18.12.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 341/1

(1)

Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) provides a modern, risk-based system for the regulation and supervision of insurance and reinsurance undertakings of the Union. That system is essential in order to ensure a safe and solid insurance sector that can provide sustainable insurance products and support the real economy by encouraging long-term investments and additional stability.

(2)

Directive 2011/89/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) makes certain amendments to Articles 212 to 262 of Directive 2009/138/EC, which are to be applicable from 10 June 2013.

(3)

Directive 2012/23/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (4) amends Directive 2009/138/EC by postponing the date for transposition from 31 October 2012 to 30 June 2013, the date of application from 1 November 2012 to 1 January 2014 and the date of repeal of the existing insurance and reinsurance Directives (5) (collectively referred to as ‘Solvency I’) from 1 November 2012 to 1 January 2014.

(4)

On 19 January 2011, the Commission adopted a proposal (the ‘Omnibus II proposal’) to amend, inter alia, Directive 2009/138/EC in order to take into account the new supervisory architecture for insurance, namely the setting-up of the European Supervisory Authority (European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority) (EIOPA). The Omnibus II proposal also includes provisions to postpone the date for transposition and the date of application of Directive 2009/138/EC, and the date of repeal of Solvency I, and serves as a means to adapt Directive 2009/138/EC to the entry into force of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union by converting the provisions empowering the Commission to adopt implementing measures into provisions empowering the Commission to adopt delegated and implementing acts.

(5)

Given the complexity of the Omnibus II proposal, there is a risk that it will not have entered into force before the date for transposition and the date of application of Directive 2009/138/EC. Leaving those dates unchanged would result in Directive 2009/138/EC being implemented before the entry into force of the transitional rules and of relevant adaptations, including further clarification of delegated and implementing act empowerments, provided for by the Omnibus II proposal.

(6)

In order to avoid overly burdensome legislative obligations for Member States under Directive 2009/138/EC and later under the new supervisory architecture envisaged by the Omnibus II proposal, it is therefore appropriate to postpone the date for transposition and the date of application of Directive 2009/138/EC, allowing supervisors and insurance and reinsurance undertakings sufficient time to prepare for the application of that new architecture.

(7)

It is evident from the chronological order of events that the postponed date for transposition and date of application of Directive 2009/138/EC should also apply to the amendments thereto which were made by Directive 2011/89/EC.

(8)

For reasons of legal certainty, the date of repeal of Solvency I should be postponed accordingly.

(9)

Given the very short period of time before the relevant dates laid down in Directive 2009/138/EC, this Directive should enter into force without delay.

(10)

Consequently, it is justified to apply the exception for urgent cases provided for in Article 4 of Protocol No 1 on the role of national parliaments in the European Union in this case as regards the transmission to national parliaments of the proposal for this Directive,

(1)

Article 309(1) is amended as follows:

(2)

in the first paragraph of Article 310, the date of ‘1 January 2014’ is replaced by that of ‘1 January 2016’;

(3)

in the second paragraph of Article 311, the date of ‘1 January 2014’ is replaced by that of ‘1 January 2016’.

18.12.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 341/4

(1)

Relations between the Union and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (‘Jordan’) are developing within the framework of the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP). A Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an Association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and Jordan, of the other part (2) (‘the EU-Jordan Association Agreement’), entered into force on 1 May 2002. Bilateral political dialogue and economic cooperation have been further developed within the framework of ENP Action Plans, of which the most recent covers the period 2010-2015. In 2010, the Union granted Jordan ‘Advanced Status’ partnership, which covers a wide area of cooperation between both parties. In 2013 the EU-Jordan Association Agreement was complemented by a Framework Agreement between the Union and Jordan on the general principles for the participation of Jordan in Union programmes, furthering cooperation between the Union and Jordan.

(2)

Jordan’s economy has been significantly affected by domestic events related to the events in the Southern Mediterranean since the end of 2010, known as the ‘Arab Spring’, and by the ongoing regional unrest, in particular in neighbouring Egypt and Syria. In particular, the high inflow of refugees from Syria who have sought refuge in Jordan is having a severe impact on Jordan’s economy. In the context of a much weaker global economic environment, the repeated disruptions to the flow of natural gas from Egypt, which have forced Jordan to replace gas imports from Egypt with more expensive fuels for electricity generation, and the significant financial resources required to provide humanitarian assistance to the refugees from Syria who are present on Jordan’s territory, have resulted in important external and budgetary financial gaps.

