(1)

The Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the Free Movement of Persons (2) ("the Agreement") was signed on 21 June 1999 and entered into force on 1 June 2002.

(2)

Article 18 of the Agreement provides that the Joint Committee may, by decision, adopt amendments to the Agreement, including Annex II thereto on the co-ordination of social security schemes.

(3)

In order to preserve a coherent and correct application of the legal acts of the Union and to avoid administrative and possibly legal difficulties, Annex II to the Agreement needs to be amended to integrate new legal acts of the Union to which the Agreement does not currently refer.

(4)

In the interests of clarity and rationality, Annex II to the Agreement and the Protocol to that Annex should be codified.

(5)

The position of the Union in the Joint Committee should therefore be based on the draft Decision set out in Annex I to this Decision,

(1)

In order to ensure sufficient and uninterrupted supplies of certain goods insufficiently produced in the Union and to avoid any disturbances on the market for certain agricultural and industrial products, autonomous tariff quotas have been opened by Council Regulation (EU) No 7/2010 (1). Products within those tariff quotas can be imported at reduced or zero duty rates. For the same reasons it is necessary to open, with effect from 1 January 2012, new tariff quotas at a zero duty rate for an appropriate volume for the products with order numbers 09.2928 and 09.2929, by inserting those products in the list in the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 7/2010.

(2)

The quota volumes for autonomous tariff quotas with order numbers 09.2624 and 09.2640 are insufficient to meet the needs of the industry of the Union for the current quota period ending on 31 December 2011. Consequently, those quota volumes should be increased with effect from 1 July 2011.

(3)

The quota volumes for autonomous tariff quotas with order numbers 09.2603, 09.2629, 09.2632, 09.2816 and 09.2977 should be replaced by the volumes set out in the Annex to this Regulation.

(4)

It is no longer in the interest of the Union to continue to grant tariff quotas in 2012 for the products with order numbers 09.2815, 09.2841 and 09.2992, for which such quotas were established for 2011. Those quotas should therefore be closed with effect from 1 January 2012 and the corresponding products should be deleted from the list in the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 7/2010.

(5)

In view of the many changes to be made, the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 7/2010 should be replaced in its entirety in the interest of clarity.

(6)

Regulation (EU) No 7/2010 should therefore be amended accordingly.

(7)

Since the tariff quotas have to take effect from 1 January 2012, this Regulation should apply from the same date and enter into force immediately,

—

the quota volume for the autonomous tariff quota with order number 09.2624 is fixed at 950 tonnes,

—

the quota volume for the autonomous tariff quota with order number 09.2640 is fixed at 11 000 tonnes.

(1)

On 2 March 2011, and further to Council Decision 2011/137/CFSP of 28 February 2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya (2), the Council adopted Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya (3). Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 provides in particular for the freezing of funds and economic resources of the Central Bank of Libya as well as those of the Libyan Arab Foreign Bank.

(2)

In light of UNSCR 2009 (2011), and further to Decision 2011/625/CFSP of 22 September 2011 amending Decision 2011/137/CFSP (4), Regulation (EU) No 965/2011 provides in particular for adjustments to the assets freeze of certain Libyan entities in order to support Libya’s economic recovery.

(3)

On 16 December 2011, the Security Council Committee established pursuant to UNSCR 1970 (2011) decided that the measures concerning the Central Bank of Libya and Libyan Arab Foreign Bank should be terminated. In line with Decision 2011/867/CFSP, Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 should therefore be amended.

(4)

These measures fall within the scope of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and, therefore, in particular with a view to ensuring their uniform application by economic operators in all Member States, regulatory action at the level of the Union is necessary in order to implement them.

(5)

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

(1)

Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Italy's application to register the name ‘Terre Aurunche’ 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 ‘Ptujski lük’ 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, Italy's application to register the name ‧Ciliegia dell'Etna‧ 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)

In accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission has examined Italy’s application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the protected geographical indication ‧Speck Alto Adige‧/‧Südtiroler Markenspeck‧/‧Südtiroler Speck‧, registered under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 (2).

(2)

Since the amendments in question are not minor within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission published the amendment application in the Official Journal of the European Union (3), as required by the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of that Regulation. As no statement of objection within the meaning of Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been sent to the Commission, the amendments should be approved,

(1)

By virtue of the first subparagraph of Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission has examined Spain's application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the protected designation of origin ‘Carne De Vacuno Del País Vasco / Euskal Okela’ registered under Commission Regulation (EC) No 2400/96 (2), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1483/2004 (3).

(2)

Since the amendments in question are not minor within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission published the amendment application in the Official Journal of the European Union, as required by the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of that Regulation (4). As no statement of objection within the meaning of Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been sent to the Commission, the amendments should be approved,

(1)

By virtue of the first subparagraph of Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission has examined Spain’s application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the protected geographical indication ‘Pataca de Galicia / Patata de Galicia’ registered under Commission Regulation (EC) No 148/2007 (2).

