(1)

On 9 May 2011, the Council adopted Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 (2) concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria.

(2)

On 2 September 2011, the Council amended (3) Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 to extend the measures against Syria, including an expansion of the listing criteria agreed for the purpose of freezing of funds and economic resources, and a prohibition on the purchase, import or transportation of crude oil from Syria. On 23 September 2011, the Council amended (4) Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 to extend further the measures against Syria, including a prohibition on investment in the crude oil sector, the addition of further listings, and a prohibition of the delivery of Syrian banknotes and coins to the Central Bank of Syria. On 13 October 2011, the Council again amended (5) Regulation (EU) No 442/2011, listing an additional entity and making a derogation permitting, for a limited period, the use of frozen funds subsequently received by this entity in connection with the financing of trade with non-designated persons and entities.

(3)

In view of the continued brutal repression and violation of human rights by the Government of Syria, on 14 November 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/735/CFSP amending Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (6) providing for an additional measure, namely to prohibit the European Investment Bank to make any disbursement or payment under or in connection with existing loan agreements with Syria and to suspend all existing Technical Assistance Service Contracts for sovereign projects located in Syria.

(4)

This measure falls within the scope of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and, therefore, notably with a view to ensuring its uniform application by economic operators in all Member States, regulatory action at the level of the Union is necessary in order to implement it.

(5)

Furthermore, Decision 2011/735/CFSP provides for the update of the information relating to one person on the list in Annex I to Decision 2011/273/CFSP.

(6)

Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 should be amended accordingly.

(7)

In order to ensure that the measures provided for in this Regulation are effective, this Regulation must enter into force immediately,

(1)

On 9 May 2011, the Council adopted Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria.

(2)

In view of the gravity of the situation in Syria and in accordance with Council Implementing Decision 2011/736/CFSP of 14 November 2011 implementing Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (2), additional persons should be included in the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to restrictive measures set out in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 442/2011,

(1)

Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 lays down animal health requirements applicable to the non-commercial movement of pet animals. In particular, it lays down rules applicable to non-commercial movements into Member States of dogs, cats and ferrets and provides, where necessary, for preventive health measures to be adopted by means of delegated acts to ensure the control of diseases, other than rabies, likely to be spread due to the movement of those animals. Those measures are to be scientifically justified and proportionate to the risk of the spread of those diseases by such movements.

(2)

In addition, Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 provides that pet animals are to be accompanied by a passport issued by a veterinarian authorised by the competent authority certifying, where necessary, that preventive health measures regarding diseases other than rabies were carried out on the animal in question.

(3)

Alveolar echinococcosis is a parasitic disease caused by the tapeworm Echinococcus multilocularis. Where the disease is established, the typical transmission cycle of the parasite in Europe is wildlife-based and involves wild carnivores as definitive hosts and several species of mammals, notably small rodents, as intermediate hosts which become infected by ingesting eggs disseminated with the faeces of definitive hosts into the environment.

(4)

Although of secondary importance for the persistence of the life cycle of the parasite in endemic settings, dogs can be infested by ingesting infected rodents. As potential definitive hosts and due to close contacts to human, they may serve as a source of infection for humans as well as a source of contamination of the environment, including parasite-free areas behind natural barriers. There are no reports of ferrets being definitive hosts and according to the current knowledge, the contribution of cats to the transmission cycle is doubtful.

(5)

Where humans are affected as aberrant intermediate hosts by the larval form of the tapeworm, severe clinical and pathological signs of the disease are observed after a long incubation period and in untreated or in inadequately treated patients, mortality may be more than 90 %. The increasing prevalence of the disease in wildlife, and in parallel in humans, in certain parts of Europe causes serious concern for public health authorities in many Member States.

(6)

While Echinococcus multilocularis infection in animals occurs in the northern hemisphere, including central and northern parts of Europe, Asia and North America, it has never been recorded in domestic and wild definitive hosts in certain areas of the European Union despite ongoing surveillance of wildlife and unrestricted access of dogs.

(7)

The transboundary movement of infected wildlife has been identified by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), in a scientific opinion on the Assessment of the risk of echinococcosis introduction into the United Kingdom, Ireland, Sweden, Malta and Finland as a consequence of abandoning national rules (2), as the main potential route of incursion of the Echinococcus multilocularis parasite, especially in areas lacking effective physical barriers, such as open seas. The EFSA considers that the epidemiological role of dogs in endemic settings is of limited importance for the life cycle of the parasite.

