(1)

According to Council Regulation (EC) No 704/2002 of 25 March 2002 temporarily suspending autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on imports of certain industrial products and opening and providing for the administration of autonomous Community tariff quotas on imports of certain fishery products into the Canary Islands (3), the Common Customs Tariff duty suspension for certain capital goods for commercial or industrial use is to expire on 31 December 2011.

(2)

In September 2010, the government of Spain requested on behalf of the government of the Canary Islands, the prolongation of the suspension of the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties for a number of products in accordance with Article 349 of the Treaty. The justification of their request was that in view of the remoteness of those islands, the economic operators suffer severe economic and commercial disadvantages which have negative effects on demographic trends, employment and social and economic developments.

(3)

The Canary Islands industrial sector, together with construction, has been severely affected by the recent economic crisis. The slump in building depressed all the auxiliary industry that depends on it. Unfavourable financial conditions had a serious impact on many areas of business. In addition, the sharp rise in unemployment in Spain aggravated the slump in domestic demand, including demand for industrial products.

(4)

Unemployment in the Canary Islands has been consistently exceeding the national average for Spain for the last 10 years and, since 2009, the Canary Islands have recorded the highest level throughout the country (Eurostat: Regional statistics — Unemployment rate, by NUTS 2 regions, 1999-2009). Moreover, more than half of the industrial production of the Canary Islands is consumed there, which is particularly serious since demand there has been hit harder.

(5)

Therefore, with the aim of giving a long-term perspective to investors and enabling economic operators to reach a level of industrial and commercial activities which stabilises the economic and social environment on the Canary Islands, it is appropriate to prolong in full the suspension of the Common Customs Tariff duties for certain goods as detailed in Annex II and Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 704/2002 for a period of 10 years.

(6)

In addition, in the same context the Spanish authorities have requested the suspension of the Common Customs Tariff duties for three new products falling within CN codes 3902 10 , 3903 11 and 3906 10 . This request was accepted as these suspensions would strengthen the economy of the Canary Islands.

(7)

In order to ensure that only economic operators located on the territory of the Canary Islands benefit from those tariff measures, the suspensions should be made conditional on the end-use of the products, in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (4) and Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (5).

(8)

In case of a deflection of trade and in order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of this Regulation, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission allowing the Commission to temporarily withdraw the suspension. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers (6).

(9)

Amendments to the Combined Nomenclature may not give rise to any substantive changes to the nature of the suspension of duties. The power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty should therefore be delegated to the Commission for the purpose of making necessary amendments and technical adaptations to the list of goods for which a suspension applies. The Commission, when preparing and drawing up delegated acts, should ensure a timely and appropriate transmission of relevant documents to the Council.

(10)

In order to ensure continuity with the measures set out in Regulation (EC) No 704/2002, it is necessary to apply the measures provided in this Regulation from 1 January 2012,

(1)

Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States (3) has been substantially amended several times (4). Since further amendments are to be made, it should be recast in the interests of clarity.

(2)

In the light of the judgment of the Court of Justice of 6 May 2008 in Case C-133/06 (5), it is considered necessary to redraft the wording of the second subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Directive 90/435/EEC, for the purpose of clarifying that the rules referred to therein are adopted by the Council acting in accordance with the procedure provided for in the Treaty. It is furthermore appropriate to update the Annexes to that Directive.

(3)

The objective of this Directive is to exempt dividends and other profit distributions paid by subsidiary companies to their parent companies from withholding taxes and to eliminate double taxation of such income at the level of the parent company.

(4)

The grouping together of companies of different Member States may be necessary in order to create within the Union conditions analogous to those of an internal market and in order thus to ensure the effective functioning of such an internal market. Such operations should not to be hampered by restrictions, disadvantages or distortions arising in particular from the tax provisions of the Member States. It is therefore necessary, with respect to such grouping together of companies of different Member States, to provide for tax rules which are neutral from the point of view of competition, in order to allow enterprises to adapt to the requirements of the internal market, to increase their productivity and to improve their competitive strength at the international level.

(5)

Such grouping together may result in the formation of groups of parent companies and subsidiaries.

(6)

Before the entry into force of Directive 90/435/EEC, the tax provisions governing the relations between parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States varied appreciably from one Member State to another and were generally less advantageous than those applicable to parent companies and subsidiaries of the same Member State. Cooperation between companies of different Member States was thereby disadvantaged in comparison with cooperation between companies of the same Member State. It was necessary to eliminate that disadvantage by the introduction of a common system in order to facilitate the grouping together of companies at Union level.