(2)

Since the amendments in question are not minor within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission published the amendment application in the Official Journal of the European Union, as required by the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of that Regulation (3). As no statement of objection within the meaning of Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been sent to the Commission, the amendments should be approved,

(1)

Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, France's application to register the name ‧Figue de Solliès‧ 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)

On the basis of the experience gained and in particular the improvements made in the supporting systems used by the national administrations when implementing Commission Regulation (EC) No 1121/2009 (2) and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 (3) it is appropriate to improve and simplify these two Regulations as regards the administration of direct payments and the related controls.

(2)

In accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 16(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009, Member States may use information available in the computerised database of the identification and registration system of bovine animals for an aid application for bovine animals. It is appropriate to introduce a clarification on the start of the retention period applicable pursuant to Article 61 of Regulation (EC) No 1121/2009 where Member States have made use of this possibility. In addition, these Member States should, for the sake of simplification, be enabled to replace the submission of an application provided for in Article 62 of that Regulation by the submission of a statement of participation. Regulation (EC) No 1121/2009 should therefore be amended accordingly.

(3)

Certain definitions set out in Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 should be updated. Furthermore, the separate soft fruit payment provided for in Article 129 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 will be introduced as from 2012. Hence, the definition of area-related aid schemes should be amended accordingly and provision should be made for an appropriate application procedure.

(4)

According to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009, Member States have to determine a latest date for submitting the single application. After submission of the single application, farmers have the possibility to amend their application within the deadlines set in Article 14(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009. Administrative controls and on-the-spot checks depend on the receipt of final applications by Member States. Member States choosing to set the latest date for the submission of applications at an earlier date than the latest dates established in Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 should also be able to start and finalise controls earlier. These Member States should therefore be allowed to establish a latest date for the amendments to the single application at an earlier date than the latest date established in Article 14(2). However, to give farmers sufficient time to notify possible changes, that date should not be earlier than 15 days after the latest date fixed by Member States for the submission of the single application.

(5)

Due to the introduction of area-related support decoupled from production, the on-the-spot checks are in many cases limited to the verification of the size and the eligibility status of the area concerned. Those checks are to a large extent performed by remote sensing. In parallel, Member States regularly update their identification system for agricultural parcels. The methodology used for such updates may be similar to the performance of on-the-spot checks by means of remote sensing. Therefore, in a spirit of simplification and with a view to reducing administrative costs, it is appropriate to allow Member States performing a systematic update of the identification systems for agricultural parcels to use the results thereof as a replacement of part of the traditional on-the-spot checks. To avoid creating any additional risk for irregular payments, criteria to be fulfilled by management and control systems in the Member States opting for this possibility should be defined. Those criteria should in particular address the intervals and the coverage of the update, any particulars on the ortho-images used, the required quality of the identification system for agricultural parcels and the maximum yearly error rate.

(6)

The requirement for bovine animals in a farm to comply with Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 of the European Parliament and the Council of 17 July 2000 establishing a system for the identification and registration of bovine animals and regarding the labelling of beef and beef products and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 820/97 (4) is controlled via the on-the-spot checks performed under cross compliance. Currently, there is also an obligation to check animals for which no aid is claimed in the context of eligibility controls of direct payments. This additional control is applied only in those Member States that have chosen to maintain any coupled direct payments for bovine animals. However, in order to have an equal control burden in all Member States and to simplify the on-the-spot checks for the farmers and the national authorities, it is appropriate to abolish the check of animals for which no aid is claimed in the context of eligibility controls unless Member States make use of the possibility provided for in the second subparagraph of Article 16(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009.

(7)

According to Article 16(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009, where an animal is moved to another location during the retention period, the farmer has to inform the competent authority. To avoid the risk of disproportionate reductions of the payment, rules on animals determined as eligible for payment should be established for the cases where the notification of movements of animals has been omitted but where the relevant animals can be immediately identified within the holding of the farmer concerned during the on-the-spot check.

(8)

Rules on the identification and registration system of animals should in particular ensure traceability of animals. A loss of both ear-tags of a bovine animal as well as the loss of any ear-tag of an ovine or caprine animal would render the animal ineligible for payments and also leads to reductions under Articles 65 and 66 of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009. However, there are situations where those animals could be identified by other means and where traceability of the relevant animals is thus ensured.

(9)

According to Article 63(4)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009, when a bovine animal declared for payment has lost one of the two ear tags and can be clearly and individually identified by other means of the identification and registration system for bovine animals, that animal is still included in the number of animals determined and thus eligible for payment. Moreover, the system for identification and registration of bovine animals is in general well established. Therefore, where one bovine animal has lost both ear tags and its identity can be established without any doubt it should also be included in the number of animals determined and thus eligible for payment. This should however only apply if the farmer has taken measures to remedy the situation before the announcement of the on-the-spot check and, in order to avoid any risk of irregular payments, the application of this rule should be limited to one single animal.

(10)

A new improved system for identification of ovine and caprine animals under Council Regulation (EC) No 21/2004 of 17 December 2003 establishing a system for the identification and registration of ovine and caprine animals and amending Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 and Directives 92/102/EEC and 64/432/EEC (5) has been implemented and it is therefore appropriate to introduce a similar provision for ovine and caprine animals declared for payment.