(3)

Since the Arab Spring began, the Union has, on various occasions, declared its commitment to supporting Jordan in its economic and political reform process. That commitment was reaffirmed, in December 2012, in the conclusions of the 10th meeting of the Association Council between the Union and Jordan.

(4)

Jordan’s geographical position makes it also a strategic country for stability and security in the Middle East, but equally makes the country particularly vulnerable to external shocks, both in political and economic terms. It is therefore important to provide adequate support to Jordan and to further political and economic dialogue between the Union and Jordan.

(5)

Jordan has embarked on a series of political reforms, most in particular leading to the adoption by the Jordanian Parliament in September 2011 of over 40 constitutional amendments, representing a significant step towards a fully-fledged democratic system. Political and economic support from the Union to Jordan’s reform process is consistent with the Union’s policy towards the Southern Mediterranean region, as set out in the context of the ENP.

(6)

In line with the Joint Declaration by the European Parliament and the Council adopted together with Decision No 778/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (3), Union macro-financial assistance should be an exceptional financial instrument of untied and undesignated balance-of-payments support, which aims at restoring a beneficiary’s sustainable external finance situation and should underpin the implementation of a policy programme containing strong adjustment and structural reform measures designed to improve the balance of payment position, in particular over the programme period, and reinforce the implementation of relevant agreements and programmes with the Union.

(7)

In August 2012, the Jordanian authorities and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) agreed on a non-precautionary three-year Stand-By-Arrangement (‘IMF programme’) of SDR 1 364 million (Special Drawing Rights) in support of Jordan’s economic adjustment and reform programme. The objectives of the IMF programme are consistent with the purpose of the Union macro-financial assistance, namely to alleviate short-term balance of payment difficulties, and the implementation of strong adjustment measures is consistent with the aim of Union macro-financial assistance.

(8)

The Union has made available EUR 293 million in grants for the period 2011-13 under its regular cooperation programme in support of Jordan’s economic and political reform agenda. In addition, EUR 70 million has been allocated to Jordan in 2012 under the ‘Support for partnership, reforms and inclusive growth’ (SPRING) programme, and EUR 10 million in Union humanitarian aid to support Syrian refugees.

(9)

In December 2012, in view of the worsening economic situation and outlook, Jordan requested Union macro-financial assistance.

(10)

Given that Jordan is a country covered by the ENP, it should be considered to be eligible to receive Union macro-financial assistance.

(11)

Given that there is still a significant residual external financing gap in Jordan’s balance of payments over and above the resources provided by IMF and other multilateral institutions, and despite the implementation of strong economic stabilisation and reform programmes by Jordan, and given the vulnerability of Jordan’s external financial position to exogenous shocks, which requires an appropriate level of the foreign exchange reserves to be maintained, the Union macro-financial assistance to be provided to Jordan (‘the Union’s macro-financial assistance’) is, under the current exceptional circumstances, considered to be an appropriate response to Jordan’s request to support economic stabilisation in conjunction with the IMF programme. The Union’s macro-financial assistance would support the economic stabilisation and the structural reform agenda of Jordan, supplementing resources made available under the IMF’s financial arrangement.

(12)

The Union’s macro-financial assistance should aim to support the restoration of a sustainable external financing situation for Jordan, thereby supporting its economic and social development.

(13)

The determination of the amount of the Union’s macro-financial assistance is based on a complete quantitative assessment of Jordan’s residual external financing needs, and takes into account its capacity to finance itself with its own resources, in particular the international reserves at its disposal. The Union’s macro-financial assistance should complement the programmes and resources provided by the IMF and the World Bank. The determination of the amount of the assistance also takes into account expected financial contributions from multilateral donors and the need to ensure fair burden sharing between the Union and other donors, as well as the pre-existing deployment of the Union’s other external financing instruments in Jordan and the added value of the overall Union involvement.

(14)

The Commission should ensure that the Union’s macro-financial assistance is legally and substantially in line with the key principles, objectives and measures taken within the different areas of external action and other relevant Union policies.

(15)

The Union’s macro-financial assistance should support the Union’s external policy towards Jordan. Commission services and the European External Action Service should work closely together throughout the macro-financial assistance operation in order to coordinate, and to ensure the consistency of, Union external policy.