(7)

Where a parent company by virtue of its association with its subsidiary receives distributed profits, the Member State of the parent company must either refrain from taxing such profits, or tax such profits while authorising the parent company to deduct from the amount of tax due that fraction of the corporation tax paid by the subsidiary which relates to those profits.

(8)

It is furthermore necessary, in order to ensure fiscal neutrality, that the profits which a subsidiary distributes to its parent company be exempt from withholding tax.

(9)

The payment of profit distributions to, and their receipt by, a permanent establishment of a parent company should give rise to the same treatment as that applying between a subsidiary and its parent. This should include the situation where a parent company and its subsidiary are in the same Member State and the permanent establishment is in another Member State. On the other hand, it appears that situations where the permanent establishment and the subsidiary are situated in the same Member State can, without prejudice to the application of the Treaty principles, be dealt with on the basis of national legislation by the Member State concerned.

(10)

In relation to the treatment of permanent establishments Member States may need to determine the conditions and legal instruments in order to protect the national tax revenue and fend off circumvention of national laws, in accordance with the Treaty principles and taking into account internationally accepted tax rules.

(11)

When corporate groups are organised in chains of companies and profits are distributed through the chain of subsidiaries to the parent company, double taxation should be eliminated either by exemption or tax credit. In the case of tax credit the parent company should be able to deduct any tax paid by any of the subsidiaries in the chain provided that the requirements set out in this Directive are met.

(12)

This Directive should be without prejudice to the obligations of the Member States relating to the time limits for transposition into national law of the Directives set out in Part B of Annex II,

(a)

‘company of a Member State’ means any company which:

(b)

‘permanent establishment’ means a fixed place of business situated in a Member State through which the business of a company of another Member State is wholly or partly carried on in so far as the profits of that place of business are subject to tax in the Member State in which it is situated by virtue of the relevant bilateral tax treaty or, in the absence of such a treaty, by virtue of national law.

(1)

Council Decision 2002/546/EC (2) authorises Spain, up to 31 December 2011, to apply exemptions from or reductions in the tax known as ‘Arbitrio sobre las Importaciones y Entregas de Mercancías en las islas Canarias’ (hereinafter ‘the AIEM tax’) to certain products produced locally in the Canary Islands. The Annex to that Decision contains a list of products to which exemptions and reductions from the AIEM tax may be applied. The difference between the taxation of locally produced products and the taxation of other products may not exceed 5, 15 or 25 %, depending on the product.

(2)

It is justified to extend the period of application of Decision 2002/546/EC for two years, since the basic elements justifying the authorisation provided under that Decision have remained unchanged. In this regard, the report from the Commission to the Council of 28 August 2008 on the application of the special arrangements concerning the AIEM tax applicable in the Canary Islands confirmed that the AIEM tax was functioning in a satisfactory manner and without the need for any amendments to Decision 2002/546/EC.

(3)

Moreover, the report received by the Commission from the Spanish authorities confirms that the handicaps that justified the authorisation of total exemptions and partial reductions of the AIEM tax to a list of products produced locally in the Canary Islands are still valid.

(4)

Decision 2002/546/EC should be amended accordingly,

(1)

Council Decision 2007/659/EC of 9 October 2007 authorising France to apply a reduced rate of excise duty on ‘traditional’ rum produced in its overseas departments (2) authorises France to apply to ‘traditional’ rum produced in its overseas departments and sold on the French mainland a reduced rate of excise duty which may be lower than the minimum rate of excise duty on alcohol set by Council Directive 92/84/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the approximation of the rates of excise duty on alcohol and alcoholic beverages (3) but not more than 50 % lower than the standard national excise duty on alcohol. The ‘traditional’ rum to which the reduced rate of excise duty applies is now defined in point 1(f) of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 on the definition, description, presentation, labelling and the protection of geographical indications of spirit drinks (4). The reduction in excise duty is confined to an annual quota of 108 000 hectolitres of pure alcohol. The derogation expires on 31 December 2012.

(2)

In order to adapt the terms of Decision 2007/659/EC to Article 349 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and bearing in mind that ‘traditional’ rum is produced only in Guadeloupe, French Guiana, Martinique and Réunion, therefore, a reference should be made in this amending Decision exclusively to those four outermost regions.

