(1)

Article 4(1)(b) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 884/2006 (2) provides that expenditure on physical operations relating to buying-in, sale or other forms of transfer of products is financed by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) based on uniform standard amounts. Moreover, Article 4(1)(c) of that Regulation provides that expenditure on physical operations not necessarily connected with buying-in, sale or other forms of transfer of products is financed by the EAGF based on standard amounts or non-standard amounts.

(2)

For reasons of clarity, it is appropriate to specify in Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 884/2006 that the expenditure financed by the EAGF may include costs resulting from transport inside or outside the territory of the Member State or from export under certain conditions. The financing of such expenditure should be subject to an approval in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 195(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (3).

(3)

Regulation (EC) No 884/2006 should therefore be amended accordingly.

(4)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on the Agricultural Funds,

‘(ca)

Expenditure resulting from transport inside or outside the territory of the Member State or from export, on the basis of standard amounts or non-standard amounts, to be approved in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 195(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.’

(1)

Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 509/2006, the Czech Republic and Slovakia’s joint application to register the name ‘Špekáčky’/‘Špekačky’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

(2)

As no objection under Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 509/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register.

(3)

Protection as referred to in Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 509/2006 has not been requested,

(1)

In accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 509/2006, and pursuant to Article 19(3) of the same Regulation, the Czech Republic and Slovakia’s application to register the name ‘Spišské párky’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

(2)

As no objection pursuant to Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 509/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register.

(3)

The application also requested protection pursuant to Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 509/2006. That protection should be granted to the name ‘Spišské párky’ in so far as, in the absence of objections, it could not be demonstrated that the name is used in a lawful, renowned and economically significant manner for similar agricultural products or foodstuffs,

(1)

Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 509/2006, the Czech Republic and Slovakia's joint application to register the name ‘Lovecký salám’/‘Lovecká saláma’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

(2)

As no objection under Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 509/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register.

(3)

Protection as referred to in Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 509/2006 has not been requested,

(1)

Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 509/2006, the Czech Republic and Slovakia’s joint application to register the name ‘Liptovská saláma’/‘Liptovský salám’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

(2)

As no objection under Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 509/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register.

(3)

The application also requested protection under Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 509/2006. That protection should be granted to the name ‘Liptovská saláma’/‘Liptovský salám’ in so far as, in the absence of objections, it could not be demonstrated that the name is used in a lawful, renowned and economically significant manner for similar agricultural products or foodstuffs,

(1)

Annex B to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1173/2009 (2) lists the intervention centres for rice referred to in Article 2 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 670/2009 (3). Annex A to that Regulation, which lists the intervention centres for durum wheat, was repealed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1125/2010 of 3 December 2010 determining the intervention centres for cereals and amending Regulation (EC) No 1173/2009 (4).

(2)

Commission Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 of 11 December 2009 laying down common detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards buying-in and selling of agricultural products under public intervention (5) sets out the conditions to be complied with, from the 2010/2011 marketing year onwards, for the designation and approval of intervention centres for rice and their storage premises.

(3)

With effect from 1 September 2010, Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 repeals Regulation (EC) No 670/2009 with regard to rice.

(4)

With effect from 1 September 2010, the intervention centres for rice designated pursuant to Article 41 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 must comply with the conditions laid down in Articles 2 and 3 of Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009. Regulation (EC) No 1173/2009 should therefore be repealed.

(5)

In accordance with Article 55(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009, the Member States have sent the Commission a list of intervention centres for rice for actual designation and a list of the storage premises attached to those centres which they have approved as fulfilling the minimum standards required by EU legislation. In cases where rice production levels are low, or where estimates do not indicate any rice sectors generating surpluses and intervention has not been used for a significant period, some Member States have not reported any intervention centres for rice.

(6)

In order to ensure that the public intervention scheme works efficiently, the Commission should designate intervention centres on the basis of their geographical location and publish a list of the storage premises attached thereto, together with all the information required by the operators involved in public intervention.

(7)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,

(1)

The representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2010/11 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 867/2010 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 154/2011 (4).