(16)

The Union’s macro-financial assistance should support Jordan’s commitment to values shared with the Union, including democracy, the rule of law, good governance, respect for human rights, sustainable development and poverty reduction, as well as its commitment to the principles of open, rule-based and fair trade.

(17)

A precondition for granting the Union’s macro-financial assistance should be that Jordan respects effective democratic mechanisms, including a multi-party parliamentary system and the rule of law, and guarantees respect for human rights. In addition, the specific objectives of the Union’s macro-financial assistance should strengthen the efficiency, transparency and accountability of the public finance management systems in Jordan and promote structural reforms aimed at supporting sustainable and inclusive growth, employment creation and fiscal consolidation. Both fulfilment of the precondition and the achievement of those objectives should be regularly monitored by the Commission.

(18)

In order to ensure that the Union’s financial interests linked to the Union’s macro-financial assistance are protected efficiently, Jordan should take appropriate measures relating to the prevention of, and fight against, fraud, corruption and any other irregularities linked to the assistance. In addition, provision should be made for the Commission to carry out checks and for the Court of Auditors to carry out audits.

(19)

Release of the Union’s macro-financial assistance is without prejudice to the powers of the European Parliament and the Council.

(20)

The amounts of the provision required for macro-financial assistance should be consistent with the budgetary appropriations provided for in the multiannual financial framework.

(21)

The Union’s macro-financial assistance should be managed by the Commission. In order to ensure that the European Parliament and the Council are able to follow the implementation of this Decision, the Commission should regularly inform them of developments relating to the assistance and provide them with relevant documents.

(22)

In order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of this Decision, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council (4).

(23)

The Union’s macro-financial assistance should be subject to economic policy conditions, to be laid down in a Memorandum of Understanding. In order to ensure uniform conditions of implementation and for reasons of efficiency, the Commission should be empowered to negotiate such conditions with the Jordanian authorities under the supervision of the committee of representatives of the Member States in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011. Under that Regulation, the advisory procedure should, as a general rule, apply in all cases other than as provided for in that Regulation. Considering the potentially important impact of assistance of more than EUR 90 million, it is appropriate that the examination procedure be used for operations above that threshold. Considering the amount of the Union’s macro-financial assistance to Jordan, the examination procedure should apply to the adoption of the Memorandum of Understanding, and to any reduction, suspension or cancellation of the assistance,

(a)

the precondition set out in Article 2;

(b)

a continuous satisfactory track record of implementing a policy programme that contains strong adjustment and structural reform measures supported by a non-precautionary IMF credit arrangement; and

(c)

the implementation, within a specific time-frame, of the economic policy and financial conditions agreed in the Memorandum of Understanding.

(a)

ensuring that Jordan regularly checks that financing provided from the general budget of the Union has been properly used, takes appropriate measures to prevent irregularities and fraud, and, if necessary, takes legal action to recover any funds provided under this Decision that have been misappropriated;

(b)

ensuring the protection of the Union’s financial interests, in particular providing for specific measures in relation to the prevention of, and fight against, fraud, corruption and any other irregularities affecting the Union’s macro-financial assistance, in accordance with Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 (9), Council Regulation (Euratom, EC) No 2185/96 (10) and Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (11);

(c)

expressly authorising the Commission, including the European Anti-Fraud Office, or its representatives to carry out checks, including on-the-spot checks and inspections;

(d)

expressly authorising the Commission and the Court of Auditors to perform audits during and after the availability period of the Union’s macro-financial assistance, including document audits and on-the-spot audits, such as operational assessments;

(e)

ensuring that the Union is entitled to early repayment of the loan where it has been established that, in relation to the management of the Union’s macro-financial assistance, Jordan has engaged in any act of fraud or corruption or any other illegal activity detrimental to the financial interests of the Union.

(a)

examine the progress made in implementing the Union’s macro-financial assistance;

(b)

assess the economic situation and prospects of Jordan, as well as progress made in implementing the policy measures referred to in Article 3(1);

(c)

indicate the connection between the economic policy conditions laid down in the Memorandum of Understanding, Jordan’s ongoing economic and fiscal performance and the Commission’s decisions to release the instalments of the Union’s macro-financial assistance.

18.12.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 341/10

(1)

Regulation (EU) No 608/2013 sets out the conditions and procedures for action by the customs authorities where goods suspected of infringing an intellectual property right are, or should have been, subject to customs supervision or customs controls in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (2).

