21.12.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 337/1

(1)

The European Union has created a European Union Solidarity Fund (the Fund) to show solidarity with the population of regions struck by disasters.

(2)

The Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the Fund within the annual ceiling of EUR 1 billion.

(3)

Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 contains the provisions whereby the Fund may be mobilised.

(4)

Germany and France submitted applications to mobilise the Fund, concerning two disasters caused by a major storm and a tropical cyclone respectively,

21.12.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 337/2

(1)

Article 17(1) of the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, and the Republic of Kazakhstan (1) provides that trade in certain steel products are to be subject to a specific agreement on quantitative arrangements.

(2)

The bilateral agreement between the European Community and the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan on trade in certain steel products (2) concluded on 19 July 2005 has expired on 31 December 2006. In 2007 autonomous measures established by Council Regulation (EC) No 1870/2006 (3) have governed the trade in certain steel products between the European Community and Kazakhstan.

(3)

Both Parties intend to conclude a new agreement for 2008 and subsequent years.

(4)

Pending the signature and entry into force of the new agreement, quantitative limits for the year 2008 should be established.

(5)

Given that the conditions that led to the fixing of the quantitative limits for 2007 remain largely in place, it is appropriate to set the quantitative limits for 2008 at the same level as that of 2007.

(6)

It is necessary to provide the means to administer this regime within the Community in such a way as to facilitate the implementation of the new agreement by envisaging as much as possible similar provisions.

(7)

It is necessary to ensure that the origin of the products in question is checked and appropriate methods of administrative cooperation are set up to this end.

(8)

Products placed in a free zone or imported under the arrangements governing customs warehouses, temporary importation or inward processing (suspension system) should not be counted against the limits established for the products in question.

(9)

The effective application of this Regulation calls for the introduction of a requirement for a Community import licence for the entry into free circulation in the Community of the products in question.

(10)

In order to ensure that these quantitative limits are not exceeded, it is necessary to establish a management procedure whereby the competent authorities of the Member States do not issue import licences before obtaining confirmation from the Commission that appropriate amounts remain available within the quantitative limit in question,

—

two letters identifying the exporting country as follows:

—

two letters identifying the Member State of intended destination as follows:

—

a one-digit number identifying the quota year corresponding to the last figure in the year in question, e.g. ‘4’ for 2004,

—

a two-digit number identifying the issuing office in the exporting country,

—

a five-digit number running consecutively from 00 001 to 99 999 allocated to the specific Member State of destination.

(a)

the full name and address of the exporter;

(b)

the full name and address of the importer;

(c)

the exact description of the goods and the TARIC code(s);

(d)

the country of origin of the goods;

(e)

the country of consignment;

(f)

the appropriate product group and the quantity for the products in question;

(g)

the net weight by TARIC heading;

(h)

the c.i.f. value of the products at Community frontier by TARIC heading;

(i)

whether the products concerned are seconds or of substandard quality;

(j)

where appropriate, dates of payment and delivery and a copy of the bill of lading and of the purchase contract;

(k)

date and number of the export licence;

(l)

any internal code used for administrative purposes;

(m)

date and signature of importer.

21.12.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 337/19

(1)

Article 1 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3491/90 (1) provides for reductions in the import levies on rice imports from that country. Those reductions corresponded, on the one hand, to amounts fixed in ecus and, on the other hand, to the amount for the protection of the industry referred to in Article 14(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1418/76 of 21 June 1976 on the common organisation of the market in rice (2).

(2)

Since the arrangement was adopted, numerous changes have been made to the applicable horizontal rules but Regulation (EEC) No 3491/90 has not been amended accordingly. The factors provided for in Article 1 of that Regulation for calculating the duties applicable to imports must be applied having regard to the horizontal rules concerned, which creates a risk of diverging interpretations.

(3)

More particularly, from 1 July 1995, variable import levies were converted into customs duties, following the adoption of Council Regulation (EC) No 3290/94 of 22 December 1994 on the adjustments and transitional arrangements required in the agriculture sector in order to implement the agreements concluded during the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations (3).

(4)

The concept of ‘an amount for the protection of the industry’ was abolished from 1 July 2006 by Council Regulation (EC) No 797/2006 of 22 May 2006 amending Regulation (EC) No 1785/2003 as regards the arrangements for importing rice (4).

