals and products of plant origin including fruit and vegetables, residue levels reflect the use of minimum quantities of pesticides necessary to achieve effective protection of plants, applied in such a manner that the amount of residue is as low as is practicable and toxicologically acceptable, having regard, in particular to the protection of the environment and the estimated dietary intake of consumers. In the case of foodstuffs of animal origin, residue levels reflect the consumption by animals of cereals and products of plant origin treated with pesticides, and where relevant, the direct consequences of the use of veterinary medicines. Community maximum residue levels (MRLs) represent the upper limit of the amount of such residues that might be expected to be found in commodities when good agricultural practices have been respected.

(2)

MRLs for pesticides are kept under review and changed to take account of new information and data. MRLs are fixed at the lower limit of analytical determination where authorised uses of plant protection products do not result in detectable levels of pesticide residue in or on the food product, or where there are no authorised uses, or where uses which have been authorised by Member States have not been supported by the necessary data, or where uses in third countries resulting in residues in or on food products which may enter into circulation in the Community market have not been supported by the necessary data.

(3)

Several Member States informed the Commission of their desire to revise national MRLs in accordance with Article 8 of Directive 90/642/EEC, in the light of concerns about consumer intake. Proposals for the review of Community MRLs were submitted to the Commission.

(4)

The lifetime and short-term exposure of consumers to the pesticides referred to in this Directive via food products has been reassessed and evaluated in accordance with Community procedures and practices, taking account of guidelines published by the World Health Organisation (4). On that basis, it is appropriate to fix new MRLs, which will ensure that there is no unacceptable consumer exposure.

(5)

The acute exposure of consumers to those pesticides via each of the food products that may contain residues has been assessed and evaluated in accordance with Community procedures and practices, taking account of guidelines published by the World Health Organisation. It is concluded that the presence of pesticide residues at or below the new MRLs will not cause acute toxic effects.

(6)

Through the World Trade Organisation, the Community’s trading partners have been consulted about the new MRLs and their comments on these levels have been taken into account.

(7)

The Annexes to Directives 86/362/EEC, 86/363/EEC and 90/642/EEC should therefore be amended accordingly.

(8)

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

(1)

Hungary has been granted transitional periods for certain establishments listed in Appendix A to Annex X to the Act of Accession.

(2)

Appendix A to Annex X to the 2003 Act of Accession has been amended by Commission Decisions 2004/462/EC (1), 2004/472/EC (2) and 2005/665/EC (3).

(3)

Two meat establishments have resigned from upgrading process and applied for reclassification from high capacity to low capacity establishments. According to an official declaration from the Hungarian competent authority these establishments are in full compliance with EU requirements regarding low capacity establishments. The establishments should therefore be deleted from the list of establishments in transition.

(4)

Appendix A to Annex X to the 2003 Act of Accession should therefore be amended accordingly.

(5)

The Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health has been informed of the measures provided for in this Decision,

(1)

The separate customs territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu is an important trading partner to the Community and trade and investment between that territory and the Community should be encouraged.

(2)

The separate customs territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu is neither a Party to the Vienna Convention for the protection of the ozone layer nor to the 1987 Montreal Protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer. The separate customs territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu is, however, in full compliance with the Montreal Protocol and has submitted data to that effect, as specified in Article 7 of the Montreal Protocol, to the Ozone Secretariat of the United Nations Environment Programme.

(3)

Articles 8, 9 and 11(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 should therefore not apply in respect of the separate customs territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu.

(4)

The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 18(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000,

(1)

Under Directive 96/23/EC inclusion and retention on the lists of third countries, provided for in Community legislation, from which Member States are authorised to import animals and primary products of animal origin covered by that Directive, are subject to submission by the third countries concerned of a plan setting out the guarantees which they offer as regards the monitoring of the groups of residues and substances referred to in that Directive. That Directive also lays down certain requirements concerning time limits for submission of plans.

(2)

Commission Decision 2004/432/EC (2) lists the third countries which have submitted a residue monitoring plan, setting out the guarantees offered by them in compliance with the requirements of that Directive.

(3)

Certain third countries have presented residue monitoring plans to the Commission for animals and products not listed in Decision 2004/432/EC. The evaluation of those plans and the additional information requested by the Commission provide sufficient guarantees on the residue monitoring in those countries for the animals and products concerned. Those animals and products should therefore be included in the list for those third countries.

(4)

Certain third countries have not submitted to the Commission the requested guarantees about residue monitoring for animal and products listed in Decision 2004/432/EC. In the absence of these guarantees, those animals and products should therefore be removed from the list for those third countries.

(5)

Decision 2004/432/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)

Regulation (EC) No 1161/2005 specifies the list of quarterly data that have to be transmitted from 3 January 2006 onwards.

(2)

Article 3(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1161/2005 provides that derogations from that Regulation may be accepted by the Commission if national statistical systems require major adaptation. Such derogations are not to last more than three years from the date of entry into force of the Regulation.

(3)

A number of Member States authorities have asked, by letter, to be granted derogations under Article 3(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1161/2005.

(4)

It emerges from the information provided to Eurostat that the Member States’ requests for derogations are due to the need for major adaptations to national statistical systems in order to comply in full with Regulation (EC) No 1161/2005. The compilation of quarterly non-financial accounts by institutional sector requires additional data sources, the development of new statistical tools, and the design and implementation of a production system that is capable of meeting short deadlines. The requested derogations should therefore be granted,