(1)

In order to create the single European sky, on 10 March 2004 the European Parliament and the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 laying down the framework for the creation of the single European sky (the framework Regulation) (1), Regulation (EC) No 550/2004 on the provision of air navigation services in the single European sky (the service provision Regulation) (2), Regulation (EC) No 551/2004 on the organisation and use of the airspace in the single European sky (the airspace Regulation) (3), and Regulation (EC) No 552/2004 on the interoperability of the European Air Traffic Management network (the interoperability Regulation) (4).

(2)

The project to modernise air traffic management in Europe, (the SESAR project), is the technological element of the single European sky. It aims by 2020 to give the Community a high-performance air traffic control infrastructure which will enable the safe and environmentally friendly development of air transport, benefiting fully from the technological advances of programmes such as Galileo.

(3)

Following the Community's accession to Eurocontrol, the Commission and Eurocontrol have signed a cooperation framework agreement for the implementation of the single European sky and for research and development activities in the field of air traffic control.

(4)

In accordance with the guidelines adopted by the Competitiveness Council of 7 June 2005 concerning the preparation of the future European space programme, the European Union will be responsible for ensuring the availability and continuity of operational services supporting its policies, and it will contribute to the development, deployment and operation of a European space infrastructure by concentrating on space-based applications to contribute to the achievement of its policies.

(5)

The SESAR project aims to integrate and coordinate research and development activities which were previously undertaken in a dispersed and uncoordinated manner in the Community, including the most remote and outlying regions thereof, referred to in Article 299(2) of the Treaty.

(6)

By avoiding the duplication of research and development activities, the SESAR project will not lead to an increase in the overall volume of air users' contributions to research and development efforts.

(7)

The SESAR project is composed of three phases: a definition phase, a development phase and a deployment phase.

(8)

The definition phase of the SESAR project aims to define the different technological steps to be taken, the priorities in the modernisation programmes and the operational implementation plans. It is co-financed by the Community and by the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol).

(9)

The definition phase started in October 2005 and is carried out under the responsibility of Eurocontrol by a consortium of undertakings chosen after a public invitation to tender. It will finish in 2008 and will result in the European Air Traffic Management Master Plan. This plan will define the work programme for the implementation of the target concepts, including the different deployment strategies.

(10)

The definition phase will be followed by the development phase (2008-2013) which will develop new equipments, systems or standards, which will ensure a convergence towards a fully interoperable Air Traffic Management system in Europe.

(11)

The development phase will change into the deployment phase (2014-2020), which will be a large scale production and implementation of the new air traffic management infrastructure. The infrastructure should be composed of fully harmonised and interoperable components which guarantee high performance air transport activities in Europe.

(12)

Taking into account the number of actors who will need to be involved in this process and the financial resources and technical expertise needed, it is vital for the rationalisation of activities to set up a legal entity capable of ensuring the management of the funds assigned to the SESAR project during its development phase.

(13)

It is therefore necessary to set up a Joint Undertaking under Article 171 of the Treaty in order to enable considerable progress to be made in the development of technologies relating to air traffic control systems during the development phase and prepare the deployment phase.

(14)

The main task of the Joint Undertaking is to manage the research, development and validation activities of the Sesar project by combining public and private sector funding provided by its members and using external technical resources and in particular by using Eurocontrol's experience and expertise.

(15)

The activities undertaken by the Joint Undertaking under the SESAR programme are mainly research and development activities. Therefore, Community funding should be paid in particular from its research and development framework programmes. Additional funding can be paid from the Trans-European Network programme in accordance to Article 4(g) of Decision 1692/96/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 23 July 1996 on Community guidelines for the development of the Trans-European transport network (5), which envisages the possibility of financing research and development activities.

(16)

The Community funding for the Joint Undertaking should, at this stage of the project, be limited to the development phase within the period covered by the current financial framework 2007-2013. However, this does not prejudge the possibility for the Council to review the scope, governance, funding and duration of the Joint Undertaking on the basis of the progress made in the development phase.

(17)

Substantial participation from industry is an essential element for the SESAR project. It is therefore fundamental that the public budget for the development phase of the SESAR project be supplemented by contributions from industry.

(18)

The Joint Undertaking should be set up before the end of the definition phase so that it can follow the work of the definition phase and prepare the development phase in order to ensure the rapid implementation of the European Air Traffic Management Master Plan.