(2)

In accordance with Regulation (EU) No 608/2013 persons and entities duly entitled may submit an application to the competent customs department requesting that customs authorities take action on those goods (application) and may also request the extension of the period during which the customs authorities are to take action in accordance with a previously granted application (extension request).

(3)

In order to ensure uniform conditions for the application and for the extension request, standard forms should be established.

(4)

Those standard forms should replace those provided for in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1891/2004 (3) implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003 (4), which is to be repealed by Regulation (EU) No 608/2013.

(5)

Regulation (EC) No 1891/2004 should therefore be repealed.

(6)

Regulation (EU) No 608/2013 shall apply from 1 January 2014 and, therefore, this Regulation should also be applicable from the same date.

(7)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee, referred to in Article 34(1) of Regulation (EU) No 608/2013,

18.12.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 341/32

(1)

Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Belgium's application to register the name ‘Liers vlaaike’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union  (2).

(2)

As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Liers vlaaike’ should therefore be entered in the register,

18.12.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 341/34

(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 1180/2013 (2) has established fishing effort limitations for 2014 in the Baltic Sea.

(3)

According to Article 29(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1098/2007, the Commission may exclude ICES 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, ICES Subdivisions 27 and 28.2 should be excluded in 2014 from the scope of those fishing effort limitations.

(5)

Regulation (EU) No 1180/2013 will apply from 1 January 2014. In order to ensure coherence with that Regulation, this Regulation should also apply from 1 January 2014.

(6)

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

18.12.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 341/35

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 669/2009 (2) lays down rules concerning the increased level of official controls to be carried out on imports of feed and food of non-animal origin listed in Annex I thereto (‘the list’), at the points of entry into the territories referred to in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 882/2004.

(2)

Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 669/2009 provides that the list is to be reviewed on a regular basis, and at least quarterly, taking into account at least the sources of information referred to in that Article.

(3)

The occurrence and relevance of food incidents notified through the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed, the findings of missions to third countries carried out by the Food and Veterinary Office, as well as the quarterly reports on consignments of feed and food of non-animal origin submitted by Member States to the Commission in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 669/2009 indicate that the list should be amended.

(4)

In particular, the list should be amended by deleting the entries for commodities for which the available information indicates an overall satisfactory degree of compliance with the relevant safety requirements provided for in Union legislation and for which an increased level of official controls is therefore no longer justified. The entries in the list concerning hazelnuts from Azerbaijan, mace, ginger and curcuma from India, mace from Indonesia and brassica vegetables from Thailand should therefore be deleted.

(5)

In order to ensure consistency and clarity, it is appropriate to replace Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 669/2009 by the text set out in the Annex to this Regulation.

(6)

Regulation (EC) No 669/2009 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,

18.12.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 341/43

(1)

The European Commission (‘the Commission’) has received a request pursuant to Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of the basic Regulation to investigate the possible circumvention of the anti-dumping measures imposed on certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres originating in the People’s Republic of China by imports of slightly modified open mesh fabrics of glass fibres originating in the People’s Republic of China, and to make such imports subject to registration.

(2)

The request was lodged on 6 November 2013 by Saint-Gobain Adfors CZ s.r.o., Tolnatext Fonalfeldolgozo, Valmieras ‘Stikla Skiedra’ AS and Vitrulan Technical Textiles GmbH, four Union producers of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres.

(3)

The product concerned by the possible circumvention is certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres, of a cell size of more than 1,8 mm both in length and in width and weighing more than 35 g/m2, excluding glass fibre discs, originating in the People’s Republic of China, currently falling within CN codes ex 7019 51 00 and ex 7019 59 00 (‘the product concerned’).

(4)

The product under investigation is the same as that defined in the previous recital, but currently falling within CN code ex 7019 40 00 and originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘the product under investigation’).

(5)

The measures currently in force and possibly being circumvented are anti-dumping measures imposed by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 791/2011 (2).

(6)

The request contains sufficient prima facie evidence that the anti-dumping measures on imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres originating in the People’s Republic of China are being circumvented by means of a slight modification of the product concerned to make it fall under customs codes which are normally not subject to the measures, and that the modification does not alter the essential characteristics of the product concerned. The slight modification consists of increasing the proportion of glass fibre rovings in the open mesh, so that they predominate by weight in the product under investigation which is therefore to be classified under CN code 7019 40 00 as woven glass fibre fabrics of rovings.