(11)

Member States making use of the possibility provided for in the second subparagraph of Article 16(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 should be allowed to provide that the notifications to the computerised database for identification and registration of bovine animals replace the notification from that farmer in case of a replacement of an animal during the retention period. This possibility should be made available to all Member States.

(12)

Furthermore, certain provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 have become obsolete and should be deleted.

(13)

Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 should therefore be amended accordingly.

(14)

The Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets and the Management Committee for Direct Payments have not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by their chairman,

(1)

in Article 61, the following paragraph is added:

‘However, where a Member State makes use of the possibility provided for in the second subparagraph of Article 16(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009, it shall fix the date when the period referred to in the first paragraph of this Article starts.’;

(2)

in Article 62, the following paragraph 3 is added:

(1)

Article 2 is amended as follows:

(2)

Article 13 is amended as follows:

(3)

in Article 14, paragraph 2, the following subparagraph is added:

‘By way of derogation from the first subparagraph Member States may fix an earlier latest date for the notification of amendments. That date shall however not be earlier than 15 calendar days after the latest date for submitting the single application fixed in accordance with Article 11(2).’;

(4)

in Part II, Title II, the title of Chapter IV is replaced by the following:

‘Aid for sugar beet and cane producers, separate sugar payment, separate fruit and vegetables payment and separate soft fruit payment’ ;

(5)

Article 17 is amended as follows:

(6)

in Article 28(1), point (f) is deleted;

(7)

a new Article 31a is inserted:

(8)

in Article 33, first paragraph, the first sentence is replaced by the following:

‘On-the-spot checks shall cover all the agricultural parcels for which aid is requested under aid schemes listed in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 73/2009.’;

(9)

Article 37 is deleted;

(10)

Article 41 is replaced by the following:

(11)

Article 42 is amended as follows:

(12)

Articles 43 and 44 are deleted;

(13)

in Article 45, paragraphs 2 and 3 are deleted;

(14)

Article 57 is amended as follows:

(15)

in Article 58, the first paragraph is replaced by the following:

‘If, in respect of a crop group, the area declared for the purposes of any area-related aid schemes exceeds the area determined in accordance with Article 57, the aid shall be calculated on the basis of the area determined reduced by twice the difference found if that difference is more than either 3 % or two hectares, but no more than 20 % of the area determined.’;

(16)

Articles 59 and 61 are deleted;

(17)

Article 63 is amended as follows:

(18)

in Article 64(2), the second subparagraph is replaced by the following:

‘However, a Member State may provide that the notifications to the computerised database for bovine animals of an animal having left the holding and another animal having arrived on the holding within the time limits provided for in the first subparagraph may replace the information to be sent to the competent authority pursuant to the first subparagraph. In that case, where the Member State does not make use of the possibility provided for in Article 16(3) it shall ensure by any means that there are no doubts as to which animals are covered by the farmers applications.’;

(19)

in Article 65(3), the second subparagraph is replaced by the following:

‘In the case of application of the second subparagraph of Article 16(3), potentially eligible animals found not to be correctly identified or registered in the system for identification and registration for bovine animals shall count as animals found with irregularities.’;

(20)

in Article 66, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:

(21)

Article 68 is deleted;

(22)

in the first subparagraph of Article 78(2), point (d) is replaced by the following:

(1)

After the introduction of the computerised system for transmitting sugar price information for the price recording system pursuant to Article 14 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 952/2006 (2), it is appropriate to increase the frequency at which the Commission submits such information to the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets.

(2)

Regulation (EC) No 952/2006 should therefore be amended accordingly.

(3)

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)

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

(2)

A statement of objection was lodged by Cyprus under Article 7(3)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006.

(3)

By letter dated 31 January 2011, the Commission asked the Parties concerned to seek agreement among them. An agreement was reached within six months and Cyprus withdrew its objection on 22 July 2011.

(4)

The name should therefore be entered in the register,

(1)

Article 53 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 provides for the possibility to adopt appropriate Union emergency measures for food and feed imported from a third country in order to protect public health, animal health or the environment, where the risk cannot be contained satisfactorily by means of measures taken by the Member States individually.

(2)

Following the accident at the Fukushima nuclear power station on 11 March 2011, the Commission was informed that radionuclide levels in certain food products originating in Japan such as milk and spinach exceeded the action levels in food applicable in Japan. Such contamination may constitute a threat to public and animal health in the Union and therefore Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2011 (2) was adopted.

(3)

The Japanese authorities monitor the presence of radioactivity in feed and food and it can be observed from the reported analytical results that certain feed and food in prefectures close to the Fukushima nuclear power station continue to contain levels of radioactivity above the maximum levels. It is therefore appropriate to extend the date of applicability of the measures by three additional months.

(4)

A significant number of samples taken by the Japanese authorities from feed and food produced in the Nagano prefecture show that the production of feed and food in that prefecture is only to a very limited extent affected by the accident at the Fukushima nuclear power station as only one sample of mushrooms of more than 1 800 samples of feed and food from Nagano had non-compliant levels of radioactivity. In particular, nearly all samples had non-detectable levels of radioactivity and only in few samples significant levels of radioactivity were detected. Therefore, it is appropriate to remove that prefecture from the zone, where a testing of all feed and food originating from those prefectures is required before export to the Union.

