(1)

It is necessary to take account of changes in the cost of living in countries outside the Community and to determine accordingly the weightings applicable from 1 July 2007 to remuneration paid in the currency of the country of employment to officials, temporary staff and contract staff serving in third countries.

(2)

The weightings in respect of which payment has been made on the basis of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 453/2007 (2) may lead to retrospective upward or downward adjustments to remuneration.

(3)

Provision should be made for back-payments in the event of increases in remuneration as a result of the new weightings.

(4)

Provision should be made for the recovery of sums overpaid in the event of reductions in remuneration as a result of the new weightings for the period between 1 July 2007 and the date of entry into force of this Regulation.

(5)

Provision should be made for any such recovery to be restricted to a period of no more than six months preceding the date of entry into force of this Regulation and for its effects to be spread over a period of no more than 12 months following that date, as is the case with the weightings applicable within the European Community to the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Communities,

(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)

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 the active substances listed in the Annex to this Directive.

(2)

By Regulation (EC) No 1095/2007 a new Article 11b was inserted into Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002 to allow active substances for which there are clear indications that it may be expected that they do not have any harmful effects on human or animal health or on groundwater or any unacceptable influence on the environment, to be included in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC without detailed scientific advice from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) having been sought.

(3)

For the active substances listed in the Annex to this Directive the Commission examined in accordance with Article 11a of Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002 the effects on human, animal health, groundwater and the environment for a range of uses proposed by the notifiers, with the conclusion that those active substances satisfy the requirements of Article 11b of Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002.

(4)

In accordance with Article 12(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002 the Commission has submitted draft review reports for the active substances listed in the Annex to this Directive to the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health, for examination. Those 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 14 March 2008 in the format of the Commission review reports. In accordance with Article 12a of Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002 the Commission is to request the EFSA to deliver its view on the draft review reports by 31 December 2010 at the latest.

(5)

It has appeared from the various examinations made that plant protection products containing the active substances listed in the Annex to this Directive 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 have been examined and detailed in the Commission review report. It is therefore appropriate to include in Annex I to that Directive the active substances listed in the Annex to this Directive, in order to ensure that in all Member States the authorisations of plant protection products containing this active substance can be granted in accordance with the provisions of that Directive.

(6)

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.

(7)

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 the active substances listed in the Annex 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 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.

(8)

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 (4) 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 that have been adopted until now amending Annex I.

(9)

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

(10)

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)

As confirmed by the Council in its conclusions of 3 December 2004, effective and coherent use of radio spectrum is essential for the development of electronic communications services and contributes to stimulating growth, competitiveness and employment; access to spectrum must be eased to improve efficiency and promote innovation as well as greater flexibility for users and more choice for consumers, while taking account of general interest objectives.

(2)

The European Parliament, in its resolution of 14 February 2007 entitled ‘Towards a European Policy on the Radio Spectrum’ (3), emphasised the importance of communications for rural and less developed regions, for which the diffusion of broadband, lower frequency mobile communications and new wireless technologies could provide efficient solutions to achieving universal coverage in the 27 Member States with a view to the sustainable development of all areas. The European Parliament also noted that Member States’ regimes for spectrum allocation and exploitation differ widely and that those differences represent serious obstacles to the achievement of a well-functioning internal market.

(3)

The Commission, in its Communication of 26 April 2007 on European Space Policy, has also established an objective of facilitating the introduction of innovative satellite communications services, in particular by aggregating demand in remote and rural areas, while stressing the need for pan-European licensing of satellite services and spectrum.

(4)

Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) (4) aims at encouraging efficient use and ensuring effective management of radio frequencies and numbering resources, removing the remaining obstacles to the provision of the relevant networks and services, ensuring that there is no discrimination and encouraging the establishment and development of trans-European networks and the interoperability of pan-European services.

(5)

The introduction of new systems providing mobile satellite services (MSS) would contribute to the development of the internal market and enhance competition by increasing the availability of pan-European services and end-to-end connectivity as well as encouraging efficient investment. MSS constitute an innovative alternative platform for various types of pan-European telecommunications and broadcasting/multicasting services, regardless of the location of end users, such as high-speed Internet/intranet access, mobile multimedia and public protection and disaster relief. MSS could, in particular, improve coverage of rural areas in the Community, thus bridging the digital divide in terms of geography, strengthening cultural diversity and media pluralism and simultaneously contributing to the competitiveness of European information and communication technology industries in line with the objectives of the renewed Lisbon strategy. Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive) (5) should apply, as appropriate, to audiovisual media services transmitted using MSS systems.