(2)

The data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,

(1)

On 4 February 2008, the Council adopted Joint Action 2008/124/CFSP on the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo, EULEX KOSOVO (2) and Joint Action 2008/123/CFSP (3) appointing Mr Pieter FEITH European Union Special Representative (EUSR) in Kosovo.

(2)

On 11 August 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/446/CFSP (4) extending the mandate of the EUSR until 28 February 2011.

(3)

The mandate of the EUSR should be extended until 30 April 2011.

(4)

The EUSR will implement his mandate in the context of a situation which may deteriorate and could impede the achievement of the objectives of the Union’s external action as set out in Article 21 of the Treaty,

(1)

Article 1 is replaced by the following:

(2)

Article 5(1) is replaced by the following:

(3)

Article 6 is replaced by the following:

(1)

Commission Regulations (EC) No 451/2000 (2) and (EC) No 1490/2002 (3) lay down the detailed rules for the implementation of the second and third stages 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 included methyl bromide.

(2)

In accordance with Article 11f of Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002 and Article 12(1)(a) and Article 12(2)(b) of that Regulation Commission Decision 2008/753/EC of 18 September 2008 concerning the non-inclusion of methyl bromide in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance (4) was adopted.

(3)

In agreement with the original notifier, another person (hereinafter ‘the applicant’) submitted a new application pursuant to Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC requesting the accelerated procedure to be applied, as provided for in Articles 14 to 19 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 of 17 January 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that Directive but have not been included into its Annex I (5).

(4)

The application was submitted to the United Kingdom, which had been designated rapporteur Member State by Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002. The time period for the accelerated procedure was respected. The specification of the active substance and the supported uses are the same as were the subject of Decision 2008/753/EC. That application also complies with the remaining substantive and procedural requirements of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.

(5)

The United Kingdom evaluated the additional data submitted by the applicant and prepared an additional report. It communicated that report to the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter ‘the Authority’) and to the Commission on 26 November 2009. The Authority communicated the additional report to the other Member States and the applicant for comments and forwarded the comments it had received to the Commission. In accordance with Article 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 and at the request of the Commission, the Authority presented its conclusion on methyl bromide to the Commission on 3 November 2010 (6). The draft assessment report, the additional report and the conclusion of the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and the Animal Health and finalised on 28 January 2011 in the format of the Commission review report for methyl bromide.

(6)

The additional report by the rapporteur Member State and the conclusion by the Authority concentrate on the concerns that lead to the non-inclusion. Those concerns were harmful effects on human health in particular on bystanders, because the exposure was greater than 100 % of the AOEL, and on consumers, because the exposure was greater than 100 % of the ADI and the ARfD. More concerns were identified in the review report for methyl bromide.

(7)

Additional information was submitted by the applicant, in particular as regards reducing exposure by applying a recapture technology. In order to reduce the risk to consumers and non-target species, the applicant has limited its support to uses on wood packaging material in containers.

(8)

However, the additional information provided by the applicant did not permit to eliminate all of the specific concerns arising in respect of methyl bromide.

(9)

In particular, the information available was not sufficient to conduct a quantitative exposure assessment for bystanders. Furthermore, the information available was insufficient to estimate the possible air concentrations of methyl bromide around containers with wood packaging material on which methyl bromide was used and to finalise the risk assessment for non-target organisms. In addition, data were not available to address the risk of indirect exposure of soil, surface water and groundwater.

(10)

The Commission invited the applicant to submit its comments on the conclusion by the Authority. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 21(1) to Regulation (EC) No 33/2008, the Commission invited the applicant to submit comments on the draft review report. The applicant submitted its comments, which have been carefully examined.

(11)

However, despite the arguments put forward by the applicant, the concerns identified could not be eliminated, and assessments made on the basis of the information submitted and evaluated during the expert meetings of the Authority have not demonstrated that it may be expected that, under the proposed conditions of use, plant protection products containing methyl bromide satisfy in general the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC.

(12)

Methyl bromide should therefore not be included in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC.

(13)

Decision 2008/753/EC should be repealed.

(14)

This Decision does not prejudice the submission of a further application for methyl bromide pursuant to Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and Chapter II of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.

(15)

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