(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)

In order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.

(2)

Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific Community provisions, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods.

(3)

Pursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column 1 of the table set out in the Annex to this Regulation should be classified under the CN code indicated in column 2, by virtue of the reasons set out in column 3 of that table.

(4)

It is appropriate to provide that binding tariff information which has been issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature but which is not in accordance with this Regulation can, for a period of three months, continue to be invoked by the holder, under Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).

(5)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1063/2005 (2) opened a standing invitation to tender for the export of 395 911 tonnes of common wheat held by the Czech intervention agency.

(2)

The Czech Republic has informed the Commission of its intervention agency’s intention to increase by 117 358 tonnes the quantity put out to tender for export. In view of the quantities available and the market situation, the request made by the Czech Republic should be granted.

(3)

Regulation (EC) No 1063/2005 should therefore be amended.

(4)

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

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1060/2005 (2) opened a standing invitation to tender for the export of 229 858 tonnes of common wheat held by the Slovak intervention agency.

(2)

Slovakia has informed the Commission of its intervention agency’s intention to increase by 28 820 tonnes the quantity put out to tender for export. In view of the quantities available and the market situation, the request made by Slovakia should be granted.

(3)

Regulation (EC) No 1060/2005 should therefore be amended.

(4)

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

(1)

Council Regulation (EC) No 2270/2004 of 22 December 2004 fixing for 2005 and 2006 the fishing opportunities for deep-sea fish stocks (3) and Council Regulation (EC) No 27/2005 of 22 December 2004 fixing for 2005 the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Community waters and, for Community vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required (4), specify which stocks may be subject to the measures foreseen by Regulation (EC) No 847/96.

(2)

Council Regulation (EC) No 2270/2004, Council Regulation (EC) No 51/2006 of 22 December 2005 fixing for 2006 the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Community waters and, for Community vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required (5) and Council Regulation (EC) No 52/2006 of 22 December 2005 fixing the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks applicable in the Baltic Sea for 2006 (6) fix quotas for certain stocks for 2006.

(3)

Certain Member States have requested, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 847/96, that part of their quotas for 2005 be transferred to the following year. Within the limits indicated in that Regulation, the quantities withheld should be added to the quota for 2006.

(4)

On basis of Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 847/96, deductions from national quotas for 2006 should be made at a level equivalent to the quantity fished in excess. Those deductions shall be applied taking into account also the specific provisions governing stocks falling within the scope of Regional Fisheries Organisations.

(5)

Certain Member States have requested, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 847/96, permission to land additional quantities of fish of certain stocks in the year 2005. Those exceeding permitted landings should however be deducted from their quotas for 2006.

(6)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture,

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 (4), fixes detailed rules for implementing the system of additional import duties and fixes representative prices in the poultrymeat and egg sectors and for egg albumin.

(2)

It results from regular monitoring of the information providing the basis for the verification of the import prices in the poultrymeat and egg sectors and for egg albumin that the representative prices for imports of certain products should be amended taking into account variations of prices according to origin. Therefore, representative prices should be published.

(3)

It is necessary to apply this amendment as soon as possible, given the situation on the market.

(4)

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

(1)

Article 8 of Regulation (EEC) No 2771/75 provides that the difference between prices on the world market for the products listed in Article 1(1) of that regulation and prices for those products on the Community market may be covered by an export refund.

(2)

Given the present situation on the market in eggs, export refunds should therefore be fixed in accordance with the rules and certain criteria provided for in Article 8 of Regulation (EEC) No 2771/75.

(3)

Article 8(3), second subparagraph of Regulation (EEC) No 2771/75 provides that the world market situation or the specific requirements of certain markets may make it necessary to vary the refund according to destination.

(4)

Refunds should be granted only on products that are allowed to move freely in the Community and that comply with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs (2) and of Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (3) as well as marking requirements of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1907/90 of 26 June 1990 on certain marketing standards for eggs (4).

(5)

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

(1)

Article 8(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2777/75 provides that the difference between prices on the world market for the products listed in Article 1(1) of that Regulation and prices for those products on the Community market may be covered by an export refund.

(2)

Given the present situation on the market in poultrymeat, export refunds should therefore be fixed in accordance with the rules and criteria provided for in Article 8 of Regulation (EEC) No 2777/75.

(3)

Article 8(3), second subparagraph of Regulation (EEC) No 2777/75 provides that the world market situation or the specific requirements of certain markets may make it necessary to vary the refund according to destination.

(4)

Refunds should be granted only on products that are allowed to move freely in the Community and that bear the identification mark as provided for in Article 5(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (2). Those products should also comply with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs (3).

(5)

The negotiations within the framework of the Europe Agreements between the European Community and Romania and Bulgaria aim in particular to liberalise trade in products covered by the common organisation of the market concerned. For these two countries export refunds should therefore be abolished.