(19)

The Council should decide on the endorsement of the European Air Traffic Management Master Plan, including its transfer to the Joint Undertaking, to modernise air traffic management in Europe, and should in this context also review the financing of the SESAR project and in particular the pledges of contributions from industry to the Joint Undertaking.

(20)

In order to facilitate communication with the founding members, the seat of the Joint Undertaking should be located in Brussels.

(21)

The Joint Undertaking is a non-profit entity which shall devote all its resources to the management of a public research programme of European interest. Its two founding members are international organisations acting on behalf of their respective Member States. This entity should therefore be granted, as far as possible, the most extensive exemption from taxation from the hosting State.

(22)

The Commission should be assisted by the Single Sky Committee established by Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 549/2004. The measures necessary for the implementation of this Regulation should be adopted in accordance with Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission (6).

(23)

The Commission should inform the European Parliament and the Council on a regular basis of the progress of the Joint Undertaking. This information should be done through periodic evaluations performed by the Commission and on the basis of the annual activity reports of the Joint Undertaking.

(24)

The rules for the organisation and operation of the Joint Undertaking should be laid down by drawing up the statutes of the Joint Undertaking as set out in the Annex.

(25)

As route charges are entirely borne by airspace users, the latter contribute financially to the research and development efforts in the air traffic management sector. They should therefore be given appropriate representation within the Joint Undertaking.

(26)

Public financing for the definition and development phases of the SESAR project is substantial and investments in a new generation of air traffic management should, to a large extent, be made by Member States, including bodies designated by Member States. Member States (of the European Union and/or of Eurocontrol) should therefore be granted access free of charge, for non-commercial purposes, to the knowledge resulting from the project and be allowed to use this knowledge for their own purposes, including for calls for public tender,

(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)

Article 31(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 provides that the difference between prices on the world market for the products listed in Article 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 milk and milk products, export refunds should therefore be fixed in accordance with the rules and certain criteria provided for in Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999.

(3)

The second subparagraph of Article 31(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 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)

In accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding between the European Community and the Dominican Republic on import protection for milk powder in the Dominican Republic (2) approved by Council Decision 98/486/EC (3), a certain amount of Community milk products exported to the Dominican Republic can benefit from reduced customs duties. For this reason, export refunds granted to products exported under this scheme should be reduced by a certain percentage.

(5)

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

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 581/2004 of 26 March 2004 opening a standing invitation to tender for export refunds concerning certain types of butter (2) provides for a permanent tender.

(2)

Pursuant to Article 5 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 580/2004 of 26 March 2004 establishing a tender procedure concerning export refunds for certain milk products (3) and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the invitation to tender, it is appropriate to fix a maximum export refund for the tendering period ending on 27 February 2007.

(3)

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

(1)

Article 31(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 provides that the difference between prices in international trade for the products listed in Article 1(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and (g) of that Regulation and prices within the Community may be covered by an export refund.

(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 II to Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999.

(3)

In accordance with the first 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 each month.

(4)

However, in the case of certain milk products exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty, there is a danger that, if high refund rates are fixed in advance, the commitments entered into in relation to those refunds may be jeopardised. In order to avert that danger, it is therefore necessary to take appropriate precautionary measures, but without precluding the conclusion of long-term contracts. The fixing of specific refund rates for the advance fixing of refunds in respect of those products should enable those two objectives to be met.

(5)

Article 15(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1043/2005 provides that, when the rate of the refund is being fixed, account is to be taken, where appropriate, of production refunds, aids or other measures having equivalent effect applicable in all Member States in accordance with the Regulation on the common organisation of the market in the product in question to the basic products listed in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1043/2005 or to assimilated products.

(6)

Article 12(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 provides for the payment of aid for Community-produced skimmed milk processed into casein if such milk and the casein manufactured from it fulfil certain conditions.

(7)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1898/2005 of 9 November 2005 laying down detailed rules for implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 as regards measures for the disposal of cream, butter and concentrated butter (3), lays down that butter and cream at reduced prices should be made available to industries which manufacture certain goods.

(8)

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

(1)

A range of statistics, of which labour cost indices form an essential part, is relevant for monitoring wage developments and inflationary pressures emanating from the labour market.

(2)

The scope of the labour cost index should be extended to cover the economic activities defined by NACE Rev. 1 sections L, M, N and O. This extension means that non-market services, which account for the major share of these sections and which may have different dynamics from market services, will also be covered.

(3)

The feasibility studies carried out in accordance with Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 450/2003 show that extending the scope of the labour cost index to include the economic activities defined by NACE Rev. 1 sections L, M, N and O is feasible and that the amount of work and the costs which the extension of the labour cost index will require is in proportion to the importance of the results and benefits.