(5)

The switch-over mechanism introduced in 1984 in the Community agrimonetary system, the purpose of which was to prevent agricultural exchange rates from developing in line with monetary rates, was abolished on 1 February 1995 by Council Regulation (EC) No 150/95 of 23 January 1995 amending Regulation (EEC) No 3813/92 on the unit of account and the conversion rates to be applied for the purposes of the common agricultural policy (5). When Regulation (EEC) No 3813/92 was repealed from 1 January 1999 by Council Regulation (EC) No 2799/98 of 15 December 1998 establishing agrimonetary arrangements for the euro (6), the prices and amounts provided for in the common agricultural policy (CAP) expressed in ecus were increased in parallel by applying a correcting factor of 1,207509, to cancel out the effects of bringing the conversion rates used under the CAP back to a realistic level, and the same coefficient of 1,207509 was therefore applied from 1 February 1995 to the amounts provided for in Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 3491/90.

(6)

Regulation (EEC) No 3491/90 should therefore be amended to make it clear what factors are to be taken into account for calculating the import duties applicable to rice originating in Bangladesh imported under that Regulation,

1.

Article 1(1) shall be replaced by the following:

‘1.   For imports originating in Bangladesh and within the limits of the quantities laid down in Article 2, the import duty on rice falling within CN codes 1006 10 (excluding CN code 1006 10 10), 1006 20 and 1006 30 shall be equal:

2.

Article 2(1) shall be amended as follows:

3.

footnote 4 shall be amended as follows:

4.

Article 3 shall be replaced by the following:

‘Article 3

Detailed rules for the application of this Regulation shall be adopted in accordance with the procedures laid down in Article 26 of Regulation (EC) No 1785/2003.’

21.12.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 337/21

(1)

Regulation (EC) No 2015/2006 (3) fixes for 2007 and 2008 the fishing opportunities for Community fishing vessels for certain deep-sea fish stocks.

(2)

The North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) at its extraordinary meeting in June 2007 decided to extend the recommendations on a prohibition to fish for orange roughy in the NEAFC Regulatory Area during the second half of 2007. These recommendations should be implemented in Community law.

(3)

The conditions applying to the fishery in certain zones need to be clarified to ensure the correct application of the Agreement of 19 December 1966 between Norway, Denmark and Sweden on mutual access to fishing in the Skagerrak and the Kattegat. An amendment is therefore required.

(4)

Regulation (EC) No 41/2007 (4) fixes for 2007 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)

Pursuant to consultations between the Community and Iceland on 28 March 2007 an arrangement was reached on quotas for Icelandic vessels to be fished from the Community quota allocated under its Agreement with the Government of Denmark and the local Government of Greenland before 30 April 2007, and for Community vessels fishing for redfish in the Icelandic Exclusive Economic Zone to be fished between July and December. This arrangement should be implemented in Community law.

(6)

The conditions applying to the fishery in certain zones for a number of TACs need to be clarified to ensure the correct application of the Agreement of 19 December 1966 between Norway, Denmark and Sweden on mutual access to fishing in the Skagerrak and the Kattegat. An amendment is therefore required.

(7)

In relation to the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 847/96 of 6 May 1996 introducing additional conditions for year-to-year management of TACs and quotas (5), the scientific status of certain stocks should to be clarified.

(8)

Pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 847/96, when more than 75 % of a precautionary TAC has been utilised before 31 October of the year of its application, a Member State with a quota for the stock for which that TAC has been fixed may request an increase in the TAC. Such a request by the Netherlands has been found to be justified in relation to the TAC for turbot and brill in EC waters of IIa and IV and should be implemented.

(9)

Pursuant to written consultations between the Community and the Faeroe Islands, agreement was reached on access as regards herring in EC and international waters of ICES zones I and II. This arrangement should be implemented in Community law.

(10)

In accordance with the Protocol to the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and Greenland (6), an additional amount of Greenland halibut was allocated to the Community in east Greenland in 2007. This arrangement should be implemented in Community law.

(11)

The North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) at its extraordinary meeting in June 2007 adopted recommendations on conservation and management measures in the NEAFC Regulatory Area in 2007 for redfish in international waters of ICES zones I and II. These recommendations should be implemented in Community law.

(12)

The conditions for replaced or withdrawn vessels in relation to the allocation of additional days for permanent cessation of fishing activities should be clarified, as the reference to certain vessels concerned by fishing effort limitations is indicated incorrectly.