(3)

On 29 June 2010, the French authorities sent the Commission the report provided for in Article 4 of Decision 2007/659/EC. The report contains two requests. First, the French authorities ask that the annual quota be increased from 108 000 hectolitres to 125 000 hectolitres of pure alcohol to reflect trends on the market for rum in the Union. Secondly, they request an extension by 1 year, i.e. to 31 December 2013, of the period of application of Decision 2007/659/EC so as to bring it into line with that of a State aid decision on the same issue adopted by the Commission on 27 June 2007 (5) (hereinafter: ‘the State aid Decision’).

(4)

The information provided by the French authorities shows that quantities of ‘traditional’ rum coming onto the market at the reduced rate of excise duty have grown since the adoption of Decision 2007/659/EC, from 96 100 hectolitres of pure alcohol in 2007 to 105 700 hectolitres in 2010, i.e. an annual increase of 3,2 %. Provided that this trend continues, the quantities of ‘traditional’ rum coming onto the market should be around 109 100 hectolitres of pure alcohol in 2011, 112 600 hectolitres in 2012 and 116 200 hectolitres in 2013, thus exceeding the 108 000 hectolitre quota provided for by Decision 2007/659/EC.

(5)

Recital 9 of Decision 2007/659/EC underlines that since the competitiveness of ‘traditional’ rum from the overseas departments needs to be supported on the market in mainland France in order to safeguard the activity of their sugar-cane rum sector, the quantities of traditional rum originating in the overseas departments eligible for a reduced rate of excise duty when released for consumption on that market should be reviewed. The 108 000 hectolitre annual quota established by Decision 2007/659/EC should be, therefore, increased to 120 000 hectolitres, including the quota for 2011 in order to ensure continuity, taking into account the increase forecasted for that year. This increase would cover annual growth of 4,3 %, i.e. a little more than the 3,2 % increase witnessed in 2007-10.

(6)

It is also necessary to extend the period of application of Decision 2007/659/EC by 1 year so that it expires at the same time as that of the State aid Decision.

(7)

Decision 2007/659/EC should be amended accordingly,

(1)

the title is replaced by the following:

‘Council Decision of 9 October 2007 authorising France to apply a reduced rate of excise duty on ‘traditional’ rum produced in Guadeloupe, French Guiana, Martinique and Réunion’;

(2)

Article 1 is replaced by the following:

(3)

Article 2 is replaced by the following:

(*1)   OJ L 39, 13.2.2008, p. 16. ’;"

(4)

Article 3(1) is replaced by the following:

(5)

in Article 5, the date 31 December 2012 is replaced by that of 31 December 2013.

(1)

Following the amendment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 (2), by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1055/2009 (3), it was noted that the Finnish, French, Hungarian, Italian, Polish, Portuguese, Slovak and Spanish versions of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 contain an error in Article 7b(3), as regards the starting date for submitting applications for export licences.

(2)

Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 should therefore be corrected 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)

By letter dated 10 November 2011, the President of the European Central Bank, Mr Mario DRAGHI announced the decision of Mr Lorenzo BINI SMAGHI to resign from his position on the Executive Board with effect from the end of 31 December 2011. It is therefore necessary to appoint a new member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank.

(2)

The European Council wishes to appoint Mr Benoît COEURÉ who, in its view, fulfils all the requirements set out in Article 283(2) of the Treaty,

(1)

Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 lays down general rules for food business operators on the hygiene of foodstuffs based amongst others on the principles of hazard analysis and critical control points. It provides that food business operators are to comply with certain procedures based on those principles.

(2)

Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 lays down specific rules on the hygiene of food of animal origin for food business operators and supplements the rules laid down in Regulation (EC) No 852/2004. The rules laid down in Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 include structural requirements for milk-processing establishments and the rules laid down in Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 include structural requirements for such establishments as well as hygiene requirements concerning raw milk and dairy products.

(3)

Article 2 of Commission Decision 2009/852/EC (3) provides that certain structural requirements laid down in Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 and in Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 are not to apply, until 31 December 2011, to the milk-processing establishments in Romania listed in Annex I to that Decision.

(4)

Decision 2009/852/EC also provides that, by way of derogation from the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 853/2004, the milk-processing establishments listed in Annex II thereto may process, until 31 December 2011, compliant and non-compliant milk, provided that such processing is carried out on separate production lines.

(5)

In addition, Decision 2009/852/EC provides that the milk-processing establishments listed in Annex III thereto may process, until 31 December 2011, compliant and non-compliant milk without separate production lines.