(5)

The analytical results of import controls performed by the competent authorities of the Member States are so far very favourable and indicate that the control measures imposed on feed and food for export to the EU are correctly and efficiently applied by the Japanese authorities. Therefore, it is appropriate to consider at the next review of the measures a reduction of the frequency of import controls.

(6)

Given that the half-life of iodine-131 is short (about 8 days) and that no new releases of iodine-131 to the environment have been recently reported, the presence of iodine-131 is no longer observed in feed and food or the environment. As the possibility of new releases of iodine-131 are very minimal, it is appropriate to no longer require the analysis for the presence of iodine-131.

(7)

To facilitate the issuance of attestations, it is appropriate to authorise the competent authority to appoint an instance which is authorised to sign in certain cases the attestations under the authority and supervision of the competent authority of Japan.

(8)

It is therefore appropriate to amend Implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2011 accordingly.

(9)

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

(1)

in Article 2, paragraph 3 is replaced by the following:

(2)

in Article 2, paragraph 5 is replaced by the following:

(3)

in Article 5, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:

(4)

in Article 10, the second paragraph, the date of ‘31 December 2011’ is replaced by ‘31 March 2012’.

(5)

Annex I is replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Regulation.

(1)

In accordance with Article 80(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, Council Directive 91/414/EEC (2) is to apply, with respect to the procedure and the conditions for approval, to active substances for which completeness has been established in accordance with Article 16 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 (3). Acetochlor is an active substance for which completeness has been established in accordance with that Regulation.

(2)

Commission Regulations (EC) No 451/2000 (4) and (EC) No 1490/2002 (5) lay down 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 lists of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. One of these lists included acetochlor.

(3)

In accordance with Article 3(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1095/2007 of 20 September 2007 amending Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002 laying down further detailed rules for the implementation of the third stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC and Regulation (EC) No 2229/2004 laying down further detailed rules for the implementation of the fourth stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC (6) the notifier withdrew its support for the inclusion of that active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC within two months from entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1095/2007. Consequently, Commission Decision 2008/934/EC of 5 December 2008 concerning the non-inclusion of certain active substances in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing these substances (7) was adopted on the non-inclusion of acetochlor.

(4)

Pursuant to Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC the original notifier (hereinafter ‘the applicant’) submitted a new application requesting the accelerated procedure to be applied, as provided for in Articles 14 to 19 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.

(5)

The application was submitted to Spain 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 2008/934/EC. That application also complies with the remaining substantive and procedural requirements of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.

(6)

Spain 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 22 April 2010. 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 the risk assessment of acetochlor to the Commission on 18 April 2011 (8). 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 Animal Health and finalised on 11 October 2011 in the format of the Commission review report for acetochlor.

(7)

During the evaluation of this active substance, concerns were identified. Those concerns were, in particular, the following. A potential human exposure above the acceptable daily intake has been identified. In addition, there is a potential for human exposure to the surface water metabolite t-norchloro acetochlor, the genotoxicity of which cannot be excluded. There is a high risk of groundwater contamination for several metabolites, a high risk for aquatic organisms and a high long term risk for herbivorous birds. Finally, the information available was not sufficient to conclude on the risk assessment for the groundwater contamination for metabolites t-norchloracetochlor and t-hydroxyacetochlor.

(8)

The Commission invited the applicant to submit its comments on the conclusion of 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.

(9)

However, despite the arguments put forward by the applicant, the concerns referred to in recital 7 could not be eliminated. Consequently, it has not been demonstrated that it may be expected that, under the proposed conditions of use, plant protection products containing acetochlor satisfy in general the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC.

(10)

Acetochlor should therefore not be approved pursuant to Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.

(11)

To provide Member States with time to withdraw authorisations for plant protection products containing acetochlor, Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002 should be derogated from.

(12)

For plant protection products containing acetochlor, where Member States grant any period of grace in accordance with Article 46 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, this period should expire at the latest one year after the withdrawal of the respective authorisation.

(13)

This Regulation does not prejudice the submission of a further application for acetochlor pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.

(14)

In the interest of clarity, the entry for acetochlor in the Annex to Decision 2008/934/EC should be deleted.

(15)

It is therefore appropriate to amend Decision 2008/934/EC accordingly.

(16)

The Standing Committee on the Food chain and Animal Health did not deliver an opinion. An implementing act was deemed to be necessary and the chair submitted the draft implementing act to the appeal committee for further deliberation. The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the appeal committee,

(1)

Provisions for setting fishing effort limitations for the cod stocks in the Baltic Sea are set out in Regulation (EC) No 1098/2007.

(2)

On the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1098/2007, Annex II to Council Regulation (EU) No 1256/2011 of 30 November 2011 fixing for 2012 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks applicable in the Baltic Sea and amending Regulation (EU) No 1124/2010 (2) has established fishing effort limitations for 2012 in the Baltic Sea.

(3)

According to Article 29(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1098/2007 the Commission may exclude Subdivisions 27 and 28.2 from the scope of certain fishing effort limitations when the catches of cod were below a certain threshold in the last reporting period.