(13)

The derogation from hailing requirements in Annexes IIA, IIB and IIC to Regulation (EC) No 41/2007 for vessels equipped with vessel monitoring systems in relation to fishing effort messages should be clarified.

(14)

The title of Annex IIB to Regulation (EC) No 41/2007 should be corrected to ensure consistency with the scope of that Annex.

(15)

The indication of the length of passive gears should be changed from 2,5 kilometres to 5 nautical miles to ensure that safety in handling the nets is not impaired in view of the existing rules for the marking and identification of passive fishing gear in Commission Regulation (EC) No 356/2005 of 1 March 2005 laying down detailed rules for the marking and identification of passive fishing gear and beam trawls (7) and certain specific rules on the use of gill nets.

(16)

Regulations (EC) No 2015/2006 and (EC) No 41/2007 should therefore be amended accordingly,

1.

Article 10 shall be replaced by the following:

‘Article 10

Access limits

1.   No fishing by Community vessels shall take place in the Skagerrak within 12 nautical miles from the baselines of Norway. However, vessels flying the flag of Denmark or Sweden shall be allowed to fish up to 4 nautical miles from the baselines of Norway.

2.   Fishing by Community vessels in waters under the jurisdiction of Iceland shall be limited to the area defined by straight lines sequentially connecting the following coordinates:

2.

Annexes IA, IB, IIA, IIB, IIC and III to Regulation (EC) No 41/2007 shall be amended in accordance with Annex II to this Regulation.

21.12.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 337/33

(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,

21.12.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 337/35

(1)

Regulation (EC) No 994/98 empowers the Commission to set out in a regulation a ceiling below which aid measures are considered not to meet all the criteria of Article 87(1) of the Treaty and therefore do not fall under the notification procedure provided for in Article 88(3) of the Treaty.

(2)

The Commission has applied Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty and in particular clarified, in numerous decisions, the notion of aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty. It has also stated its policy with regard to a de minimis ceiling under which Article 87(1) of the Treaty can be considered not to apply, firstly in its communication on de minimis aid (3) and then in Commission Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to de minimis aid (4), replaced on 1 January 2007 by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1998/2006 of 15 December 2006 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty to de minimis aid (5). In view of the special rules which apply in the agriculture sector and of the risks that even low levels of aid could fulfil the criteria of Article 87(1) of the Treaty in that sector, Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 excludes the agriculture sector from its scope. Regulation (EC) No 1998/2006 also excludes the sector of agricultural production from its scope.

(3)

However, since the experience gained over the years has shown that the very small amounts of aid granted in the agriculture sector may also not meet the criteria of Article 87(1) of the Treaty where certain conditions are met, the Commission laid down rules allowing the grant of de minimis aid in that sector in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1860/2004 of 6 October 2004 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to de minimis aid in the agriculture sector (6). That Regulation, by virtue of which the total amount of de minimis aid granted to one and the same undertaking is regarded as not meeting all the criteria of Article 87(1) of the Treaty where it does not exceed EUR 3 000 per beneficiary over any period of three years or a cumulative amount laid down for each Member State representing 0,3 % of annual output in the agriculture sector, covers both primary production and the processing and marketing of agricultural products.

(4)

Given the similarities between activities in the processing and marketing of agricultural products on the one hand and industrial activities on the other, activities in the processing and marketing of agricultural products were included in the scope of Regulation (EC) No 1998/2006, which governs de minimis aid for industrial activities. As a result, those activities were excluded from the scope of Regulation (EC) No 1860/2004. For the sake of clarity, Regulation (EC) No 1860/2004 should be repealed and replaced by a new Regulation applicable only to the agricultural production sector.

(5)

In the light of the Commission’s experience, the maximum amount of aid of EUR 3 000 per beneficiary over a period of three years may be increased to EUR 7 500 and the ceiling of 0,3 % of annual output in the agriculture sector may be increased to 0,75 % without trade between Member States being affected, without there being any distortion or threat of distortion of competition, and without aid being granted within those limits falling under Article 87(1) of the Treaty, provided that certain conditions are met. This increase will also help to reduce the administrative burden. The years to take into account are the fiscal years as used by the undertaking in the Member State concerned. The reference period of three years should be assessed on a rolling basis so that, for each new grant of de minimis aid, the total amount of de minimis aid granted in the fiscal year concerned, as well as during the previous two fiscal years, needs to be determined. It should not be possible for aid measures exceeding the ceiling of EUR 7 500 to be broken down into a number of smaller parts in order to bring such parts within the scope of this Regulation.