(6)

In September 2011 Romania has informed the Commission that, starting from January 2012, all the milk-processing establishments which are currently listed in Annex I to Decision 2009/852/EC will be in compliance with the structural requirements laid down in Regulations (EC) No 852/2004 and (EC) No 853/2004. Consequently Article 2 of Decision 2009/852/EC should be deleted.

(7)

Annexes II and III to Decision 2009/852/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.

(8)

In addition, Romania has informed the Commission that, since the entry into force of Decision 2009/852/EC, the proportion of raw milk that complies with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 853/2004, delivered to milk-processing establishments in that Member State, has considerably increased. Romania has also established an action plan aimed at covering the entire production chain of milk in that Member State ensuring compliance with the EU rules.

(9)

However, according with the report submitted by Romania on the basis of Article 6 of Decision 2009/852/EC and on the information provided by Romanian authorities during the Standing Committee of Food Chain and Animal Health of 17 October 2011, the situation of the milk sector in Romania is still not in conformity with the requirements laid down in Regulation (EC) No 853/2004.

(10)

Taking into account the current situation, and in order to avoid frustrating the efforts made by the Romanian authorities, it is appropriate to extend the application of the measures provided for in Decision 2009/852/EC.

(11)

Romania should continue the process of bringing the raw milk processed by the establishments listed in Annexes II and III to Decision 2009/852/EC in compliance with the requirements laid down in Regulation (EC) No 853/2004.

(12)

In particular, Romania should continue to monitor the situation and submit to the Commission regular reports on progress towards full compliance with those requirements. Based on the conclusions of those reports, appropriate measures should be taken.

(13)

Decision 2009/852/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.

(14)

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

1.

Article 2 is deleted;

2.

in Article 3, the date ‘31 December 2011’ is replaced by ‘31 December 2013’;

3.

in Article 4, the date ‘31 December 2011’ is replaced by ‘31 December 2013’;

4.

Article 6 is replaced by the following:

5.

in Article 7, the date ‘31 December 2011’ is replaced by ‘31 December 2013’;

6.

Annexes I, II and III are amended in accordance with the Annex to this Decision.

(1)

Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 lays down specific rules on the hygiene of food of animal origin for food business operators. Those rules include hygiene requirements for raw milk and dairy products.

(2)

Commission Decision 2009/861/EC (2) provides for certain derogations from the requirements set out in subchapters II and III of Chapter I of Section IX of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 for the milk-processing establishments in Bulgaria listed in that Decision. That Decision applies until 31 December 2011.

(3)

Accordingly, certain milk-processing establishments listed in Annex I to Decision 2009/861/EC may, by way of derogation from the relevant provisions of Regulation (EC) No 853/2004, process compliant and non-compliant milk provided that the processing of compliant and non-compliant milk is carried out on separate production lines. In addition, certain milk-processing establishments listed in Annex II to that Decision may process non-compliant milk without separate production lines.

(4)

Bulgaria has informed the Commission that, since the entry into force of Decision 2009/861/EC, the proportion of raw milk that complies with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 853/2004, delivered to milk-processing establishments in that Member State, has considerably increased. Bulgaria has also established an action plan aimed at covering the entire production chain of milk in that Member State ensuring compliance with the EU rules.

(5)

However, according with the report submitted by Bulgaria on the basis of Article 5 of Decision 2009/861/EC and on the information provided by Bulgarian authorities during the Standing Committee of Food Chain and Animal Health of 17 October 2011, the situation of the milk sector in Bulgaria is still not in conformity with the requirements laid down in Regulation (EC) No 853/2004.

(6)

Taking into account the current situation, and in order to avoid frustrating the efforts made by the Bulgarian authorities, it is appropriate to extend the application of the measures provided for in Decision 2009/861/EC.

(7)

Bulgaria should continue the process of bringing the raw milk processed by the establishments listed in the Annexes to Decision 2009/861/EC, in compliance with the requirements laid down in Regulation (EC) No 853/2004.

(8)

In particular, Bulgaria should continue to monitor the situation and submit to the Commission regular reports on progress towards full compliance with those requirements. Based on the conclusions of those reports, appropriate measures should be taken.

(9)

Decision 2009/861/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.

(10)

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

1.

in Article 2, the date ‘31 December 2011’ is replaced by ‘31 December 2013’;

2.

in Article 3, the date ‘31 December 2011’ is replaced by ‘31 December 2013’;

3.

Article 5 is replaced by the following:

4.

in Article 6, the date ‘31 December 2011’ is replaced by ‘31 December 2013’;

5.

Annexes I and II are replaced by the text in the Annex to this Decision.