(4)

Taking into account the reports submitted by Member States and the advice from the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries, subdivisions 27 and 28.2 should be excluded in 2012 from the scope of those fishing effort limitations.

(5)

Regulation (EU) No 1256/2011 will apply from 1 January 2012. In order to ensure coherence with that Regulation, this Regulation should also apply from 1 January 2012.

(6)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture,

(1)

In accordance with Article 14(1)(a) of Directive 98/79/EC, the United Kingdom has requested that the Commission take the necessary measures to add ‘Variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease’ (vCJD) assays to List A of Annex II to that Directive.

(2)

In order to ensure the highest level of health protection and ensure that the conformity of vCJD assays with the essential requirements set out in Annex I to Directive 98/79/EC is verified by notified bodies, vCJD assays for blood screening, diagnosis and confirmation should be added to List A of Annex II to Directive 98/79/EC.

(3)

The measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee set up by Article 6(2) of Council Directive 90/385/EEC (2) and referred to in Article 7(1) of Directive 98/79/EC,

(1)

Pursuant to Decision 2011/781/CFSP, the Political and Security Committee (PSC) is authorised, in accordance with the third paragraph of Article 38 of the Treaty, to take the relevant decisions for the purpose of exercising the political control and strategic direction of EUPM BiH, including, in particular, the decision to appoint a Head of Mission.

(2)

On 24 October 2008, the PSC, by Decision 2008/835/CFSP (2), appointed Mr Stefan FELLER as Head of Mission of EUPM BiH. His mandate was extended by Decision 2009/958/CFSP (3) until 31 December 2010 and subsequently by Decision 2010/754/CFSP (4) until 31 December 2011.

(3)

By Decision 2011/781/CFSP, the Council, inter alia, extended the duration of EUPM BiH until 30 June 2012.

(4)

On 7 December 2011, the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy proposed to the PSC to extend the mandate of Mr Stefan FELLER as Head of Mission of EUPM BiH for an additional 6 months, until 30 June 2012,

(1)

By its Decision of 22 January 2008 (1), the Council appointed the members of the Scientific and Technical Committee (‘the Committee’) for the period 22 January 2008 to 22 January 2013.

(2)

Following the death of Mr Juan Antonio RUBIO RODRÍGUEZ, a seat on the Committee has become vacant. A new member should therefore be appointed,

(1)

In light of a serious and sudden deterioration in the economic and social situation within the Union, on 17 December 2010, the Council requested the Commission to implement Article 10 of Annex XI to the Staff Regulations by presenting an appropriate proposal for the annual adjustment 2011. The Commission, on 13 July 2011, submitted to the Council the report on the exception clause (Article 10 of Annex XI to the Staff Regulations) — (‘the report’) covering the period from 1 July 2010 to mid-May 2011. On the basis of the report, the Commission concluded that the conditions for applying the exception clause were not met.

(2)

The Council did not share the Commission’s conclusions as they, in the Council’s view, did not reflect the economic and social situation within the Union.

(3)

Consequently and in view of the financial and economic crisis currently taking place within the Union and resulting in substantial fiscal adjustments in a great number of Member States, on 4 November 2011, the Council repeated its request to the Commission to implement Article 10 of Annex XI to the Staff Regulations on the basis of data reflecting the economic and social situation in autumn 2011 and to submit an appropriate remuneration adjustment proposal in good time to allow the European Parliament and the Council to examine and adopt it before the end of 2011.

(4)

The Commission, on 25 November 2011, presented to the Council supplementary information on the Commission report on the exception clause of 13 July 2011 (‘the supplementary information’). The conclusions drawn by the Commission remained that the conditions for triggering the exception clause were not met.

(5)

In effect, the Commission’s proposal for a Council Regulation adjusting with the effect from 1 July 2011 the remuneration and pension of the officials and other servants of the Union and the correction coefficients applied thereto follows the method set out in Annex XI to the Staff Regulations. The figure for the annual adjustment 2011 proposed by the Commission is 1,7 %.

(6)

The Council considers that neither of the documents submitted by the Commission, namely, the ‘report’ and the ‘supplementary information’, provides for an accurate and comprehensive reflection of the current economic and social situation within the Union.

(7)

Moreover, in the view of the Council, the Commission made an error in defining the time span to be covered by its analysis too narrowly. That error prevented the Commission from making a proper assessment of the situation and therefore has significantly distorted the conclusions derived from both documents, namely that there was no sudden and serious deterioration of an economic and social situation within the Union.

(8)

The Council does not share these conclusions. The Council is convinced that the financial and economic crisis currently taking place within the Union and resulting in substantial fiscal adjustments, inter alia, national officials’ salary adjustments, in a great number of Member States constitutes a serious and sudden deterioration of the economic and social situation within the Union.

(9)

Moreover, in the Council’s opinion, this serious and sudden deterioration of the economic and social situation could not be reflected quickly enough in the officials’ remunerations through the application of the method.

(10)

With respect to the economic situation, the forecast for growth in the Union has been substantially reduced for the year 2012 from + 1,9 % to + 0,6 %. EU quarterly growth is down from + 0,7 % in the first quarter of 2011 to + 0,2 % in the second and in the third quarters of that year. As for the fourth quarter of 2011 and first quarter of 2012, no growth of GDP is foreseen.