(6)

This Regulation should not apply to export aid or aid favouring domestic over imported products. In particular, it should not apply to aid financing the establishment and operation of a distribution network in other countries. Aid towards the cost of participating in trade fairs, or of studies or consultancy services needed for the launch of a new product or an existing product on a new market does not normally constitute export aid.

(7)

The Court of Justice of the European Communities has established that, once the Community has legislated for the establishment of a common organisation of the market in a given sector of agriculture, Member States are under an obligation to refrain from taking any measure which might undermine or create exceptions to it (7). For this reason, this Regulation should not apply to aid whose amount is laid down on the basis of price or quantity of products purchased or put on the market.

(8)

For the sake of transparency, equal treatment and the correct application of the de minimis ceiling, all Member States should apply the same method of calculation. In order to facilitate this calculation, aid amounts not taking the form of a grant should be converted into their gross grant equivalent. Calculation of the grant equivalent of forms of transparent aid other than grants or aid payable in several instalments requires the use of market interest rates prevailing at the time of granting such aid. With a view to a uniform, transparent and simple application of the State aid rules, the market rates for the purposes of this Regulation should be deemed to be the reference rates periodically fixed by the Commission on the basis of objective criteria and published in the Official Journal of the European Union or on the Internet. It may, however, be necessary to add additional basis points on top of the floor rate in view of the securities provided or the risk associated with the beneficiary.

(9)

Again for the purposes of transparency, equal treatment and the correct application of the de minimis ceiling, this Regulation should apply only to de minimis aid which is transparent. ‘Transparent aid’ should be taken to mean aid for which it is possible to calculate precisely in advance the gross grant equivalent without the need to undertake a risk assessment. Such precise calculation can, for instance, be made as regards grants, interest rate subsidies and capped tax exemptions. Aid in the form of soft loans should be considered to be transparent de minimis aid when the gross grant equivalent has been calculated on the basis of market interest rates prevailing at the time of grant. Aid in the form of capital injections should not be considered to be transparent de minimis aid unless the total amount of the public capital injection is lower than the de minimis ceiling per beneficiary. Aid in the form of risk capital measures as referred to in the Community guidelines on State aid to promote risk capital investments in small and medium-sized enterprises (8) should not be considered to be transparent de minimis aid unless the risk capital scheme concerned provides capital only up to the de minimis ceiling per beneficiary.

(10)

It is necessary to provide legal certainty for guarantee schemes which do not have the potential to affect trade and distort competition and in respect of which sufficient data is available to assess any potential effects reliably. This Regulation should therefore set a guarantee-specific ceiling based on the guaranteed amount of the underlying loan. This specific ceiling should be set on the basis of an assessment of the amount of State aid included in guarantee schemes covering loans in favour of viable undertakings. It should therefore not apply to ad hoc individual aid granted outside of the scope of a guarantee scheme or to guarantees on underlying transactions not constituting a loan, such as guarantees on equity transactions. The specific ceiling should be determined on the basis of the fact that taking account of a cap rate (net default rate) of 13 %, representing a worst case scenario for guarantee schemes in the Community, a guarantee amounting to EUR 56 250 can be considered as having a gross grant equivalent identical to the de minimis ceiling of EUR 7 500. Only guarantees covering up to 80 % of the underlying loan should be covered by this specific ceiling. A methodology approved by the Commission following notification on the basis of a Commission Regulation on State aid may also be used by the Member States to calculate the gross grant equivalent of the guarantee, if the approved methodology explicitly addresses the type of guarantees and the type of underlying transactions concerned in the context of applying this Regulation.

(11)

This Regulation should not apply to undertakings in difficulty within the meaning of the Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty (9) given the difficulties linked to determining the gross grant equivalent of aid granted to this type of undertaking.

(12)

In accordance with the principles governing aid falling within Article 87(1) of the Treaty, de minimis aid should be considered to be granted at the moment the right to receive the aid is conferred on the undertaking under the applicable national legal regime.

(13)

In order to avoid circumvention of maximum aid intensities laid down in different Community instruments, it should not be possible for de minimis aid to be cumulated with State aid in respect of the same eligible costs if such cumulation would result in an aid intensity exceeding that laid down by Community rules in the specific circumstances of each case.