(6)

Satellite communications, by their very nature, cross national borders and, as such, are susceptible to international or regional in addition to national regulation. Pan-European satellite services are an important element of the internal market and could make a substantial contribution to achieving European Union objectives, such as expansion of geographical coverage of broadband in line with the i2010 initiative (6). New applications of mobile satellite systems will emerge in the coming years.

(7)

Commission Decision 2007/98/EC of 14 February 2007 on the harmonised use of radio spectrum in the 2 GHz frequency bands for the implementation of systems providing mobile satellite services (7) provides that Member States shall make these frequency bands available to systems providing MSS in the Community as of 1 July 2007.

(8)

Radio spectrum technical management, as organised by Decision No 676/2002/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a regulatory framework for radio spectrum policy in the European Community (Radio Spectrum Decision) (8) in general and Decision 2007/98/EC in particular, does not cover procedures for assignment of spectrum and granting rights of use for radio frequencies.

(9)

With the exception of Article 8 of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive) (9), operators of mobile satellite systems are selected and authorised at national level under the existing Community regulatory framework for electronic communications.

(10)

Regulations of the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) provide for procedures for satellite radio frequency coordination as a tool for management of harmful interference, but do not extend to selection or authorisation.

(11)

In order to prevent Member States from taking decisions that might lead to fragmentation of the internal market and undermine the objectives identified in Article 8 of Directive 2002/21/EC, selection criteria for mobile satellite systems should exceptionally be harmonised so that the selection process results in availability of MSS across the European Union. High up-front investment required for the development of mobile satellite systems and the associated high technological and financial risks necessitate an economy of scale for such systems in the form of wide pan-European geographic coverage, so that they remain economically viable.

(12)

Moreover, the successful launch of MSS requires coordination of regulatory action by Member States. Differences in national selection procedures could still create fragmentation of the internal market due to the divergent implementation of selection criteria, including the weighting of the criteria, or different timescales of the selection procedures. This would result in a patchwork of successful applicants selected in contradiction to the pan-European nature of those MSS. Selection of different operators of mobile satellite systems by different Member States could imply complex harmful interference situations or could even mean that a selected operator is prevented from providing a pan-European satellite service, for instance where different radio frequencies are assigned to the operator in different Member States. Therefore, harmonisation of the selection criteria should be supplemented by the establishment of a common selection mechanism that would provide a coordinated selection outcome for all Member States.

(13)

Since authorisation of the selected operators of mobile satellite systems involves attachment of conditions to such authorisations and a broad range of national provisions applicable in the field of electronic communications must thus be taken into account, the authorisation issues should be dealt with by the competent authorities of the Member States. However, in order to ensure consistency of authorisation approaches between different Member States, provisions relating to the synchronised assignment of spectrum and harmonised authorisation conditions should be established at the Community level, without prejudice to specific national conditions compatible with Community law.

(14)

MSS can generally reach geographic areas not well covered by other electronic communications services, in particular rural areas. The coordinated selection and authorisation of new systems providing MSS could therefore play an important role in bridging the digital divide by improving the accessibility, speed, and quality of electronic communications services in these areas, thus contributing to social cohesion. Therefore, the proposed coverage area of MSS (service area), as well as the time frame for providing MSS within all Member States, are important characteristics which should be taken into account in an appropriate manner during the selection procedure.

(15)

Taking into account a comparatively long period of time and complex technical development steps required for the launch of MSS, progress in the technical and commercial development of mobile satellite systems should be assessed as part of the selection procedure.

(16)

Satellite radio frequency coordination is critical for the effective provision of MSS in the Member States and should therefore be considered when the credibility of applicants and the viability of the proposed mobile satellite systems are assessed during the selection procedure.

(17)

The comparative selection procedure should aim to bring mobile satellite systems in the 2 GHz frequency band into use without undue delay, while taking into account the right of applicants to fair and non-discriminatory participation.

(18)

Complementary ground components are an integral part of a mobile satellite system and are used, typically, to enhance the services offered via the satellite in areas where it may not be possible to retain a continuous line of sight with the satellite due to obstructions in the skyline caused by buildings and terrain. In accordance with Decision 2007/98/EC, complementary ground components use the same frequency bands as MSS (1 980 to 2 010 MHz and 2 170 to 2 200 MHz). The authorisation of such complementary ground components will therefore mainly rely on conditions related to local circumstances. They should therefore be selected and authorised at national level, subject to conditions established by Community law. This should be without prejudice to specific requests made by competent national authorities to the selected applicants to provide technical information indicating how particular complementary ground components would improve the availability of the proposed MSS in geographical areas where communications with one or more space stations cannot be ensured with the required quality, provided that such technical information has not already been provided in accordance with Title II.