(11)

While assessing the current economic and social situation, more focus should have been put on the situation on the financial markets, in particular on distortions to credit supply and declines in asset prices, which are major determinants for the economic development.

(12)

With respect to the social situation, job creation has been insufficient to remedy a major reduction in the unemployment rate. The EU unemployment rate in 2010 and 2011 fluctuated to reach 9,8 % in October 2011 and should remain constantly high.

(13)

In the light of the above, the Council considers that the Commission’s position as regards the existence of a serious and sudden deterioration in the economic and social situation and its refusal to submit a proposal under Article 10 of Annex XI to the Staff Regulations is based on manifestly insufficient and erroneous grounds.

(14)

Since the European Court of Justice held in Case C-40/10 that, for the period of application of Annex XI to the Staff Regulations, the procedure laid down in Article 10 thereof, constitutes the only means of taking account of an economic crisis in the adjustment of remuneration, the Council was dependent on a proposal from the Commission to apply that Article in times of crisis.

(15)

The Council is convinced that, in light of the wording of Article 10 of Annex XI to the Staff Regulations and under the duty of sincere cooperation between the institutions as enshrined in the second sentence of Article 13(2) of the Treaty on European Union, the Commission was obliged to submit an appropriate proposal to the Council. The Commission’s conclusions and its failure to submit such a proposal are therefore in breach of that obligation.

(16)

As the Council may act only on a proposal from the Commission, the Commission’s failure to draw the correct conclusions from the evidence and to present a proposal under Article 10 of Annex XI to the Staff Regulations has prevented the Council from reacting correctly to the serious and sudden deterioration in the economic and social situation through the adoption of an act under Article 10 of Annex XI to the Staff Regulations,

(1)

On 28 February 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/137/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya (1), in order, inter alia, to implement United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1970 (2011).

(2)

On 23 March 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/178/CFSP (2) amending Decision 2011/137/CFSP in order to implement UNSCR 1973 (2011).

(3)

On 22 September 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/625/CFSP (3) amending Decision 2011/137/CFSP in order to implement UNSCR 2009 (2011).

(4)

On 10 November 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/729/CFSP (4) amending Decision 2011/137/CFSP in order to implement UNSCR 2016 (2011).

(5)

On 16 December 2011, the Security Council Committee established pursuant to UNSCR 1970 (2011), acting in accordance with paragraph 19 of UNSCR 2009(2011), decided to lift the designation relating to two entities.

(6)

Decision 2011/137/CFSP should be amended accordingly,

(1)

Pursuant to Article 22 of Directive 2000/29/EC, Member States may receive a ‘plant health control’ financial contribution from the Union to cover expenditure relating directly to the necessary measures which have been taken or are planned to be taken for the purpose of combating harmful organisms introduced from third countries or from other areas in the Union, in order to eradicate or, if that is not possible, to contain them.

(2)

Germany introduced two requests for financial contribution. The first one was introduced on 20 December 2010 and relates to measures taken in 2009 and 2010 to control Anoplophora glabripennis in Nordrhein-Westfalen. The outbreak of that harmful organism was detected there in 2009.

(3)

The second request of Germany was introduced on 15 April 2011 and relates to measures taken in 2010 to eradicate or contain Diabrotica virgifera in Baden-Württemberg. The outbreaks of that harmful organism were detected in different districts of that State (Breisgau-Hochschwarzwald, Emmendingen, Freiburg city, Konstanz, Loerrach, Ortenaukreis and Ravensburg) in different years, i.e. 2008, 2009 and 2010. The measures taken in 2008 and 2009 have also been the subject to co-financing in 2009 and 2010.

(4)

Italy introduced three requests for financial contribution on 29 April 2011. The first request relates to measures taken in 2011 in Lombardia, province of Brescia, commune of Gussago, to control Anoplophora chinensis. The outbreak of that harmful organism was detected in 2008. The measures taken in 2008, 2009 and 2010 have also been the subject of co-financing in 2009 and 2010.

(5)

The second request of Italy relates to the measures taken in 2011 in Veneto, province of Treviso, commune of Cornuda, to control Anoplophora glabripennis. The outbreak of that harmful organism was detected in 2009. The measures taken in 2009 and 2010 have also been the subject of co-financing in 2010.

(6)

The third request of Italy relates to measures taken in 2010 in Emilia-Romagna, provinces of Bologna, Ferrara, Ravenna and Forlì-Cesena, to control Pseudomonas syringae pv. actinidiae. The outbreak of that harmful organism was confirmed in 2010.

(7)

Moreover, Italy introduced a fourth request for financial contribution on 20 April 2011. That request relates to measures taken in 2011 in Lazio, commune of Rome, to control Anoplophora chinensis. The outbreak of that harmful organism was detected in 2008. Measures taken in 2008, 2009 and 2010 have also been the subject of co-financing in 2009 and 2010.

(8)

Cyprus introduced a request for financial contribution on 29 April 2011 relating to measures taken or planned for 2011 to control Rhynchophorus ferrugineus. The outbreaks of that harmful organism were detected in 2009, 2010 and 2011. Measures taken in 2010 have also been the subject of co-financing in 2010.