(7)

The prima facie evidence submitted is as follows:

(8)

The request shows that a significant change in the pattern of trade involving exports from the People’s Republic of China to the Union has taken place following the imposition of the definitive anti-dumping duty on the product concerned imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 791/2011, without sufficient due cause or economic justification for such a change other than the imposition of the duty.

(9)

This change appears to stem from the importation of the product under investigation into the Union. The request contains sufficient prima facie evidence that the product under investigation has the same essential characteristics and uses as the product concerned.

(10)

Furthermore, the request contains sufficient prima facie evidence that the remedial effects of the existing anti-dumping measures on the product concerned are being undermined both in terms of quantity and price. Significant volumes of imports of the product under investigation appear to have replaced imports of the product concerned. In addition, there is sufficient prima facie evidence that imports of the product under investigation are made at prices below the non-injurious price established in the investigation that led to the existing measures.

(11)

Finally, the request contains sufficient prima facie evidence that the prices of the product under investigation are dumped in relation to the normal value previously established for the product concerned.

(12)

Should circumvention practices covered by Article 13 of the basic Regulation, other than the one mentioned above, be identified in the course of the investigation, the investigation may also cover these practices.

(13)

In light of the above, the Commission has concluded that sufficient evidence exists to justify the initiation of an investigation pursuant to Article 13(3) of the basic Regulation and to make imports of the product under investigation subject to registration, in accordance with Article 14(5) of the basic Regulation.

(14)

In order to obtain information it deems necessary for its investigation, the Commission will send questionnaires to the known exporters/producers and to the known associations of exporters/producers in the People’s Republic of China, to the known importers and to the known associations of importers in the Union and to the authorities of the People’s Republic of China. Information, as appropriate, may also be sought from the Union industry.

(15)

In any event, all interested parties should contact the Commission forthwith, but not later than the time limit set in Article 3 of this Regulation, and request a questionnaire within the time limit set in Article 3(1) of this Regulation, given that the time limit set in Article 3(2) of this Regulation applies to all interested parties.

(16)

The authorities of the People’s Republic of China will be notified of the initiation of the investigation.

(17)

All interested parties are hereby invited to make their views known in writing and to provide supporting evidence. Furthermore, the Commission may hear interested parties, provided that they make a request in writing and show that there are particular reasons why they should be heard.

(18)

In accordance with Article 13(4) of the basic Regulation, imports of the product under investigation may be exempted from registration or measures if the importation does not constitute circumvention.

(19)

Since the possible circumvention takes place outside the Union, exemptions may be granted, in accordance with Article 13(4) of the basic Regulation, to producers of the product under investigation in the People’s Republic of China that can show that they are not related (3) to any producer subject to the existing measures (4) and that are found not to be engaged in circumvention practices as defined in Article 13(1) and (2) of the basic Regulation. Producers wishing to obtain an exemption should submit a request duly supported by evidence within the time limit indicated in Article 3(3) of this Regulation.

(20)

Pursuant to Article 14(5) of the basic Regulation, imports of the product under investigation shall be made subject to registration in order to ensure that, should the investigation result in findings of circumvention, anti-dumping duties of an appropriate amount can be levied from the date on which registration of such imports was imposed.

(21)

In the interest of sound administration, time limits should be stated within which:

(22)

Attention is drawn to the fact that the exercise of most procedural rights set out in the basic Regulation depends on the party making itself known within the time limits laid down in Article 3 of this Regulation.

(23)

In cases in which any interested party refuses access to or does not provide the necessary information within the time limits, or significantly impedes the investigation, findings, affirmative or negative, may be made in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, on the basis of the facts available.

(24)

Where it is found that any interested party has supplied false or misleading information, the information shall be disregarded and use may be made of facts available.

(25)

If an interested party does not cooperate or cooperates only partially and findings are therefore based on the facts available in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, the result may be less favourable to that party than if it had cooperated.

(26)

The investigation will be concluded, pursuant to Article 13(3) of the basic Regulation, within nine months of the date of the publication of this Regulation in the Official Journal of the European Union.

(27)

It is noted that any personal data collected in this investigation will be treated in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (5).