(8)

However, the EFSA considers that the risk of the transmission cycle of the Echinococcus multilocularis parasite being established in suitable wild intermediate and definitive hosts in previously parasite-free areas is greater than negligible, where the parasite is introduced through the movement of infected dogs shedding eggs of the tapeworm.

(9)

According to the EFSA, the risk of introducing the Echinococcus multilocularis parasite into previously parasite-free areas could be mitigated if dogs from endemic areas are treated. In order to prevent re-infection, such treatment should be applied as soon as possible prior to entry into the areas free of that parasite. However, a minimum post-treatment period of 24 hours is necessary to prevent the shedding of residual amounts of infectious eggs in the environment of the parasite-free area.

(10)

To ensure their effectiveness for the control of Echinococcus multilocularis infection in dogs, the medicinal products should have been granted a marketing authorisation in accordance with either Directive 2001/82/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to veterinary medicinal products (3) or Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing the European Medicines Agency (4), or should have been approved or licensed by the competent authority of the third country of origin of the animal.

(11)

Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 provides that Finland, Ireland, Malta, Sweden and the United Kingdom, as regards echinococcosis, may make the entry of pet animals into their territory subject to compliance with the special rules applicable on the date of entry into force of that Regulation. Because Article 16 of that Regulation applies only until 31 December 2011, it is necessary to adopt measures before that date, in order to ensure continuous protection of those Member States mentioned in that Article that claim to have remained free of the parasite as a result of applying national rules.

(12)

Experience has shown that the 24 to 48 hour treatment window required by some Member States under national rules in accordance with Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 may be very burdensome or even not feasible for pet owners especially when the treatment has to be carried out during weekends and public holidays or when the departure after treatment is delayed for reasons beyond the control of the owner.

(13)

Given the experience of some other Member States which permit a longer treatment window under national rules in accordance with Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 and have remained free from the parasite, a reasonable increase in that treatment window to a 24 to 120 hour period should not significantly enhance the risk of re-infection of treated dogs from endemic areas with the Echinococcus multilocularis parasite.

(14)

The preventive health measures for the control of Echinococcus multilocularis infections in dogs should therefore consist in the documented administration by a veterinarian of an effective authorised or licensed medicinal product which guarantees the timely elimination of the intestinal forms of the Echinococcus multilocularis parasite.

(15)

The treatment should be documented in the relevant section of the passport as established by Commission Decision 2003/803/EC of 26 November 2003 establishing a model passport for the intra-Community movements of dogs, cats and ferrets (5) or the health certificate established by Commission Decision 2004/824/EC of 1 December 2004 establishing a model health certificate for non-commercial movements of dogs, cats and ferrets from third countries into the Community (6).

(16)

Considering that the preventive health measures are burdensome, they should be applied proportionately to the risk of the spread of Echinococcus multilocularis infection through the non-commercial movements of pet dogs. Therefore, it is appropriate to mitigate such risks by applying the preventive health measures provided for in this Regulation to non-commercial movements of dogs entering the territory of Member States or parts thereof in which the infection was not recorded, namely those Member States listed in Part A of Annex I to this Regulation.

(17)

In addition, and for a strictly limited period of time, the preventive health measures should be also applied to prevent the re-introduction of the Echinococcus multilocularis parasite into Member States or parts thereof with a low prevalence of that parasite and where a compulsory programme for its eradication in wild definitive hosts is being implemented, namely those Member States listed in Part B of Annex I to this Regulation.

(18)

Council Directive 92/65/EEC of 13 July 1992 laying down animal health requirements governing trade in and imports into the Community of animals, semen, ova and embryos not subject to animal health requirements laid down in specific Community rules referred to in Annex A(I) to Directive 90/425/EEC (7) lays down, amongst others, animal health rules for trade in and imports from third countries of dogs. The health requirements in Articles 10 and 16 of that Directive refer to Regulation (EC) No 998/2003. Therefore, in the interests of consistency of Union legislation, it is appropriate that the programmes for the eradication of Echinococcus multilocularis infection in wild definitive hosts be drawn up and presented to the Commission outlining in particular the elements in Article 14(1) of Directive 92/65/EEC.

(19)

As the movement of dogs from an area free of the Echinococcus multilocularis parasite presents a negligible risk of spreading the disease, the preventive health measures should not be required for dogs coming from Member States or parts thereof listed in Part A of Annex I to this Regulation.

(20)

Sweden has reported cases of Echinococcus multilocularis infection in wildlife since January 2011, while Ireland, Finland and the United Kingdom have submitted to the Commission results of their surveillance for the Echinococcus multilocularis parasite in wild definite hosts which support their claim of the absence of the parasite in their respective ecosystems.