(4)

The feasibility studies also show that a flexible implementation schedule will reduce implementation costs for those Member States which do not yet collect the basic data or produce the indices covered by this extension.

(5)

Seasonal adjustment methods produce statistically reliable results only if the time series is sufficiently long. Seasonally adjusted series should therefore be produced and transmitted for the first time when four years of data are available.

(6)

The index reference year is the year in which the average of the index is set at 100. The first index reference year is defined in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1216/2003 of 7 July 2003 implementing Regulation (EC) No 450/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the labour costs index (2) as the year 2000. Indices for NACE Rev. 1 sections L, M, N and O may not be available for the year 2000 and an alternative index reference should be defined.

(7)

Regulation (EC) No 1216/2003 should therefore be amended accordingly.

(8)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Statistical Programme Committee,

1.

Article 4 is replaced by the following:

2.

Annex III is deleted;

3.

Item 6 in Annex IV is replaced by the following:

(1)

Article 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 provides for that in regions classified as Objective 1 in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (2), the Community contribution to the costs of restructuring and conversion is limited to 75 % of those costs.

(2)

Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 was repealed by Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (3). In accordance with Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999, regions covered by Objective 1 were the regions corresponding to level II of the Nomenclature of Territorial Statistical Units (NUTS II) whose per capita GDP, measured in purchasing power parities has been less than 75 % of the Community average. In accordance with Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006, such regions are eligible for funding under the Convergence objective. Some regions which have been covered by Objective 1 are not covered by the Convergence objective.

(3)

This causes specific practical problems in case of the application of restructuring and conversion plans, prepared and approved for the wine year 2006/2007, in regions that were classified as Objective 1 regions under Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 and that are no longer eligible for funding from the Structural Funds under the Convergence objective pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006. It is difficult to differentiate, within one single financial year, between payments that are eligible for different rates of Community contribution. Therefore, it is appropriate to provide for a prolongation, for the wine year 2006/2007, of the application of Article 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 to Objective 1 regions.

(4)

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

(1)

Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition and for the grounds and procedures for granting such authorisation.

(2)

In accordance with Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, an application was submitted for the authorisation of the preparation set out in the Annex. That application was accompanied by the particulars and documents required under Article 7(3) of that Regulation.

(3)

The application concerns a new use of the preparation of Saccharomyces cerevisiae CNCM I-1077 (Levucell SC20, Levucell SC10 ME), as a feed additive for dairy goats and dairy sheep, to be classified in the additive category ‘Zootechnical additives’.

(4)

The use of Saccharomyces cerevisiae CNCM I-1077 was authorised without a time limit for dairy cows and cattle for fattening by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1200/2005 (2).

(5)

New data were submitted in support of an application for authorisation for dairy goats and dairy sheep. The European Food Safety Authority (the Authority) concluded in its opinion of 15 June 2006 that Saccharomyces cerevisiae CNCM I-1077 (Levucell SC20, Levucell SC10 ME) does not have an adverse effect on animal health, human health or the environment. It further concluded that Saccharomyces cerevisiae CNCM I-1077 (Levucell SC20, Levucell SC10 ME) does not present any other risk which would, in accordance with Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, exclude authorisation. According to that opinion, the use of the preparation does not have an adverse effect on these additional animal categories. The Authority does not consider that there is a need for specific requirements of post market monitoring. It also verified the report on the method of analysis of the feed additive in feed submitted by the Community Reference Laboratory set up by Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.

(6)

The assessment of that preparation shows that the conditions for authorisation, provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, are satisfied. Accordingly, the use of that preparation should be authorised, as specified in the Annex to this Regulation.

(7)

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

(1)

An invitation to tender for the refund for the export of common wheat to certain third countries was opened pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 936/2006 (2).

(2)

Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 of 29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 on the granting of export refunds on cereals and the measures to be taken in the event of disturbance on the market for cereals (3), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,

(3)

On the basis of the criteria laid down in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95, a maximum refund should not be fixed.

(4)

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

(1)

The accounts of the European Central Bank (ECB) and of the national central banks of the Eurosystem are to be audited by independent external auditors recommended by the Governing Council of the ECB and approved by the Council of the European Union.

(2)

Pursuant to Article 37(1) of the Federal Act on the Oesterreichische Nationalbank, the General Meeting of the Oesterreichische Nationalbank (OeNB) must elect two auditors and two alternate auditors each year. The alternate auditors will be mandated only in the event that the auditors are not able to perform the audit.

