(1)

Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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)

Aircraft falling within the scope of Article 2c of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1702/2003 (2) and meeting the specific airworthiness specifications laid down therein are to be issued by Member States restricted certificates of airworthiness allowing them to continue until 28 March 2008 the operations that they were entitled to perform on 28 March 2007.

(2)

Article 2c(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1702/2003 provides that the Commission may extend the period of validity referred to in paragraph 2 of that Article by a maximum of 18 months, provided that a certification process for the type of aircraft concerned has been undertaken by the European Aviation Safety Agency (the Agency) before 28 March 2008 and that the Agency has determined that such process can be concluded within the additional period of validity.

(3)

Pursuant to Article 2c(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1702/2003 the Agency issued a determination on 15 February 2008 to the effect that the conditions for extending the period of validity referred to in paragraph 2 of Article 2c of Regulation (EC) No 1702/2003 are met as regards certain types of aircraft. It notified its determination to the Commission on the same day.

(4)

Specifically, in its determination the Agency states that it has received and accepted applications for the certification and/or validation of the type certificates issued by the certifying authorities of the ex-Soviet Union of two aircraft: the aeroplane of type Antonov AN-26, enabling it to also consider the certification of the aeroplane of type AN-26B, and the helicopter of the type Kamov-32A11BC, enabling it to also consider the certification of the helicopter of type Kamov-32A12.

(5)

In its determination the Agency further concludes that it can complete the certification process of these aircraft types by 28 September 2009.

(6)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee referred to in Article 54(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1592/2002,

(1)

Commission Regulations (EC) No 451/2000 (2) and (EC) No 1490/2002 (3) lay down the detailed rules for the implementation of the third stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and establish a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. That list includes amidosulfuron and nicosulfuron.

(2)

For those active substances the effects on human health and the environment have been assessed in accordance with the provisions laid down in Regulations (EC) No 451/2000 and (EC) No 1490/2002 for a range of uses proposed by the notifiers. Moreover, those Regulations designate the rapporteur Member States which have to submit the relevant assessment reports and recommendations to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in accordance with Article 10(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002. For amidosulfuron and nicosulfuron the rapporteur Member States were Austria and the United Kingdom and all relevant information was submitted on 31 May 2005 and 7 December 2005 respectively.

(3)

The assessment reports have been peer reviewed by the Member States and the EFSA and presented to the Commission on 22 January 2007 for amidosulfuron and nicosulfuron, in the format of the EFSA Scientific Reports (4). These reports have been reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 22 January 2008 in the format of the Commission review reports for amidosulfuron and nicosulfuron.

(4)

It has appeared from the various examinations made that plant protection products containing amidosulfuron and nicosulfuron may be expected to satisfy, in general, the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular with regard to the uses which were examined and detailed in the Commission review reports. It is therefore appropriate to include these active substances in Annex I, in order to ensure that in all Member States the authorisations of plant protection products containing these active substances can be granted in accordance with the provisions of that Directive.

(5)

A reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before an active substance is included in Annex I in order to permit Member States and the interested parties to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements which will result from the inclusion.

(6)

Without prejudice to the obligations defined by Directive 91/414/EEC as a consequence of including an active substance in Annex I, Member States should be allowed a period of six months after inclusion to review existing authorisations of plant protection products containing amidosulfuron and nicosulfuron to ensure that the requirements laid down by Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular in its Article 13 and the relevant conditions set out in Annex I, are satisfied. Member States should vary, replace or withdraw, as appropriate, existing authorisations, in accordance with the provisions of Directive 91/414/EEC. By way of derogation from the above deadline, a longer period should be provided for the submission and assessment of the complete Annex III dossier of each plant protection product for each intended use in accordance with the uniform principles laid down in Directive 91/414/EEC.

(7)

The experience gained from previous inclusions in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC of active substances assessed in the framework of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 (5) has shown that difficulties can arise in interpreting the duties of holders of existing authorisations in relation to access to data. In order to avoid further difficulties it therefore appears necessary to clarify the duties of the Member States, especially the duty to verify that the holder of an authorisation demonstrates access to a dossier satisfying the requirements of Annex II to that Directive. However, this clarification does not impose any new obligations on Member States or holders of authorisations compared to the directives which have been adopted until now amending Annex I.

(8)

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

(9)

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)

On 5 June 2003, the Council authorised the Commission to open negotiations with third countries on the replacement of certain provisions in existing bilateral agreements with a Community Agreement.

(2)

The Commission has negotiated, on behalf of the Community, an Agreement with the Kingdom of Morocco on certain aspects of air services (the Agreement) in accordance with the mechanisms and directives in the Annex to the Council Decision authorising the Commission to open negotiations with third countries on the replacement of certain provisions in existing bilateral agreements with a Community Agreement.