(21)

Malta has submitted evidence that suitable definitive wildlife host animals are missing on the island, that the Echinococcus multilocularis parasite has never been recorded in indigenous domestic definitive hosts and that the environment does not support a significant population of potential intermediate host animals.

(22)

From the information submitted by Ireland, Malta, Finland and the United Kingdom, it is clear that those Member States comply with one of the conditions for being listed in Part A of Annex I to this Regulation for the whole of their territory. Accordingly, they should be permitted to apply the preventive health measures provided for in this Regulation from 1 January 2012, when the transitional measure provided for in Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 expires.

(23)

According to the EFSA’s opinion of 2006, the shedding of infectious eggs of the Echinococcus multilocularis parasite does not commence until 28 days after ingestion of an infected intermediate host. Therefore, this Regulation should lay down the conditions for granting derogations in the case of dogs residing for less than 28 days following the application of preventive health measures on the territory of Member States or parts thereof listed in Annex I to this Regulation, since those dogs do not represent a risk of introducing that parasite,

(a)

the absence of the Echinococcus multilocularis parasite in definitive host animals; or

(b)

the implementation of a programme for the eradication of the Echinococcus multilocularis parasite in wild definitive host animals, within a defined timescale.

(a)

they have declared, in accordance with the procedure recommended in paragraph 3 of Article 1.4.6 of Chapter 1.4 of the Terrestrial Animal Health Code, 2010 Edition, Volume 1, of the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE), the whole or part of their territory to be free from Echinococcus multilocularis infection in definitive host animals, and rules are in place for Echinococcus multilocularis infection in host animals to be compulsorily notifiable under national law;

(b)

during the 15 years prior to the date of that application and without applying a pathogen-specific surveillance programme they have not recorded any occurrence of Echinococcus multilocularis infection in host animals provided that during the 10 years prior to the date of that application the following conditions have been met:

(c)

they have implemented, for three 12-month periods prior to the date of that application, a pathogen-specific surveillance programme which complies with the requirements of Annex II and has not recorded any occurrence of Echinococcus multilocularis infection in wild definitive host animals, and such occurrences are compulsorily notifiable under national law.

(a)

a compulsory programme, in line with the indents in Article 14(1) of Directive 92/65/EEC, for the eradication of Echinococcus multilocularis infection in wild definitive host animals has been implemented in the whole or part of their territory to be listed in that Part;

(b)

rules are in place for Echinococcus multilocularis infection in host animals to be compulsorily notifiable under national law.

(a)

the conditions set up in Article 5(1) no longer apply; or

(b)

the occurrence of any Echinococcus multilocularis infection in definitive host animals has been detected during the surveillance periods referred to in Article 5(3); or

(c)

the report referred to in Article 5(4) has not been supplied to the Commission within the set deadline provided for in Article 5(4); or

(d)

the eradication programme provided for in Article 4 has been terminated.

(a)

review this Regulation no later than 5 years following the date of its entry into force in the light of scientific developments regarding Echinococcus multilocularis infection in animals;

(b)

submit the results of its review to the European Parliament and to the Council.

(1)

Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 lays down the animal health requirements applicable to the non-commercial movement between Member States of dogs, cats and ferrets as listed in Parts A and B of Annex I thereto. It provides that those animals are to be accompanied by a passport certifying that a valid anti-rabies vaccination was carried out on the animal in question pursuant to Annex Ib. Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 also provides that the technical requirements for anti-rabies vaccination, as laid down in Annex Ib, may be amended by means of delegated acts.

(2)

Annex Ib to Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 provides that an anti-rabies vaccination may only be considered valid if, inter alia, the date of vaccination does not precede the date of microchipping indicated in the passport or accompanying animal health certificate. However, an animal bearing a clearly readable tattoo applied before 3 July 2011 is also considered identified in accordance with that Regulation. It is therefore necessary, for the sake of clarity of Union legislation, to amend Annex Ib to Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 to provide that an anti-rabies vaccination may be considered valid if, inter alia, the date of the anti-rabies vaccination does not precede the date of microchipping or tattooing.

(3)

Annex Ib to Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 should therefore be amended accordingly,

‘(b)

the date referred to in point (a) must not precede the date of microchipping or tattooing indicated in:

(1)

Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Slovenia’s application to register the name ‘Zgornjesavinjski želodec’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

(2)

As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,

(1)

Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Slovenia’s application to register the name ‘Šebreljski želodec’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

(2)

As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,

(1)

Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Slovenia’s application to register the name ‘Kočevski gozdni med’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

(2)

As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,

(1)

Council Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 of 18 January 2011 fixing for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters (2), lays down quotas for 2011.