(6)

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

(1)

Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 2247/2003 provides for the possibility of issuing import licences for beef and veal products originating in Botswana, Kenya, Madagascar, Swaziland, Zimbabwe and Namibia. However, imports must take place within the limits of the quantities specified for each of these exporting non-member countries.

(2)

The applications for import licences submitted between 1 to 10 May 2006, expressed in terms of boned meat, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 2247/2003, do not exceed, in respect of products originating from Botswana, Kenya, Madagascar, Swaziland, Zimbabwe and Namibia, the quantities available from those States. It is therefore possible to issue import licences in respect of the quantities applied for.

(3)

The quantities in respect of which licences may be applied for from 1 June 2006 should be fixed within the scope of the total quantity of 52 100 t.

(4)

This Regulation is without prejudice to Council Directive 72/462/EEC of 12 December 1972 on health and veterinary inspection problems upon importation of bovine, ovine and caprine animals and swine, fresh meat or meat products from third countries (4),

Germany:

United Kingdom:

(1)

Article 8(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2771/75 provides that the difference between prices in international trade for the products listed in Article 1(1) of that Regulation and prices within the Community may be covered by an export refund where these goods are exported in the form of goods listed in the Annex to that Regulation.

(2)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1043/2005 of 30 June 2005 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 3448/93 as regards the system of granting export refunds on certain agricultural products exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty, and the criteria for fixing the amount of such refunds (2), specifies the products for which a rate of refund is to be fixed, to be applied where these products are exported in the form of goods listed in Annex I to Regulation (EEC) No 2771/75.

(3)

In accordance with the second paragraph of Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 1043/2005, the rate of the refund per 100 kilograms for each of the basic products in question is to be fixed for a period of the same duration as that for which refunds are fixed for the same products exported unprocessed.

(4)

Article 11 of the Agreement on Agriculture concluded under the Uruguay Round lays down that the export refund for a product contained in a good may not exceed the refund applicable to that product when exported without further processing.

(5)

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

(1)

By Commission Directive 2003/119/EC (2) propoxycarbazone was included as active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC.

(2)

When applying for the inclusion of propoxycarbazone its manufacturer Bayer CropScience gave a specification based on small-scale production. For large-scale production, that company now intends to modify the specification as regards purity. It has submitted data to show that the modified specification fulfils the requirements for inclusion.

(3)

Germany evaluated the information and data submitted by the company. It informed the Commission in July 2005 that it concludes that the modified specification does not cause any risks in addition to those already taken into account in the entry for propoxycarbazone in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC and in the Commission review report for that substance.

(4)

Therefore it is justified to modify the specification of propoxycarbazone.

(5)

It is therefore appropriate to amend Directive 91/414/EEC accordingly.

(6)

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)

Articles 3(2)(i)(d) and 4(2)(i)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 prohibit the production, import and placing on the market of methyl bromide for all uses after 31 December 2004 except, among others (2), for critical uses in accordance with Article 3(2)(ii) and the criteria set out in Decision IX/6 of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol, together with any other relevant criteria agreed by the Parties. Exemptions for critical uses are intended to be limited derogations to allow a short period of time for the adoption of alternatives.

(2)

Decision IX/6 states that methyl bromide should qualify as ‘critical’ only if the applicant determines that the lack of availability of methyl bromide for that specific use would result in a significant market disruption; and that there are no technically and economically feasible alternatives or substitutes available to the user that are acceptable from the standpoint of environment and health and are suitable to the crops and circumstances of the nomination. Furthermore, the production and consumption, if any, of methyl bromide for critical uses should be permitted only if all technically and economically feasible steps have been taken to minimise the critical use and any associated emission of methyl bromide. An applicant should also demonstrate that an appropriate effort is being made to evaluate, commercialise and secure national regulatory approval of alternatives and substitutes; and that research programmes are in place to develop and deploy alternatives and substitutes.

(3)

The Commission received 79 proposals for critical uses of methyl bromide from nine Member States including Belgium (44 070 kg), France (259 097 kg), Germany (19 450 kg), Ireland (1 250 kg), Italy (1 333 225 kg), Poland (45 900 kg), Portugal (50 000 kg), Spain (986 000 kg), the Netherlands (120 kg) and the United Kingdom (139 285 kg). A total of 2 878 397 kg was requested, comprising 2 690 275 kg (94 %) for pre-harvest uses and 188 140 kg (6 %) for post-harvest uses of methyl bromide. Germany subsequently informed the Commission that it had withdrawn all of its proposals as alternatives were now available.