(9)

Malta introduced a request for financial contribution on 29 April 2011 relating to measures taken in 2010 and 2011 to control Rhynchophorus ferrugineus. The outbreaks of that harmful organism were detected in 2008, 2009 and 2010. Measures taken in 2008 and 2009 have also been the subject of co-financing in 2009.

(10)

The Netherlands introduced three requests for financial contribution on 13 December 2010. The first request relates to measures taken in 2009 and 2010 in the area of Boskoop to control Anoplophora chinensis. The appearance of that harmful organism was detected in December 2009.

(11)

The second request of the Netherlands relates to measures taken in 2009 to control Potato Spindle Tuber Viroid (PSTVd). The suspected appearance of that harmful organism was detected in 2009.

(12)

The third request of the Netherlands relates to measures taken in 2009 to control Tuta absoluta. The outbreak of that harmful organism was detected in 2009.

(13)

Moreover, the Netherlands introduced additionally a fourth and a fifth request for financial contribution on 13 December 2010. The fourth request relates to measures taken in 2009 and 2010 in the area of Westland to control Anoplophora chinensis. The outbreak of that harmful organism was detected in 2007. Measures taken in 2008 have also been the subject of co-financing in 2009.

(14)

The fifth request of the Netherlands relates to measures taken in 2009 to control Clavibacter michiganensis spp. michiganensis. The outbreak of that harmful organism was detected in 2007. Measures taken in 2007 have also been the subject of co-financing in 2009. No co-financing was requested for the measures in 2008.

(15)

Portugal introduced three requests for financial contribution on 30 April 2011 relating to measures taken to control Bursaphelenchus xylophilus. The first request relates to measures taken in 2011 concerning continental Portugal, with the exception of the originally infested zone of Setubal of 1999, to control the outbreaks detected in 2008. The measures taken in 2008, 2009 and 2010 have also been the subject of co-financing in 2009 and 2010.

(16)

The two other requests of Portugal concern exclusively measures of heat treatment of wood or wood packaging material in the area of Setubal, in 2010 and 2011.

(17)

Spain introduced three requests for financial contribution. The first one was introduced on 15 April 2011 and relates to measures taken in 2011 in Extremadura to control Bursaphelenchus xylophilus. The outbreak of that harmful organism was detected in 2008. The measures taken in 2008, 2009 and 2010 have also been the subject of co-financing in 2009 and 2010.

(18)

The second request of Spain was introduced on 28 April 2011. It relates to measures taken in 2011 and planned for 2011 in Galicia to control Bursaphelenchus xylophilus. The outbreak of that harmful organism was detected in 2010.

(19)

The third request of Spain was introduced on 27 April 2011. It relates to measures taken in 2010 and 2011, and also planned for 2011, in Catalonia to control Pomacea insularum. The outbreak of that harmful organism was detected in 2010.

(20)

Germany, Spain, Italy, Cyprus, Malta, The Netherlands and Portugal have each established a programme of actions to eradicate or contain the above harmful organisms introduced in their territories. These programmes specify the objectives to be achieved, the measures carried out, their duration and their cost.

(21)

All the above measures consist of a variety of plant health measures, including destruction of contaminated trees or crops, application of plant protection products, sanitation techniques, inspections and testings carried out officially or upon official request to monitor the presence or extent of contamination by the respective harmful organisms, and replacement of destroyed plants, within the meaning of Article 23(2)(a), (b) and (c) of Directive 2000/29/EC.

(22)

Germany, Spain, Italy, Cyprus, Malta, The Netherlands and Portugal have applied for the allocation of a Union financial contribution to these programmes in accordance with the requirements laid down in Article 23 of Directive 2000/29/EC, in particular paragraph 1 and 4 thereof, and in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 1040/2002 of 14 June 2002 establishing detailed rules for the implementation of the provisions relating to the allocation of a financial contribution from the Community for plant-health control and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2051/97 (2).

(23)

The technical information provided by Germany, Spain, Italy, Cyprus, Malta, The Netherlands and Portugal has enabled the Commission to analyse the situation accurately and comprehensively. The Commission has concluded that the conditions for the granting of a Union financial contribution, as laid down in particular in Article 23 of Directive 2000/29/EC, have been met. Accordingly, it is appropriate to provide a Union financial contribution to cover the expenditure on those programmes.

(24)

In accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 23(5) of Directive 2000/29/EC, the Union financial contribution may cover up to 50 % of eligible expenditure for measures that have been taken within a period of not more than 2 years after the date of detection of the appearance or that are planned for that period. However, in accordance with the third subparagraph of that Article, that period may be extended if it has been established that the objective of the measures will be achieved within a reasonable additional period, in which case the rate of the Union financial contribution shall be digressive over the years concerned. Having regard to the conclusions of the Working Group on evaluation of the respective requests, it is appropriate to extend the two-year period for the programmes concerned, while reducing the rate of the Union financial contributions for these measures to 45 % of eligible expenditure for the third year and to 40 % for the fourth year of these programmes.

