(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 import duties in the cereals sector are fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1296/2006 (3).

(2)

Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1249/96 provides that if during the period of application, the average import duty calculated differs by EUR 5 per tonne from the duty fixed, a corresponding adjustment is to be made. Such a difference has arisen. It is therefore necessary to adjust the import duties fixed in Regulation (EC) No 1296/2006,

(1)

Commission Decision 2006/410/EC (2) sets the amounts which, as a result of applying the reductions in direct payments provided for in Article 10(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 for the years 2006 to 2012 are available to the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) for the financial years 2007 to 2013.

(2)

The first subparagraph of Article 10(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 lays down the criteria for allocating the amounts resulting from the modulation provided for in paragraph 1 of that Article.

(3)

Article 78 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 of 21 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers (3) lays down the allocation key for sharing these amounts among the Member States using the criteria laid down in Article 10(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003.

(4)

The second subparagraph of Article 10(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 also specifies that the Member State is to receive at least 80 % of the amounts which the modulation has generated in that Member State, and Article 10(4) stipulates that this percentage can go up to at least 90 % for Member States whose rye production was substantial during the period 2000-2002.

(5)

On the basis of these criteria, the Member States should be allocated the amounts for the years 2006 to 2012 resulting from the modulation provided for in Article 10(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2006, taking into account the deduction provided for in paragraph 2 of that Article.

(6)

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

(1)

Directive 91/414/EEC provides for the development of a Community list of active substances authorised for incorporation in plant protection products.

(2)

A dossier for the active substance aviglycine HCl was submitted by Valent BioSciences to the authorities of the United Kingdom on 27 October 2004 with an application to obtain its inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. For mandipropamid a dossier was submitted by Syngenta AG to the authorities of Austria on 13 December 2005 with an application to obtain its inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. For meptyldinocap a dossier was submitted by Dow AgroSciences to the authorities of the United Kingdom on 12 August 2005 with an application to obtain its inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC.

(3)

The authorities of the United Kingdom and Austria have indicated to the Commission that, on preliminary examination, the dossiers for the active substances concerned appear to satisfy the data and information requirements set out in Annex II to Directive 91/414/EEC. The dossiers submitted appear also to satisfy the data and information requirements set out in Annex III to Directive 91/414/EEC in respect of one plant protection product containing the active substance concerned. In accordance with Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC, the dossiers were subsequently forwarded by the respective applicants to the Commission and other Member States, and were referred to the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health.

(4)

By this Decision it should be formally confirmed at Community level that the dossiers are considered as satisfying in principle the data and information requirements provided for in Annex II and, for at least one plant protection product containing the active substance concerned, the requirements set out in Annex III to Directive 91/414/EEC.

(5)

This Decision should not prejudice the right of the Commission to request the applicant to submit further data or information in order to clarify certain points in the dossier.

(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)

According to Commission Decision 94/360/EC of 20 May 1994 on the reduced frequency of physical checks on consignments of certain products to be imported from third countries, under Council Directive 90/675/EEC (2) border inspection posts are required to maintain records of checks on certain products imported into the Community.

(2)

The integrated computerised veterinary system (TRACES) was introduced by Commission Decision 2004/292/EC of 30 March 2004 on the introduction of the TRACES system and amending Decision 92/486/EEC (3) for the recording of data on all importations of animals and animal products from third countries and production of common veterinary entry documents at border inspection posts. Official veterinarians and their staff are no longer required to keep other registers or records on those imports. Decision 94/360/EC should be amended to avoid duplication of effort as regards the recording of certain data in border inspection posts.

(3)

Council Decision 2002/309/EC, Euratom of 4 April 2002 on the conclusion of seven Agreements with the Swiss Confederation (4) approves, among others, an Agreement on trade in agricultural products. Frequencies for the checks of certain animal products at border inspection posts are set out in Appendix 10 of Annex 11 to that Agreement. Annex II to Decision 94/360/EC should be updated to make a reference to those provisions.