(19)

The limited amount of radio spectrum available implies that the number of undertakings that may be selected and authorised is also necessarily limited. However, if the selection process leads to a finding that there is no radio spectrum scarcity, all eligible candidates should be selected. The limited amount of radio spectrum available may mean that any merger or takeover of any operator providing MSS with or by another could significantly reduce competition and would therefore be subject to scrutiny under competition law.

(20)

The right to use the specific radio frequencies should be granted to the selected applicants as soon as possible after their selection, in accordance with Article 5(3) of Directive 2002/20/EC.

(21)

Decisions on the withdrawal of authorisations granted in relation to MSS or complementary ground components due to the non-fulfilment of obligations should be enforced at national level.

(22)

While monitoring of the use of radio spectrum by the selected and authorised operators of mobile satellite systems and any required enforcement action is undertaken at national level, it should remain possible for the Commission to define the modalities of a coordinated monitoring and/or enforcement procedure. Wherever necessary, the Commission should have the right to raise enforcement issues relating to the fulfilment by operators of common authorisation conditions, in particular coverage requirements.

(23)

The measures necessary for the implementation of this Decision 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 (10). Decisions on selection of applicants should be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure in view of the importance of the Community procedure for any further national authorisation procedures.

(24)

In particular, the Commission should be empowered to define the modalities for coordinated application of the rules on enforcement. Since those measures are of general scope and are designed to amend non-essential elements of this Decision by supplementing it with new non-essential elements, they must be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny provided for in Article 5a of Decision 1999/468/EC.

(25)

Since the objective of this Decision, namely to establish a common framework for the selection and authorisation of operators of mobile satellite systems, cannot be sufficiently achieved by Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale and effects of the action, be better achieved at Community level, the Community may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty. In accordance with the principle of proportionality as set out in that Article, this Decision does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective,

(1)

By Commission Decision 98/294/EC of 22 April 1998 concerning the placing on the market of genetically modified maize (Zea mays L. line MON810), pursuant to Council Directive 90/220/EEC (2) it was decided that consent was to be given for the placing on the market of that product.

(2)

On 3 August 1998 the French authorities granted such consent. The consent covers all uses of the product, namely import, processing into food and feed products and cultivation.

(3)

Pursuant to Article 35(1) of Directive 2001/18/EC which replaced Council Directive 90/220/EEC (3), procedures in respect of notifications concerning the placing on the market of genetically modified organisms which have not been completed by 17 October 2002 are subject to Directive 2001/18/EC.

(4)

On 2 June 1999 Austria informed the Commission of its decision to prohibit provisionally the use and sale of Zea mays L. line MON810 for all uses and gave reasons for that decision in accordance with Article 16(1) of Directive 90/220/EEC.

(5)

Products derived from Zea mays L. line MON810 (food and food ingredients produced from maize flour, maize gluten, maize semolina, maize starch, maize glucose and maize oil produced from Zea mays L. line MON810) are authorised under Regulations (EC) No 258/97 (4) and (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (5). These uses are not subject to the safeguard clause notified by Austria.

(6)

The Scientific Committee on Plants concluded on 24 September 1999 that the information submitted by Austria did not constitute new relevant scientific evidence which had not been taken into account during the original evaluation of the dossier and which would occasion a review of that Committee’s original opinion on this product.

(7)

On 9 January 2004, as well as on 9 and 17 February 2004, Austria submitted to the Commission additional information in support of its national measures concerning maize line MON810.

(8)

In accordance with Article 28(1) of Directive 2001/18/EC, the Commission consulted the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), as established by Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council (6), under which it has replaced the relevant scientific committees.

(9)

The EFSA concluded on 8 July 2004 (7) that the information submitted by Austria did not constitute new scientific evidence sufficient to invalidate the environmental risk assessment of maize line MON810, justifying a prohibition of the use and sale of that product in Austria.

(10)

Since, under the circumstances, there was no reason to consider that the product constituted a risk to human health or the environment, the Commission submitted on 29 November 2004 a draft Decision, requesting Austria to repeal its provisional safeguard measure, for consideration by the Committee established under Article 30 of Directive 2001/18/EC, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 30(2) of that Directive.

