(1)

According to Article 61, first paragraph, point (d) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, the sugar or isoglucose produced in excess of the quota referred to in Article 56 of that Regulation may be exported only within the quantitative limit to be fixed by the Commission respecting the commitments resulting from international agreements concluded by the Union.

(2)

Detailed implementing rules for out-of-quota exports, in particular concerning the issue of export licences, are laid down by Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 (2). However, the quantitative limit should be fixed per marketing year in view of the possible opportunities on the export markets.

(3)

For marketing year 2009/2010, Commission Regulation (EC) No 274/2009 (3) has fixed the quantitative limit for the exports of out-of-quota sugar at 1 350 000 tonnes. Applications for export licences quickly exceeded that limit. Therefore Commission Regulation (EC) No 1106/2009 (4) has fixed an acceptance percentage for the issuing of export licences and suspended the lodging of export-licence applications for out-of-quota sugar. At the time the limit of 1 350 000 t was fixed, the economic conditions were such that it was not possible to exclude that exports of out-of-quota sugar could be considered as being subsidised because the average cost of production of sugar in the Union could have exceeded the selling price of out-of-quota sugar on the export market. Under such conditions it was therefore not possible to increase the quantities of out-of-quota sugar to be exported beyond the limits resulting from the abovementioned international commitments of the Union.

(4)

Since the beginning of 2009, the global economic conditions have changed significantly in the sugar sector. In early January 2010, world market prices for white sugar more than doubled and reached approximately EUR 500 per tonne at the London commodity futures market. At the same time, the prices on the sugar market in the Union decreased in line with the institutional reference price.

(5)

Under the current economic conditions the average production cost of sugar beet in the Union is below the selling price of the out-of-quota sugar beet. Furthermore, the selling price of the out-of-quota sugar on the world market is above the average cost of sugar production in the Union. Therefore, as long as these conditions are valid, the export of out-of-quota sugar cannot be considered as being subsidised. Consequently, exports above the export subsidy commitments of the Union could be made without violating the obligations arising from Union membership of the World Trade Organisation.

(6)

According to the most recent information, it is certain that due to exceptionally favourable weather conditions in 2009, large quantities of out-of-quota sugar will be produced in the Union. This quantity is currently estimated at around 4 100 000 tonnes. Taking into account all the possible outlets for this sugar, in particular the demand of the chemical industry for industrial sugar, it is estimated that at least 500 000 t would be still available for exports.

(7)

In view of the surplus foreseen in the Union during marketing year 2009/2010 and the exceptionally high world market prices caused by a very difficult supply situation at this time it is preferable to export the remaining surplus sugar in the Union instead of carrying it forward to the next marketing year. Fixing an additional quantitative limit in respect of marketing year 2009/2010 would allow sugar producers and beet growers in the Union to benefit from the current favourable export possibilities. An additional quantitative limit should therefore be fixed.

(8)

It is now estimated that world market sugar prices may start decreasing as from the second half of 2010. To make sure that the additional exports of out-of-quota sugar do not interfere with subsidy commitments of the Union, it is appropriate to limit the application for export licences until 30 June 2010 and to reduce the validity of export licences to one month.

(9)

Exports of sugar from the Union to certain close destinations and to third countries granting EU products a preferential import treatment are currently in a particularly favourable competitive position. In view of the absence of appropriate instruments of mutual assistance to fight against irregularities and in order to minimise the risk of fraud and to prevent any abuse associated with the reimport or reintroduction into the Union of out-of-quota sugar certain close destinations should be excluded from the eligible destinations.

(10)

The Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,

(1)

Commission Decision 2009/367/EC (2) cleared, for the 2008 financial year, the accounts of all the paying agencies except for the Belgian paying agency ‘ALV’, The German paying agency ‘Baden-Württemberg’, the Greek paying agency ‘OPEKEPE’, the Italian paying agency ‘ARBEA’, the Maltese paying agency ‘MRRA’, the Portuguese paying agency ‘IFAP’ and the Romanian paying agency ‘PIAA’.

(2)

Following the transmission of new information and after additional checks, the Commission can now take a decision on the integrality, accuracy and veracity of the accounts submitted by the Belgian paying agency ‘ALV’, the German paying agency ‘Baden-Württemberg’, the Maltese paying agency ‘MRRA’, the Portuguese paying agency ‘IFAP’ and the Romanian paying agency ‘PIAA’.

(3)

The first subparagraph of Article 10(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 of 21 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 as regards the accreditation of paying agencies and other bodies and the clearance of the accounts of the EAGF and of the EAFRD (3) lays down that the amounts that are recoverable from, or payable to, each Member State, in accordance with the accounts clearance decision referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 10(1) of the said Regulation, shall be determined by deducting advances paid during the financial year in question, i.e. 2008, from expenditure recognised for that year in accordance with paragraph 1. Such amounts are to be deducted from, or added to, the advances against expenditure from the second month following that in which the accounts clearance decision is taken.