(4)

The Commission applied the criteria contained within Decision IX/6 and Article 3(2)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 in order to determine the amount of methyl bromide that is eligible to be licensed for critical uses in 2006. The Commission found that adequate alternatives were available in the Community and had become more prevalent in many Parties to the Montreal Protocol in the period since the critical use proposals were compiled by Member States. As a result, the Commission determined that 1 607 587 kg of methyl bromide can be used in 2006 to satisfy critical uses in each of the Member States that had requested the use of methyl bromide. This amount equates to 8,4 % of 1991 consumption of methyl bromide in the European Community and indicates that more than 91,6 % of the methyl bromide has been replaced by alternatives. The critical-use categories are similar to those defined in Section IIB in Decision XVI/2 (3) and in Table A of Decision XVII/9 at the 17th Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol (4).

(5)

Article 3(2)(ii) requires the Commission to also determine which users may take advantage of the critical use exemption. As Article 17(2) requires Member States to define the minimum qualification requirements for personnel involved in the application of methyl bromide and, as fumigation is the only use, the Commission determined that methyl bromide fumigators are the only users proposed by the Member State and authorised by the Commission to use methyl bromide for critical uses. Fumigators are qualified to apply it safely, rather than for example farmers or mill owners that are generally not qualified to apply methyl bromide but who own properties on which it will be applied. In addition, Member States have put in place procedures to identify fumigators within their territory that are permitted to use methyl bromide for critical uses.

(6)

Decision IX/6 states that production and consumption of methyl bromide for critical uses should be permitted only if methyl bromide is not available from existing stocks of banked or recycled methyl bromide. Article 3(2)(ii) states that production and importation of methyl bromide shall be allowed only if no recycled or reclaimed methyl bromide is available from any of the Parties. In accordance with Decision IX/6 and Article 3(2)(ii), the Commission determined that 50 047 kg of stocks are available for critical uses.

(7)

Article 4(2)(ii) states that, subject to Article 4(4), the placing on the market and the use of methyl bromide by undertakings other than producers and importers shall be prohibited after 31 December 2005. Article 4(4) states that Article 4(2) shall not apply to the placing on the market and use of controlled substances if they are used to meet the licensed requests for critical uses of those users identified as laid down in Article 3(2).

Therefore, in addition to producers and importers, fumigators that are registered by the Commission in 2006 would be allowed to place methyl bromide on the market, and to use it for critical uses, after 31 December 2005. A fumigator typically requests an importer for both the importation and supply of methyl bromide. Fumigators registered for critical uses by the Commission in 2005 would be permitted to carry over to 2006 any remaining methyl bromide that had not been used in 2005 (referred to as stocks). The European Commission has put in place licensing procedures to deduct such stocks of methyl bromide before any additional methyl bromide is imported or produced to meet the licensed requests for critical uses in 2006.

(8)

Three uses of methyl bromide in this Decision are categorised as ‘biocidal’ uses for which additional restrictions apply. Commission Regulation (EC) No 2032/2003 (5) records methyl bromide as a biocidal substance that cannot be placed on the market after 1 September 2006. The Commission may authorise a Member State to use methyl bromide after this date provided the Member State demonstrates compliance with the criteria for an ‘essential use’ under Article 4a of Regulation (EC) No 2032/2003. The quantities of methyl bromide for biocidal uses for which an ‘essential use’ authorisation pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 2032/2003 is required for any uses after 1 September 2006 are shown in Annexes I, IV and VIII of this Decision.

(9)

As critical uses of methyl bromide apply from 1 January 2006, and for the purpose of ensuring that interested companies and operators may benefit from the licensing system, it is appropriate that this present decision shall apply from that date.

(10)

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

(1)

Article 71(1)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 contains a provision constituting an exemption, in the case of frontier workers who are wholly unemployed, from the general principle of lex loci laboris set out in Article 13(2)(a) of the said Regulation.

(2)

The Court of Justice of the European Communities has ruled that in order to determine whether a frontier worker is to be regarded as partially unemployed or wholly unemployed within the meaning of Article 71(1)(a) of the said Regulation, uniform Community criteria must be applied. Such assessment may not be made on the basis of criteria drawn from national law (2).

(3)

As the practices of the national social security institutions in the various Member States reflect differences in interpretation as regards determination of the type of unemployment, it is important to specify the scope of the said Article with a view to the adoption of uniform and balanced criteria for the purposes of application of the Article by the said institutions.

(4)

The Court of Justice of the European Communities has ruled that where a frontier worker no longer has any link with the competent Member State and is wholly unemployed, unemployment benefits are to be provided by the institution of the place of residence at its own expense.

(5)

An assessment of whether or not an employment link exists or is maintained is based entirely on the national legislation of the State of employment.

(6)

The objective of protecting frontier workers pursued by Article 71 of the Regulation would not be achieved if a worker who remained employed by the same undertaking in a Member State other than that in whose territory he resides — his activity being suspended — were nevertheless regarded as wholly unemployed, thus requiring him to apply to the institution of his place of residence in order to obtain unemployment benefits,