(25)

The Union financial contribution up to 50 % of eligible expenditure should therefore apply to Germany, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Anoplophora glabripennis (2009, 2010), Germany, Baden-Württemberg, Diabrotica virgifera, rural districts of Breisgau-Hochschwarzwald and Freiburg city (2010), rural districts of Emmendingen, Lörrach, and Konstanz (2009), Italy, Emilia-Romagna, Pseudomonas syringae pv. actinidiae provinces of Bologna, Ferrara, Ravenna and Forlì-Cesena (2010), Cyprus, Rhynchophorus ferrugineus (2011), The Netherlands, Anoplophora chinensis, Boskoop area (2009, 2010), The Netherlands, PSTVd (2009), The Netherlands, Tuta absoluta (2009), The Netherlands, Anoplophora chinensis, Westland (2009), Portugal, Bursaphelenchus xylophilus, Setubal area (2010, 2011), Spain, Galicia, Bursaphelenchus xylophilus (2010, 2011) and to Spain, Catalonia, Pomacea insularum (2010, 2011).

(26)

The Union financial contribution up to 45 % of eligible expenditure should therefore apply to the following programmes: Italy, Veneto, Anoplophora glabripennis (2011), Malta, Rhynchophorus ferrugineus (2010), The Netherlands, Clavibacter michiganesis ssp. michiganensis (2009), as the measures concerned have already been the subject of a Union financial contribution under Commission Decisions 2009/996/EU (3) (Malta, The Netherlands) or 2010/772/EU (4) (Italy) for the first 2 years of their implementation. This also applies to the programme of The Netherlands, Anoplophora chinensis, Westland (2010), where measures for 2009 (year 2 of the programme) are co-financed in the present Decision.

(27)

The same level of contribution should apply to the third year (2010) of the programme presented by Germany in Baden-Württemberg for Diabrotica virgifera in the rural district of Ravensburg, which measures have been the subject of a Union financial contribution under Decision 2009/996/EU and Decision 2010/772/EU.

(28)

Moreover, a Union contribution up to 40 % should apply to the fourth year of the following programmes: Spain, Extremadura, Bursaphelenchus xylophilus (2011), Italy, Lombardia, Anoplophora chinensis (2011), Italy, Lazio, Anoplophora chinensis (2011), Malta, Rhynchophorus ferrugineus (2011), Portugal, Bursaphelenchus xylophilus (2011), continental Portugal with the exception of the originally infested zone of Setubal of 1999, as the measures have been the subject of a Union financial contribution under Decision 2009/996/EU (Spain, Italy, Portugal) and 2010/772/EU (Spain, Italy, Portugal) for the first 3 years of their implementation.

(29)

The same level of contribution should apply to the fourth year (2010) of the programme presented by Germany in Baden-Württemberg for Diabrotica virgifera in the rural district of Ortenaukreis, which measures have been the subject of a Union financial contribution under Commission Decision 2009/147/EC (5), Decision 2009/996/EU and Decision 2010/772/EU.

(30)

In accordance with the conclusions of the audit mission in Portugal from 29 March 2011 to 11 April 2011 of the Food and Veterinary Office of the Commission, only 25 % of the number of coniferous host trees infested by pinewood nematode, or showing any symptoms of poor health, had been felled and destroyed at the date of 1 April 2011. This failure of the Portuguese authorities is not in compliance with the provisions of point 2(a)(iii) of the Annex to Commission Decision 2006/133/EC (6). In this view, the level of eligible expenditure in the request relating to measures in continental Portugal, with exception of the originally infested zone of Setubal, should be reduced as regards the cost of felling coniferous trees, and therefore only 25 % of this category of expenditure should be deemed eligible.

(31)

In accordance with Article 3(2)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (7), plant-health measures are financed from the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund. For the purpose of financial control of these measures, Articles 9, 36 and 37 of the above Regulation should apply.

(32)

In accordance with Article 75 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (8) and Article 90(1) of Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (9), the commitment of expenditure from the Union budget shall be preceded by a financing decision adopted by the institution to which powers have been delegated, setting out the essential elements of the action involving the expenditure.

(33)

The present decision constitutes a financing decision for the expenditure provided in the co-financing requests presented by Member States.

(34)

The measures provided in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plant Health,

(a)

evidence of the measures taken has been submitted by the Member State concerned in accordance with the provisions laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1040/2002;

(b)

a request for payment has been submitted by the Member State concerned to the Commission, in accordance with Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1040/2002.

(1)

The common technical specifications for in vitro diagnostic medical devices are laid down in Commission Decision 2002/364/EC (2).

(2)

In the interest of public health it is appropriate, where possible, to draw up common technical specifications for the devices listed in List A of Annex II to Directive 98/79/EC.

(3)

Variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD) assays for blood screening, diagnosis and confirmation have been added to List A of Annex II to Directive 98/79/EC by Commission Directive 2011/100/EU (3).

(4)

Taking into account the state of the art and the current scientific knowledge on Variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, common technical specifications can be drawn up for vCJD blood screening assays.

(5)

The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the committee set up by Article 6(2) of Council Directive 90/385/EEC (4) and referred to in Article 7(1) of Directive 98/79/EC,