(4)

Pursuant to Article 32(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, 50 % of the financial consequences of non-recovery of irregularities shall be borne by the Member State concerned and 50 % by the Community budget if the recovery of those irregularities has not taken place within four years of the primary administrative or judicial finding, or within eight years if the recovery is taken to the national courts. Article 32(3) of the said Regulation obliges Member States to submit to the Commission, together with the annual accounts, a summary report on the recovery procedures undertaken in response to irregularities. Detailed rules on the application of the Member States' reporting obligation of the amounts to be recovered are laid down in Regulation (EC) No 885/2006. Annex III to the said Regulation provides the model table that had to be provided in 2009 by the Member States. On the basis of the tables completed by the Member States, the Commission should decide on the financial consequences of non-recovery of irregularities older than four or eight years respectively. This Decision is without prejudice to future conformity decisions pursuant to Article 32(8) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005.

(5)

Pursuant to Article 32(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, Member States may decide not to pursue recovery. Such a decision may only be taken if the costs already and likely to be incurred total more than the amount to be recovered or if the recovery proves impossible owing to the insolvency, recorded and recognised under national law, of the debtor or the persons legally responsible for the irregularity. If that decision has been taken within four years of the primary administrative or judicial finding or within eight years if the recovery is taken to the national courts, 100 % of the financial consequences of the non-recovery should be borne by the Community budget. In the summary report referred to in Article 32(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 the amounts for which the Member State decided not to pursue recovery and the grounds for the decision are shown. These amounts are not charged to the Member States concerned and are consequently to be borne by the Community budget. This decision is without prejudice to future conformity decisions pursuant to Article 32(8) of the said Regulation.

(6)

In clearing the accounts of the paying agencies concerned, the Commission must take account of the amounts already withheld from the Member States concerned on the basis of Decision 2009/367/EC.

(7)

In accordance with Article 30(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, this Decision does not prejudice decisions taken subsequently by the Commission excluding from Community financing expenditure not effected in accordance with Community rules,

(1)

Article 4 of Directive 91/496/EEC provides that Member States are to ensure that consignments of animals from third countries are subjected to documentary and identity checks at border inspection posts in order to verify their subsequent destination, particularly in the case of animals in transit. Those border inspection posts are referred to in Annex II to Council Directive 97/78/EC of 18 December 1997 laying down the principles governing the organisation of veterinary checks on products entering the Community from third countries (2).

(2)

Article 9(1) of Directive 91/496/EEC provides that Member States are to authorise the transit of animals from one third country to another third country or to the same third country, subject to certain conditions. In particular, point (c) of that Article provides that the checks referred to in Article 4 thereof show that the animals fulfil the requirements of Directive 91/496/EEC or, in the case of animals covered by the Directives referred to in Annex A to Council Directive 90/425/EEC (3), afford health guarantees that are at least equivalent to those requirements.

(3)

Council Directive 90/426/EEC of 26 June 1990 on animal health conditions governing the movement and import from third countries of equidae (4) is referred to in Annex A to Directive 90/425/EEC. Chapter III of Directive 90/426/EEC lays down the equivalent health guarantees for equidae.

(4)

Commission Decision 92/260/EEC of 10 April 1992 on animal health conditions and veterinary certification for temporary admission of registered horses (5) sets out model health certificates for the temporary admission of registered horses into the Union which take account of the different animal health situations in third countries. Those certificates provide for the health guarantees necessary for the transport of equidae from one third country, territory or part thereof to another third country or territory, or another part of the same third country or territory. The health guarantees in those certificates should be considered the reference conditions for the transit of equidae through the Union.

(5)

Commission Decision 2004/211/EC of 6 January 2004 establishing the list of third countries and parts of territory thereof from which Member States authorise imports of live equidae and semen, ova and embryos of the equine species (6) provides that Member States are to authorise the temporary admission and importation of registered horses from the third countries of parts of those third countries listed in Annex I thereto. It also assigns third countries to sanitary groups depending on their animal health situation. Those sanitary groups should be taken into account for the transit of equidae through the Union.

(6)

Commission Decision 2008/907/EC of 3 November 2008 laying down health guarantees for the transport of equidae from one third country to another in accordance with Article 9(1)(c) of Council Directive 91/496/EEC (7) provides that equidae on their way from one third country to another third country must come from a third country listed in Annex I to Decision 92/260/EEC. It also provides that such equidae must be accompanied by a certificate entitled ‘Transit certificate for the transport of equidae from one third country to another’. That certificate takes account of the model health certificates set out in Decision 92/260/EEC.

(7)

Because the animal health guarantees for imports of equidae are at least as strict as those for temporary admission of registered horses, it is appropriate to authorise the transit of equidae being transported through the territories listed in Annex I to Directive 97/78/EC not only from those third countries, territories or parts thereof from which temporary admission of registered horses is authorised pursuant to Decision 2004/211/EC, but also from those third countries, territories or parts thereof from which permanent imports are authorised pursuant to that Decision.

(8)

In the interests of clarity of Union legislation, Decision 2008/907/EC should be repealed.

(9)

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