(3)

The Agreement was signed on behalf of the European Community subject to its possible conclusion at a later date, in conformity with Council Decision 2006/953/EC (2).

(4)

The Agreement should be approved,

(1)

Bulgaria and Romania signed bilateral Air Service Agreements with the Kingdom of Morocco on 14 October 1966 and 6 December 1971 respectively.

(2)

The Commission has negotiated with third countries on the replacement of certain provisions appearing in the existing bilateral agreements by a Community Agreement.

(3)

The Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Morocco on certain aspects of air services (2) (hereinafter referred to as the horizontal Agreement) was signed at Brussels on 12 December 2006 and has been applied provisionally from that date.

(4)

The Treaty of Accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union (3) was signed at Luxembourg on 25 April 2005 and entered into force on 1 January 2007.

(5)

A Protocol amending Annexes I and II to the horizontal Agreement is necessary in order to take account of the accession of the two new Member States.

(6)

The Protocol amending Annexes I and II to the Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Morocco on certain aspects of air services was initialled on 19 March 2007.

(7)

The Protocol should be approved,

(1)

The ecological criteria set out in Commission Decision 2005/338/EC of 14 April 2005 establishing the ecological criteria for the award of the Community eco-label to campsite service (2) expire on 14 April 2008.

(2)

Pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1980/2000 a timely review has been undertaken of the ecological criteria, as well as of the related assessment and verification requirements, established by Commission Decision 2005/338/EC.

(3)

Given the different stages of the revision process it is appropriate to prolong the relevant period of validity for a period of 18 months.

(4)

Decision 2005/338/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.

(5)

The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee instituted by Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1980/2000,

(1)

The ecological criteria set out in the Commission Decision 2001/405/EC of 4 May 2001 establishing the ecological criteria for the award of the Community eco-label to tissue paper products (2) expires on 4 May 2008.

(2)

Pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1980/2000 a timely review has been carried out of the ecological criteria, as well as of the related assessment and verification requirements, established by this Decision.

(3)

In the light of the review of those criteria and requirements, it is appropriate to prolong the period of validity of the ecological criteria and the requirements for Decision 2001/405/EC for a period of 12 months.

(4)

Since the review obligation pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1980/2000 concerns only the ecological criteria and assessment and verification requirements, it is appropriate that Decision 2001/405/EC remains in effect.

(5)

Decision 2001/405/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.

(6)

The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee instituted by Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1980/2000,

(1)

In accordance with Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC the United Kingdom received on 27 October 2004 an application from Valent Bioscience, for the inclusion of the active substance aviglycine HCl in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC.

(2)

By Commission Decision 2006/589/EC (2) it was confirmed that, on preliminary examination, the dossier was ‘complete’, in that it could be considered as satisfying, in principle, the data and information requirements of Annex II and Annex III to Directive 91/414/EEC.

(3)

Member States were thereby given the possibility to grant provisional authorisations for plant protection products containing aviglycine HCl, in accordance with Article 8(1) of Directive 91/414/EEC. No Member State has used this possibility.

(4)

The United Kingdom, as rapporteur Member State, has indicated to the Commission that a detailed examination of the dossier revealed that several additional items of data were still required under Annexes II and III of Directive 91/414/EEC. Accordingly, the dossier can no longer be considered to be complete.

(5)

The notifier for aviglycine HCl informed the United Kingdom and the Commission of its intention not to support the ongoing evaluation any further and not to submit further data. As a result, it is clear that the dossier will be not completed and that it will thus be impossible for the rapporteur Member State to draft an assessment report concerning aviglycine HCl and distribute it to the Commission, the European Food Safety Authority and the other Member States. The possibility of granting provisional authorisations should therefore be withdrawn.

(6)

No period of grace for disposal, storage, placing in the market and use of existing stocks of plant protection products containing aviglycine HCl is necessary as no Member State has granted a provisional authorisation for this active substance.

(7)

Decision 2006/589/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.

(8)

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)

Foods and food ingredients produced from genetically modified maize line GA21 (MON-ØØØ21-9) have been authorised for placing on the market as novel food or novel food ingredients by Commission Decision 2006/69/EC of 13 January 2006 authorising the placing on the market of food and food ingredients produced from genetically modified Roundup Ready maize line GA21 as novel foods and novel food ingredients under Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2).

(2)

That Decision was addressed to Monsanto Europe S.A., Belgium, representing Monsanto Company, USA, and was valid for 10 years.

(3)

By letter of 1 March 2007 to the Commission, Monsanto Europe S.A., taking into consideration that Syngenta Seeds S.A.S. has submitted an application for the placing on the market of GA21 maize products, indicated that it had discontinued GA21 seed production several years ago and seed sales in 2005, and thus it had no interest to maintain this authorisation as of the entry into force of the authorisation granted to Syngenta.