(2)

According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2011.

(3)

It is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,

(1)

Council Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 of 18 January 2011 fixing for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters (2), lays down quotas for 2011.

(2)

According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2011.

(3)

It is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,

(1)

Council Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 of 18 January 2011 fixing for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters (2), lays down quotas for 2011.

(2)

According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2011.

(3)

It is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,

(1)

Pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 health claims made on foods are prohibited unless they are authorised by the Commission in accordance with that Regulation and included in a list of permitted claims.

(2)

Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 also provides that applications for authorisations of health claims may be submitted by food business operators to the national competent authority of a Member State. The national competent authority is to forward valid applications to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), hereinafter referred to as ‘the Authority’.

(3)

Following receipt of an application the Authority is to inform without delay the other Member States and the Commission thereof, and to deliver an opinion on the health claim concerned.

(4)

The Commission is to decide on the authorisation of health claims taking into account the opinion delivered by the Authority.

(5)

Following an application from CreaNutrition AG, submitted pursuant to Article 14(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, the Authority was required to deliver an opinion on a health claim related to the effects of oat beta-glucan on lowering blood cholesterol (Question No EFSA-Q-2008-681) (2). The claim proposed by the applicant was worded as follows: ‘The inclusion of oat beta-glucan as part of a balanced diet can actively lower/reduce blood LDL (low-density lipoprotein) and total cholesterol’.

(6)

On the basis of the data presented, the Authority concluded in its opinion received by the Commission and the Member States on 8 December 2010 that a cause and effect relationship had been established between the consumption of oat beta-glucan and lowering of blood LDL-cholesterol concentrations. Accordingly, a health claim reflecting this conclusion should be considered as complying with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, and should be included in the Union list of permitted claims.

(7)

Article 16(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 provides that an opinion in favour of authorising a health claim should include certain particulars. Accordingly, those particulars should be set out in Annex I to this Regulation as regards the authorised claim and include, as the case may be, the revised wording of the claim, specific conditions of use of the claim, and, where applicable, conditions or restrictions of use of the food and/or an additional statement or warning, in accordance with the rules laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 and in line with the opinions of the Authority.

(8)

One of the objectives of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 is to ensure that health claims are truthful, clear and reliable and useful to the consumer, and that wording and presentation are taken into account in that respect. Therefore where the wording of claims has the same meaning for consumers as that of an authorised health claim, because they demonstrate the same relationship that exists between a food category, a food or one of its constituents and health, they should be subject to the same conditions of use indicated in the Annex to this Regulation.

(9)

Following an application from HarlandHall Ltd (on behalf of the Soya Protein Association, the European Vegetable Protein Federation and the European Natural Soyfood Manufacturers Association), submitted pursuant to Article 14(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, the Authority was required to deliver an opinion on a health claim related to the effects of soy protein on the reduction of blood cholesterol concentrations (Question No EFSA-Q-2009-00672) (3). The claim proposed by the applicants was worded as follows: ‘Soy protein has been shown to lower/reduce blood cholesterol; blood cholesterol lowering may reduce the risk of (coronary) heart disease’.

(10)

On the basis of the data presented, the Authority concluded in its opinion received by the Commission and the Member States on 30 July 2010 that a cause and effect relationship had not been established between the consumption of soy protein and the claimed effect. Accordingly, as the claim does not comply with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, it should not be authorised.

(11)

Following an application from Danone France, submitted pursuant to Article 14(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, the Authority was required to deliver an opinion on a health claim related to the effects of Actimel®, a fermented milk product containing Lactobacillus casei DN-114 001 and yoghurt symbiosis on the reduction of the presence of Clostridium difficile toxins in the gut (Question No EFSA-Q-2009-00776) (4). The claim proposed by the applicant was worded as follows: ‘Fermented milk containing the probiotic Lactobacillus casei DN-114001 and yogurt symbiosis decreases presence of Clostridium difficile toxins in the gut (of susceptible ageing people). Presence of Clostridium difficile toxins is associated with the incidence of acute diarrhoea’.

(12)

On the basis of the data presented, the Authority concluded in its opinion received by the Commission and the Member States on 8 December 2010 that the evidence provided is insufficient to establish a cause and effect relationship between the consumption of Actimel® and reduction of the risk of C. difficile diarrhoea by reducing the presence of C. difficile toxins. Accordingly, as the claim does not comply with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, it should not be authorised.