(11)

However, that Committee did not deliver an opinion and, in accordance with Article 5(4) of Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission (8), the Commission submitted to the Council a proposal relating to the measures to be taken.

(12)

On 24 June 2005, in accordance with Article 5(6) of Decision 1999/468/EC, the Council, acting by qualified majority, rejected this proposal.

(13)

The Council, in its declaration, stated that ‘there is still a degree of uncertainty in relation to the national safeguard measures on the market of [the] genetically modified maize variet[y] […] MON810’ and called on the Commission ‘to gather further evidence on the GMO in question and further assess, whether the measure taken by [Austria] aimed at suspending as a temporary precautionary measure [its] placing on the market [is] justified and, whether the authorisation of such [an] organism still meets the safety requirements of Directive 2001/18/EC’.

(14)

In November 2005, the EFSA was consulted again by the Commission as to whether there was any scientific reason to believe that the continued placing on the market of MON810 maize was likely to cause any adverse effects to human health or the environment under the conditions of consent. In particular, the EFSA was requested to take account of any further scientific information that had arisen subsequent to the previous scientific opinion concerning the safety of this GMO.

(15)

In its opinion of 29 March 2006 (9), EFSA concluded that there is no reason to believe that the continued placing on the market of MON810 maize is likely to cause any adverse effects for human and animal health or the environment under the conditions of its consent.

(16)

In accordance with Article 5(6) of Decision 1999/468/EC, the Commission submitted a proposal to the Council requesting Austria to repeal its safeguard measure.

(17)

In accordance with Article 5(6) of Decision 1999/468/EC, the Environment Council, on 18 December 2006, indicated its opposition by qualified majority, to the proposal.

(18)

In its Decision, the Council referred to the environmental risk assessment as provided in the Directive 2001/18/EC and indicated that ‘the different agricultural structures and regional ecological characteristics in the European Union need to be taken into account in a more systematic manner in the environmental risk assessment’.

(19)

In accordance with Article 5(6) of Decision 1999/468/EC the Commission submitted an amended proposal in order to take into account the Council Decision of 18 December 2006 which refers only to the environmental aspects of the Austrian safeguard clause, namely cultivation aspects.

(20)

Austria has initiated work to collect any relevant scientific evidence on these aspects, which in the view of Austria justifies provisionally the maintenance of the safeguard clause, in particular in reference to ‘the different agricultural structures and regional ecological characteristics’ as indicated in recital 3 of the abovementioned Council decision. In accordance with Article 23 of Directive 2001/18/EC, Austria is invited to provide the Commission with all the scientific evidence that it has collected as well as any new risk assessment as soon as it is completed and inform all Member States thereof.

(21)

On the basis of Austria's submission and its scientific assessment, the Commission will act in accordance with Article 23 of Directive 2001/18/EC on these aspects of the Austrian measure.

(22)

The food and feed safety aspects of Zea mays L. line MON810 covered by the consent granted under Directive 90/220/EEC (including import and processing) are identical throughout Europe and have been assessed by the EFSA, which concluded that this product is unlikely to cause any adverse effects for human and animal health.

(23)

The Commission proposal takes into account only food and feed aspects of the Austrian prohibition namely the prohibition on import and processing of unprocessed kernels as source materials for further processing or for direct food or feed use.

(24)

Under these circumstances Austria should repeal its safeguard measures at least with regard to import and processing into food and feed of Zea mays L. line MON810.

(25)

The measures provided for in this Decision are not in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established under Article 30 of Directive 2001/18/EC and the Commission therefore submitted to the Council a proposal relating to these measures. Since on the expiry of the period laid down in Article 30(2) of Directive 2001/18/EC, the Council had neither adopted the proposed measures nor indicated its opposition to them, in accordance with Article 5(6) of Decision 1999/468/EC, the measures should be adopted by the Commission,

(1)

Three members of the Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products, hereinafter ‘the Committee’ were appointed by the Commission Decision 2006/286/EC of 12 April 2006 (2) on the recommendation of the European Medicines Agency for a term of three years from 16 April 2006.

(2)

The membership of two of these members ended respectively in December 2006 (Prof Gianmartino Benzi) and August 2007 (Dr Julia Dunne). It is necessary, therefore, to appoint two new members to the Committee.

(3)

The European Medicines Agency has recommended two persons for nomination.

(4)

The members of the Committee shall be appointed for a period of three years starting on 2 July 2008,

Dr János BORVENDÉG

Mr Bruno SEPODES