(4)

On 2 October 2007, the European Food Safety Authority gave a favourable opinion for an application submitted by Syngenta, under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 and including products covered by Decision 2006/69/EC.

(5)

As a consequence, it is appropriate to provide that the repeal of Decision 2006/69/EC should apply from the day of application of the authorisation granted to Syngenta for GA21 products.

(6)

The entries in the Community register of genetically modified food and feed, as provided for in Article 28 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, regarding MON-ØØØ21-9 maize should be modified in order to take account of this Decision.

(7)

Monsanto Europe S.A. has been consulted on the measures provided for in this Decision.

(8)

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)

On 29 July 2005, Syngenta Seeds S.A.S., on behalf of Syngenta Crop Protection AG, submitted to the competent authorities of the United Kingdom an application, in accordance with Articles 5 and 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, for the placing on the market of foods, food ingredients, and feed containing, consisting of, or produced from GA21 maize.

(2)

That application also covers the placing on the market of other products containing or consisting of GA21 maize for the same uses as any other maize with the exception of cultivation. Therefore, in accordance with the provision of Articles 5(5) and 17(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, it includes the data and information required by Annexes III and IV to Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC (2) and information and conclusions about the risk assessment carried out in accordance with the principles set out in Annex II to Directive 2001/18/EC.

(3)

On 17 April 2007, Syngenta Seeds S.A.S., on behalf of Syngenta Crop Protection AG, submitted to the Commission an application, in accordance with Articles 8(4) and 20(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, for the authorisation of existing products produced from GA21 maize (food additives, feed materials and feed additives produced from GA21 maize).

(4)

On 2 October 2007, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) gave a single comprehensive favourable opinion for both applications in accordance with Articles 6 and 18 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 and concluded that it is unlikely that the placing on the market of the products containing, consisting of, or produced from GA21 maize as described in the applications (the products) will have adverse effects on human or animal health or the environment (3). In its opinion, EFSA considered all specific questions and concerns raised by the Member States in the context of the consultation of the national competent authorities provided for by Articles 6(4) and 18(4) of that Regulation.

(5)

In its opinion, EFSA also concluded that the environmental monitoring plan, consisting of a general surveillance plan, submitted by the applicant is in line with the intended use of the products.

(6)

Taking into account those considerations, authorisation should be granted for the products.

(7)

A unique identifier should be assigned to each GMO as provided for in Commission Regulation (EC) No 65/2004 of 14 January 2004 establishing a system for the development and assignment of unique identifiers for genetically modified organisms (4).

(8)

On the basis of the EFSA opinion, no specific labelling requirements other than those provided for in Articles 13(1) and 25(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 appear to be necessary for the foods, food ingredients, and feed containing, consisting of, or produced from GA21 maize. However, in order to ensure the use of the products within the limits of authorisation provided by this Decision, the labelling of feed containing or consisting of the GMO and other products than food and feed containing or consisting of the GMO for which authorisation is requested should be complemented by a clear indication that the products in question must not be used for cultivation.

(9)

Similarly, the EFSA opinion does not justify the imposition of specific conditions or restrictions for the placing on the market and/or specific conditions or restrictions for the use and handling, including post-market monitoring requirements, or of specific conditions for the protection of particular ecosystems/environment and/or geographical areas, as provided for in point (e) of Articles 6(5) and 18(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003.

(10)

All relevant information on the authorisation of the products should be entered in the Community register of genetically modified food and feed as provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003.

(11)

Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1830/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 concerning the traceability and labelling of genetically modified organisms and the traceability of food and feed products produced from genetically modified organisms and amending directive 2001/18/EC (5), lays down labelling requirements for products consisting of or containing GMOs.

(12)

This Decision is to be notified through the Biosafety Clearing House to the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity, pursuant to Article 9(1) and Article 15(2)(c), of Regulation (EC) No 1946/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2003 on transboundary movements of genetically modified organisms (6).

(13)

The Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health did not deliver an opinion within the time limit laid down by its Chairman. The Commission therefore submitted to the Council a proposal relating to these measures.

(14)

At its meeting on 18 February 2008, the Council was unable to reach a decision by qualified majority either for or against the proposal. The Council indicated that its proceedings on this file were concluded and that the Commission could finalise the decision-making process. It is accordingly for the Commission to adopt the measures,

(a)

foods and food ingredients containing, consisting of, or produced from MON-ØØØ21-9 maize;

(b)

feed containing, consisting of, or produced from MON-ØØØ21-9 maize;

(c)

products, other than food and feed, containing or consisting of MON-ØØØ21-9 maize for the same uses as any other maize with the exception of cultivation.