(13)

The comments from the applicants and the members of the public received by the Commission pursuant to Article 16(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 have been considered when setting the measures provided for in this Regulation.

(14)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and neither the European Parliament nor the Council have opposed them,

(1)

Annex II to Directive 2002/46/EC establishes the list of vitamin and mineral substances which may be used for the manufacture of food supplements. Commission Regulation (EC) No 1170/2009 (4) has replaced Annexes I and II to Directive 2002/46/EC. Modifications to the list provided under Annex II to Directive 2002/46/EC as modified by that Regulation are to be adopted in compliance with the requirements laid down in Article 4 of that Directive and in accordance with the procedure referred to in its Article 13(3).

(2)

Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006 establishes the list of vitamin and mineral substances which may be added to food.

(3)

The Annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 953/2009 (5) establishes the list of substances that may be added for specific nutritional purposes in foods for particular nutritional uses.

(4)

New mineral substances have been evaluated by the EFSA for use in food. The substances for which the EFSA expressed a favourable opinion should be added to the lists in those acts.

(5)

Interested parties were consulted through the Advisory Group on the Food Chain and Animal and Plant Health and the provided comments were taken into consideration.

(6)

Directive 2002/46/EC, Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006 and Regulation (EC) No 953/2009 should therefore be amended accordingly.

(7)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health, and neither the European Parliament nor the Council has opposed them,

(a)

the following entries are inserted after the entry ‘ferrous phosphate’:

‘ferrous ammonium phosphate

ferric sodium EDTA’;

(b)

the following entries are inserted after the entry ‘sodium salts of orthophosphoric acid’:

‘sodium sulphate

potassium sulphate’.

(a)

the following entries are inserted after the entry ‘ferrous sulphate’:

‘ferrous ammonium phosphate

ferric sodium EDTA’;

(b)

the following entry is inserted after the entry ‘chromium (III) sulphate and its hexahydrate’:

‘chromium picolinate’.

(a)

the following entries are inserted after the entry ‘ferrous sulphate’:

(b)

the following entry is inserted after the entry ‘chromium (III) sulphate and its hexahydrate’:

(1)

The representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2011/12 marketing year are fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1137/2011 (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)

The experience gathered by Member States with the implementation of Directive 2008/48/EC has shown that the assumptions set out in Part II of Annex I to that Directive do not suffice to calculate the annual percentage rate of charge in a uniform manner and moreover are not adapted any more to the commercial situation at the market.

(2)

It is necessary to add to those assumptions by providing new assumptions on standards for the calculation of the annual percentage rate of charge for credits without fixed duration or repayable in full repeatedly. It is also necessary to provide standards for the timing of the initial drawdown of credit and the payments to be made by the consumer.

(3)

Part II of Annex I to Directive 2008/48/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.

(4)

The measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee set up by Article 25(1) of Directive 2008/48/EC and neither the European Parliament nor the Council has opposed them,

(1)

Council Decision 2010/320/EU of 10 May 2010 addressed to Greece with a view to reinforcing and deepening fiscal surveillance and giving notice to Greece to take measures for the deficit reduction judged necessary to remedy the situation of excessive deficit (1) has been substantially amended several times (2). Since further amendments are to be made, it should be recast in the interests of clarity.

(2)

Article 136(1)(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) foresees the possibility of adopting measures specific to the Member States whose currency is the euro with a view to strengthening the coordination and surveillance of their budgetary discipline.

(3)

Article 126 TFEU establishes that Member States are to avoid excessive government deficits and sets out the excessive deficit procedure to that effect. The Stability and Growth Pact, which in its corrective arm implements the excessive deficit procedure, provides the framework supporting government policies for a prompt return to sound budgetary positions taking account of the economic situation.

(4)

On 27 April 2009, the Council decided, in accordance with Article 104(6) of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC), that an excessive deficit existed in Greece and issued recommendations to correct that deficit by 2010 at the latest, in accordance with Article 104(7) (TEC) and Article 3(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1467/97 of 7 July 1997 on speeding up and clarifying the implementation of the excessive deficit procedure (3). The Council also set a deadline of 27 October 2009 for Greece to take effective action. On 30 November 2009, the Council established, in accordance with Article 126(8) TFEU, that Greece had not taken effective action; consequently, on 16 February 2010, the Council gave notice to Greece in accordance with Article 126(9) TFEU to take measures to correct the excessive deficit by 2012 at the latest (hereinafter ‘the Council Decision pursuant to Article 126(9)’). The Council also set a deadline of 15 May 2010 for effective action to be taken.