(14)

This Regulation does not exclude the possibility that a measure adopted by a Member State might not be considered to be State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty on a basis other than this Regulation, for instance in the case of capital injections or guarantees, because such measure has been decided in conformity with the principle of private investors operating in normal market-economy conditions.

(15)

The Commission must ensure that State aid rules are complied with, and in particular that aid granted under the de minimis rules meets the conditions thereof. In accordance with the cooperation principle laid down in Article 10 of the Treaty, Member States should facilitate the achievement of this task by establishing the necessary machinery to ensure that the total amount of aid granted under the de minimis rule does not exceed either the ceiling of EUR 7 500 per beneficiary or the overall ceilings established by the Commission on the basis of the value of agricultural output. To that end, when granting de minimis aid, the Member States should inform the undertaking concerned of the amount of aid granted and of its de minimis character, by referring to this Regulation. Moreover, prior to granting such aid the Member State should obtain from the undertaking a declaration about other de minimis aid received during the current fiscal year and the two previous fiscal years and carefully check that the new aid does not make the total amount of de minimis aid received exceed the applicable ceilings. Alternatively, compliance with the ceilings may also be ensured by means of a central register. In the case of guarantee schemes set up by the European Investment Fund, the latter may establish a list of beneficiaries and require Member States to inform the beneficiaries of the de minimis aid received.

(16)

Regulation (EC) No 1860/2004 was initially due to expire on 31 December 2008. Since this Regulation has to enter into force before that date, the consequences of that as regards its applicability to aid granted to undertakings in the agricultural production sector under Regulation (EC) No 1860/2004 should be clarified.

(17)

In the light of the Commission’s experience and in particular the frequency with which it is generally necessary to revise State aid policy, the period of validity of this Regulation should be limited. Should this Regulation expire without having been extended, Member States should have an adjustment period of six months with regard to de minimis aid covered by it,

(a)

aid the amount of which is fixed on the basis of price or quantity of products put on the market;

(b)

aid to export-related activities, namely aid directly linked to the quantities exported, to the establishment and operation of a distribution network or to other current expenditure linked to the export activity;

(c)

aid contingent on the use of domestic over imported goods;

(d)

aid granted to undertakings in difficulty.

1.

‘undertakings in the sector of agricultural production’ means undertakings active in the primary production of agricultural products;

2.

‘agricultural products’ means the products listed in Annex I to the Treaty, except fisheries and acquaculture products covered by Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 (10).

(a)

aid in the form of loans shall be considered transparent aid where the gross grant equivalent has been calculated on the basis of market interest rates prevailing at the time of the grant.

(b)

aid in the form of capital injections shall not be considered transparent aid unless the total amount of the public capital injection does not exceed the de minimis ceiling.

(c)

aid in the form of risk capital measures shall not be considered transparent aid unless the risk capital scheme concerned only provides capital to each undertaking up to the de minimis ceiling.

(d)

individual aid provided under a guarantee scheme to undertakings which are not undertakings in difficulty shall be treated as transparent de minimis aid when the guaranteed part of the underlying loan provided under such scheme does not exceed EUR 56 250 per undertaking. If the guaranteed part of the underlying loan only accounts for a given proportion of this ceiling, the gross grant equivalent of that guarantee shall be deemed to correspond to the same proportion of the ceiling laid down in paragraph 2. The guarantee shall not exceed 80 % of the underlying loan.

(i)

before they are implemented, the method used to calculate the gross grant equivalent contained in the guarantee for the purpose of applying this Regulation was approved by the Commission in the form of an adopted Commission Regulation on State aid;

(ii)

the approved method explicitly addresses the type of guarantees and the type of underlying transactions at stake in the context of applying this Regulation.

(a)

the European Investment Fund shall establish, on a yearly basis, on the basis of information that financial intermediaries must provide to the EIF, a list of beneficiaries of aid and of the gross grant equivalent received by each of them. The European Investment Fund shall send this information to the Member State concerned and to the Commission;

(b)

the Member State concerned shall send that information to the final beneficiaries of the aid within three months of receipt of such information;

(c)

the Member State concerned shall obtain a declaration from each beneficiary that the overall de minimis aid it has received does not exceed the de minimis ceiling. Where that ceiling is exceeded, the Member State concerned shall ensure that the aid measure leading to the ceiling being exceeded is notified to the Commission or recovered from the beneficiary.