(3)

On 14 March 2006 the Council of the European Union, having regard to Recommendation ECB/2006/1 of 1 February 2006 to the Council of the European Union on the external auditors of the Oesterreichische Nationalbank (2), approved KPMG Alpen-Treuhand GmbH and TPA Horwath Wirtschaftsprüfung GmbH as joint external auditors, and Moore Stephens Austria Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft mbH and BDO Auxilia Treuhand GmbH as joint alternate auditors for the financial year 2006 (3).

(4)

On 8 September 2006 the OeNB informed the ECB that at the OeNB's General Meeting in May 2006, KPMG Alpen-Treuhand GmbH did not obtain the majority of votes necessary to be selected and, that as a consequence thereof, the second ranked auditor, TPA Horwath Wirtschaftsprüfung GmbH, was appointed first auditor. The first ranked alternate auditor, Moore Stephens Austria Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft mbH, was appointed second auditor and the second ranked alternate auditor, BDO Auxilia Treuhand GmbH, was appointed as the sole alternate auditor. To appoint the necessary second alternate auditor, the OeNB conducted a restricted procurement procedure, selected Ernst & Young Wirtschaftsprüfungs GmbH and invited the ECB to recommend it to the Council of the European Union for approval.

(5)

The approval of the Council of the European Union is necessary to appoint Moore Stephens Austria Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft mbH as the second external auditor and Ernst & Young Wirtschaftsprüfungs GmbH as the second alternate external auditor of the OeNB.

(6)

The Governing Council of the ECB recommended that the mandate of the external auditors should be renewed on a yearly basis, not exceeding a total term of five years.

(7)

It is appropriate to follow the recommendation of the Governing Council of the ECB and to amend Council Decision 1999/70/EC (4) accordingly,

(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 (2) 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)

Intra-Community trade in ova and embryos complying with the conditions set out in Annex II.C.1 to Decision 2005/393/EC should not require the prior movement approval of the Member State of destination, as no post-collection testing for bluetongue is required, according to the risk assessment carried out by the International Embryo Transfer Society (IETS) and in line with the recommendations of the Office International des Epizooties (OIE) as regards that disease.

(4)

Intra-Community trade in ova and embryos complying with the conditions set out in Annex II.C.2 to Decision 2005/393/EC should not require the prior movement approval of the Member State of destination, as post-collection testing verifies beyond doubt the absence of the disease in the donor animal.

(5)

On 20 December 2006 France requested the Commission to adapt the demarcation of the restricted zone in France due to the cessation of the vector’s activity in the affected area.

(6)

By Decision 2006/762/EC (3), the Commission adopted certain protective measures against bluetongue in Bulgaria to avoid the spread of the disease from the affected area of the administrative district of Burgas in relation to the import into the Community of susceptible animals.

(7)

Consequently, Bulgaria being a Member State since 1 January 2007, the affected area should now be included in Annex I to Decision 2005/393/EC.

(8)

On 9 January 2007 Germany informed the Commission of new outbreaks of bluetongue in Hessen and Lower Saxony. In view of those findings, it is appropriate to amend the demarcation of the restricted zone in Germany.

(9)

On 10 January 2007, Italy presented a report to the Standing Committee for the Food Chain and Animal Health which concludes that the surveillance system in place in Italy has proved that no seroconversion has occurred in the Region of Marche, since April 2005.

(10)

Consequently, that region should be considered free of bluetongue and, on the basis of the substantiated request submitted by Italy, deleted from the Italian regions listed under Zone B in Annex I to Decision 2005/393/EC.

(11)

Decision 2005/393/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.

(12)

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.

In Article 5(1), point (b) is replaced by the following:

2.

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

(1)

On 27 April 2006, the Council adopted Joint Action 2006/319/CFSP (1) on the European Union military operation in support of the United Nations Organisation Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC) during the election process (Operation EUFOR RD Congo).

(2)

The military operation was launched on 12 June 2006 by Council Decision 2006/412/CFSP (2) and ended on 30 November 2006 as set out in Article 15(2) of Joint Action 2006/319/CFSP. Subsequently all forces have been redeployed from the area of operations.

(3)

Council Decision 2004/197/CFSP of 23 February 2004 establishing a mechanism to administer the financing of the common costs of European Union operations having military or defence implications (3) (Athena) determines the procedures for the audit and presentation of the accounts of an operation.

(4)

In accordance with Article 15(3) thereof, Joint Action 2006/319/CFSP should be repealed,