(5)

According to Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1467/97, if effective action has been taken in compliance with Article 126(9) TFEU and unexpected adverse economic events with major unfavourable consequences for government finances occur after the adoption of that notice, the Council may decide, on a recommendation from the Commission, to adopt a revised notice pursuant to Article 126(9) TFEU.

(6)

According to the Commission services’ autumn 2009 forecasts, which provided the basis for the initial notice addressed to Greece, GDP was expected to contract by ¼ % in 2010, and recover as from 2011, when the economy was forecast to grow by 0,7 %. A deeper contraction in real GDP took place in 2010 and this contraction is expected to continue in 2011. A gradual resumption of growth is expected thereafter. This marked worsening of the economic scenario implies a corresponding deterioration of the outlook for public finances at unchanged policy. To this should be added the upward revision of the government deficit outcome for 2009 (from an estimated 12,7 % of GDP at the time of the Council Decision pursuant to Article 126(9) to 13,6 % of GDP according to the fiscal notification submitted by Greece on 1 April 2010) (4) and later on to 15,4 % of GDP following completion of the investigations that Eurostat undertook with the Greek Statistical Authorities (5). Lastly, concerns in the markets for the public finances outlook have been reflected in a sharp rise in risk premiums on government debt, compounding the difficulties in controlling the path of government deficit and debt.

(7)

Gross government debt at the end of 2009 stood at 127,1 % of GDP. This is the highest debt ratio in the EU, and is considerably higher than the 60 %-of-GDP reference value of the Treaty. Achieving the deficit reduction path that is considered necessary and feasible in the light of the circumstances would imply that the increase in debt would be reversed from 2013. In addition to persistently high government deficits, certain financial operations have further increased debt. These factors have contributed to undermining market confidence in the ability of the Greek Government to service the debt going forward. There is an urgent need for Greece to take decisive action, on an unprecedented scale, on its deficit and on other factors contributing to the increase in debt, in order to reverse the increase in the debt-to-GDP ratio and allow it to return as soon as possible to market financing.

(8)

The very severe deterioration of the financial situation of the Greek Government has led the other euro area Member States to decide to provide stability support to Greece, with a view to safeguarding the financial stability of the euro area as a whole, in conjunction with multilateral assistance provided by the International Monetary Fund. Support provided by the euro area Member States will take the form of a pooling of bilateral loans, coordinated by the Commission. The lenders have decided that their support shall be conditional on Greece respecting this Decision. In particular, Greece is expected to carry out the measures specified in this Decision in accordance with the calendar set out herein.

(9)

In June 2011, it became evident that, taking into account the 2010 budgetary slippage and budgetary execution until May, with unchanged policies, the 2011 target for the deficit would be missed by a significant amount which would jeopardise the overall credibility of the programme. Therefore, there has been a need to update specific budgetary measures to allow Greece to stick to the deficit target in 2011 and respect the deficit ceilings for the following years established by Decision 2010/320/EU. These measures have been extensively discussed with the Greek government and commonly agreed by the European Commission, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

(10)

In the light of the above considerations, it appears appropriate to amend Decision 2010/320/EU in a number of respects, while keeping unchanged the deadline for the correction of the excessive deficit,

(1)

On 9 May 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (1).

(2)

On 23 October 2011, the European Council stated that the EU would impose further measures against the Syrian regime as long as the repression of the civilian population continued.

(3)

In view of the gravity of the situation in Syria, the Council considers it necessary to impose additional restrictive measures.

(4)

The European Investment Bank should suspend the disbursement or other payments under or in connection with existing loan agreements with Syria as well as existing Technical Assistance Service Contracts for sovereign projects located in Syria.

(5)

Furthermore, the information relating to one person on the list in Annex I to Decision 2011/273/CFSP should be updated.

(6)

Decision 2011/273/CFSP should be amended accordingly,

(1)

On 9 May 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (1).

(2)

On 23 October 2011, the European Council stated that the EU would impose further measures against the Syrian regime as long as the repression of the civilian population continued.

(3)

In view of the gravity of the situation in Syria, the Council considers it necessary to impose additional restrictive measures.

(4)

Additional persons should be included in the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures as set out in Annex I to Decision 2011/273/CFSP.

(5)

Decision 2011/273/CFSP should be amended accordingly,