(a)

in the case of individual de minimis aid, for 10 years from the date on which the aid is granted;

(b)

in the case of de minimis aid schemes, for 10 years from the date on which the last individual aid was granted under the scheme in question.

21.12.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 337/42

(1)

The Commission has received an application for a ‘new exporter’ review pursuant to Article 11(4) of the basic Regulation. The application was lodged by Yingkou Dalmond Refractories Co., Ltd (the applicant), an exporting producer in the People’s Republic of China (the country concerned).

(2)

The product under review is chemically bonded, unfired magnesia bricks, whose magnesia component contains at least 80 % MgO, whether or not containing magnesite originating in the People’s Republic of China (the product concerned), currently classifiable within CN codes ex 6815 91 00, ex 6815 99 10 and ex 6815 99 90 (TARIC codes 6815910010, 6815991020 and 6815999020). These CN codes are given only for information.

(3)

The measures currently in force are a definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 1659/2005 (2) under which imports into the Community of the product concerned originating in the People’s Republic of China, including the product concerned produced by the applicant, are subject to a definitive anti-dumping duty of 39,9 % with the exception of several companies specially mentioned which are subject to individual duty rates.

(4)

The applicant alleges that it operates under market economy conditions as defined in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation or alternatively claims individual treatment in conformity with Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation, that it did not export the product concerned to the Community during the period of investigation on which the anti-dumping measures were based, i.e. the period from 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004 (the original investigation period) and that it is not related to any of the exporting producers of the product which are subject to the above mentioned anti-dumping measures.

(5)

The applicant further alleges that it has begun exporting the product concerned to the Community after the end of the original investigation period.

(6)

Community producers known to be concerned have been informed of the above mentioned application and have been given an opportunity to comment.

(7)

Having examined the evidence available, the Commission concludes that there is sufficient evidence to justify the initiation of a ‘new exporter’ review, pursuant to Article 11(4) of the basic Regulation, with a view to determining whether the applicant operates under market economy conditions as defined in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation or alternatively whether the applicant fulfils the requirements to have an individual duty established in accordance with Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation and, if so, the applicant’s individual margin of dumping and, should dumping be found, the level of the duty to which their imports of the product concerned into the Community should be subject.

(8)

If it is determined that the applicant fulfils the requirements to have an individual duty established, it may be necessary to amend the rate of duty currently applicable to imports of the product concerned from companies not individually mentioned in Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1659/2005.

(9)

Pursuant to Article 11(4) of the basic Regulation, the anti-dumping duty in force should be repealed with regard to imports of the product concerned which are produced and sold for export to the Community by the applicant. At the same time, such imports should be made subject to registration in accordance with Article 14(5) of the basic Regulation, in order to ensure that, should the review result in a finding of dumping in respect of the applicants, anti-dumping duties can be levied retroactively from the date of the initiation of this review. The amount of the applicant’s possible future liabilities cannot be estimated at this stage of the proceeding.

(10)

In the interest of sound administration, time limits should be stated within which:

(11)

In cases in which any interested party refuses access to or does not provide the necessary information within the time limits, or significantly impedes the investigation, findings, affirmative or negative, may be made in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, on the basis of the facts available.

(12)

Where it is found that any interested party has supplied false or misleading information, the information shall be disregarded and use may be made, in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, of the facts available. If an interested party does not cooperate or cooperates only partially, and use of facts available is made, the result may be less favourable to that party than if it had cooperated.

(13)

It is noted that any personal data collected in this investigation will be treated in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and the Council on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (3).

(14)

It is also noted that if interested parties consider that they are encountering difficulties in the exercise of their rights of defence, they may request the intervention of the Hearing Officer of DG Trade. He acts as an interface between the interested parties and the Commission services, offering, where necessary, mediation on procedural matters affecting the protection of their interests in this proceeding, in particular with regard to issues concerning access to the file, confidentiality, extension of time limits and the treatment of written and/or oral submission of views. For further information and contact details, interested parties may consult the Hearing Officer’s web pages on the website of DG Trade (http://ec.europa.eu/trade),

European Commission

Directorate General for Trade

Directorate H

Office: J-79 4/23

B-1049 Brussels

Fax (32-2) 295 65 05

21.12.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 337/46

(1)

The compensatory allowance provided for in Article 27 of Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 may be granted under certain conditions to Community tuna producer organisations for quantities of tuna delivered to the processing industry during the calendar quarter for which prices were recorded, where both the average quarterly selling price recorded on the Community market and the import price plus any countervailing charge were lower than 87 % of the Community producer price for the product concerned.