(4)

Council Decision 2002/979/EC of 18 November 2002 on the signature and provisional application of certain provisions of an Agreement establishing an association between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Chile, of the other part (5) approves that Association Agreement. Frequencies for the checks of certain animal products at border inspection posts are set out in the provisions of that Association Agreement. Annex II to Decision 94/360/EC should be updated to make a reference to those provisions.

(5)

Commission Decision 2001/812/EC of 21 November 2001 laying down the requirements for the approval of border inspection posts responsible for veterinary checks on products introduced into the Community from third countries (6) provides for the operations of border inspection posts in accordance with Directive 97/78/EC.

(6)

At the same time some adjustments to the text of 2001/812/EC are necessary in the light of experience to facilitate trade in certain animal by products to permit greater flexibility in the handling of products falling under Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 October 2002 laying down health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption (7).

(7)

Consignments of certain small volume perishable blood and blood products of animal origin destined for technical or pharmaceutical use that are transported deep frozen or chilled in small hermetically sealed containers externally at ambient temperatures should be handled and checked in border inspection posts with facilities approved for handling only consignments at ambient temperatures.

(8)

At present there is a requirement for additional facilities in a border inspection post if the throughput of consignments rises above the figure of 500 per year, but this figure is not based upon risk and this absolute cut-off point should be replaced by a more appropriate system based upon an assessment by the competent authority of the Member State concerned, of the risk associated with handling of different categories of product in the same facility where one or other category of product is in fact only physically handled and checked on infrequent occasions.

(9)

The throughput figure of 500 consignments per year of products should nevertheless be taken as an indicative figure above which additional facilities will be required in a border inspection post unless an objective assessment by the competent authority of the different types of product being handled in the one location shows that additional facilities are not justified on the basis of possible cross contamination or risk to health.

(10)

The risk assessment and the basis of the justification for the action taken by the competent authority in any relevant border inspection post shall be notified to the Commission.

(11)

Whereas 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 3 is amended as follows:

2.

Annex II is replaced by the text in the Annex to this Decision.

3.

Annex III is deleted.

1.

In Article 3, paragraph 4 is replaced by the following:

2.

In Article 4, paragraph 5 is replaced by the following:

3.

In the introductory phrase of section 4 of Annex, the words ‘The following records must also be kept:’ are replaced by the words:

‘The following alternative records shall be kept in electronic or paper form where the data are not entered in TRACES at the border inspection post.’

(1)

Directive 2000/75/EC lays down control rules and measures to combat bluetongue in the Community, including the establishment of protection and surveillance zones and a ban on animals leaving those zones.

(2)

Commission Decision 2005/393/EC of 23 May 2005 on protection and surveillance zones in relation to bluetongue and conditions applying to movements from or through these zones (3) provides for the demarcation of the global geographic areas where protection and surveillance zones (‘the restricted zones’) are to be established by the Member States in relation to bluetongue.

(3)

On 17, 19 and 21 August 2006 respectively, the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany informed the Commission of a number of suspected clinical cases of bluetongue in sheep and cattle holdings in areas in the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany, close to Luxembourg and France, located in a radius of 50 km from Kerkrade, the Netherlands, where the first suspected case was notified.

(4)

To avoid the spread of the disease from the affected area, the Commission adopted Decision 2006/577/EC of 22 August 2006 on certain protective measures against bluetongue (4), laying down rules on movements of animals of species susceptible to bluetongue and their semen, ova and embryos from the affected areas.

(5)

Then, the Community Reference Laboratory for bluetongue in Pirbright (United Kingdom) has confirmed the occurrence of bluetongue and that the virus in question is of serotype 8. This serotype has never been reported in Europe before.

(6)

In view of that finding, Decision 2005/393/EC should be amended in order to insert a new restricted zone including the affected area and Decision 2006/577/EC should be repealed.

(7)

Taking into account the farming practises, specific movements of susceptible animals can be allowed, without jeopardising disease control, under the supervision of the competent authorities concerned.

(8)

To prevent the further spread of the disease, this Decision should apply as a matter of urgency.

(9)

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 is replaced by the following:

2.

Annex I is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Decision.