(2)

An examination of the situation on the Community market has shown that between 1 January and 31 March 2007 both the average quarterly selling price and the import price as referred to in Article 27 of Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 for Albacore (Thunnus alalunga) were lower than 87 % of the Community producer price in force, as laid down in Council Regulation (EC) No 1969/2006 (2).

(3)

Entitlement to the compensatory allowance should be determined on the basis of sales which are covered by invoices bearing a date falling within the quarter concerned and which have been used to calculate the average monthly selling price in accordance with Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2183/2001 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 as regards granting the compensatory allowance for tuna intended for the processing industry (3).

(4)

In accordance with Article 27(2) of Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 the level of the compensation may not in any case exceed either the difference between the triggering threshold and the average selling price of the product in question on the Community market or a flat-rate amount equivalent to 12 % of that threshold.

(5)

The quantities on which compensation is payable may under no circumstances, for the quarter concerned, exceed the limits laid down in Article 27(3) of Regulation (EC) No 104/2000.

(6)

The quantities of Albacore (Thunnus alalunga) sold and delivered to the processing industry established in the customs territory of the Community were higher during the quarter concerned than the quantities sold and delivered during the same quarter of the three previous fishing years. Since those quantities exceed the limit set in Article 27(3) of Regulation (EC) No 104/2000, the total quantities of those products on which compensation is payable should be limited.

(7)

In accordance with the ceilings laid down in Article 27(4) of Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 for the purpose of calculating the allowance to be granted to each producer organisation, the quantities on which the allowance is payable should be allocated among the producer organisations concerned in proportion to the quantities produced by them in the same quarter of the 2004, 2005 and 2006 fishing years.

(8)

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

21.12.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 337/49

(1)

Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 327/98 (3) limits the validity of export licences issued by certain third countries for the purpose of submitting applications for import licences to the relevant quota year.

(2)

This provision represents an administrative constraint on the Community authorities, although the validity and control of these licences is mainly the responsibility of the authorities in the countries of export. Maintaining this provision as a criterion for eligibility of applications for import licences is thus neither justified nor necessary. It should therefore be abolished.

(3)

Regulation (EC) No 327/98 should be amended accordingly.

(4)

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

21.12.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 337/50

(1)

Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1670/2006 lays down that the quantities of cereals eligible for the refund are to be the quantities placed under control and distilled, weighted by a coefficient to be fixed annually for each Member State concerned. The coefficient is to express the average ratio between the total quantities exported and the total quantities marketed of the spirit drink concerned, on the basis of the trend noted in those quantities during the number of years corresponding to the average ageing period of the spirit drink in question.

(2)

According to the information provided by the United Kingdom in respect of the period 1 January to 31 December 2006, the average ageing period for Scotch whisky in 2006 was six years.

(3)

The coefficients for the period from 1 October 2007 to 30 September 2008 should therefore be fixed accordingly.

(4)

Article 10 of Protocol 3 to the Agreement on the European Economic Area excludes the grant of refunds in respect of exports to Liechtenstein, Iceland and Norway. Moreover, the Community has concluded agreements abolishing export refunds with certain third countries. Under the terms of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1670/2006, this should be taken into account in calculating the coefficients for 2007/08,

21.12.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 337/52

(1)

Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1670/2006 lays down that the quantities of cereals eligible for the refund are to be the quantities placed under control and distilled, weighted by a coefficient to be fixed annually for each Member State concerned. The coefficient is to express the average ratio between the total quantities exported and the total quantities marketed of the spirit drink concerned, on the basis of the trend noted in those quantities during the number of years corresponding to the average ageing period of the spirit drink in question.

(2)

According to the information provided by Ireland in respect of the period 1 January to 31 December 2006, the average ageing period for Irish whiskey in 2006 was five years.

(3)

The coefficients for the period from 1 October 2007 to 30 September 2008 should therefore be fixed accordingly.

(4)

Article 10 of Protocol 3 to the Agreement on the European Economic Area excludes the grant of refunds in respect of exports to Liechtenstein, Iceland and Norway. Moreover, the Community has concluded agreements abolishing export refunds with certain third countries. Under the terms of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1670/2006, this should be taken into account in calculating the coefficients for 2007/08,