(28)

Interested parties may request the intervention of the Hearing Officer for the Directorate-General for Trade. The Hearing Officer acts as an interface between the interested parties and the Commission investigation services. The Hearing Officer reviews requests for access to the file, disputes regarding the confidentiality of documents, requests for extension of time limits and requests by third parties to be heard. The Hearing Officer may organise a hearing with an individual interested party and mediate to ensure that the interested parties’ rights of defence are being fully exercised.

(29)

A request for a hearing with the Hearing Officer should be made in writing and should specify the reasons for the request. The Hearing Officer will also provide opportunities for a hearing involving parties to take place which would allow different views to be presented and rebuttal arguments offered.

(30)

For further information and contact details, interested parties may consult the Hearing Officer’s web pages on the Directorate-General for Trade’s website (http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/degucht/contact/hearing-officer/),

European Commission

Directorate-General for Trade

Directorate H

Office: N105 08/020

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

Fax +32 222962219

E-mail: TRADE-OPEN-MESH-FABRICS-DUMPING@ec.europa.eu

18.12.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 341/47

(1)

Non-preferential rules of origin are to be applied to all non-preferential trade policy measures, including anti-dumping and countervailing duties.

(2)

In Article 24 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92, the basic principle is laid down that goods whose production involved more than one country are to be deemed to originate in the country where they underwent their last, substantial, economically justified processing or working in an undertaking equipped for that purpose and resulting in the manufacture of a new product or representing an important stage of manufacture.

(3)

The declaration for free circulation of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules or panels and their key components has been made subject to provisional anti-dumping duties by Commission Regulation (EU) No 513/2013 (2).

(4)

In order to ensure the correct and uniform implementation of the provisional anti-dumping duties, a detailed rule for the interpretation of the principle of Article 24 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 for the determination of the origin of the products covered by those measures needs to be laid down with regard to crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules or panels and one of their key components, crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells.

(5)

The production process of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules or panels can be divided into the following major steps: production of silicon wafers; processing of silicon wafers into crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells; assembly of several crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells into a crystalline silicon photovoltaic module or panel.

(6)

The most important stage in the manufacture of the crystalline silicon photovoltaic panels or modules is the processing of silicon wafers into crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells. That is the decisive production stage during which the use to which the component parts of the panel or module are to be put becomes definite and where they are given their specific qualities.

(7)

That transformation therefore should be considered as constituting the last substantial transformation in the production process of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules or panels in accordance with Article 24 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92. The country of manufacture of the crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells should thus be the country of non-preferential origin of the crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules or panels.

(8)

By Decision 94/800/EC (3) the Council approved, inter alia, the Agreement on Rules of Origin (WTO-GATT 1994), annexed to the final act signed in Marrakesh on 15 April 1994. According to the principles laid down in that Agreement for the Harmonisation Work Program, the determination of the country where goods underwent their last substantial transformation should first of all be based on the country where the production process has led to a change in tariff classification. Only where that criterion does not allow to determine the country of last substantial transformation can other criteria be used, such as a value added criterion or the determination of a specific processing operation. It is appropriate to use the same principles in the EU customs legislation.

(9)

Crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells are classified in heading 8541 of the Harmonised System (HS). Crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules or panels are classified in the same heading. The input material, silicon wafers, is classified in HS heading 3818. The rule based on a change of tariff heading thus adequately expresses the last substantial transformation of the crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells. At the same time it excludes the assembly of the crystalline silicon photovoltaic panels or modules from cells to confer origin to the final product, as both panels and cells are classified in the same heading.

(10)

An origin rule based on added value, which is usually combined with the change of tariff heading rule for the determination of products for which the last transformation is an assembly operation, is not appropriate in the case of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules or panels, as the necessary predictability and legal certainty would be better attained for those particular products by identifying the most significant production step.

(11)

A so-called ‘residual’ rule is necessary in order to determine the origin of the crystalline silicon photovoltaic panels or modules where the primary rule of change in tariff heading is not fulfilled. In that case, the origin of the crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells or of the major portion in value of the crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells should constitute the origin of the panel or module.

(12)

Crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules or panels may also be classified under certain conditions in HS heading 8501. A similar rule as for HS heading 8541 should also be laid down for those crystalline silicon photovoltaic panels or modules.

(13)

Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 (4) should therefore be amended accordingly.

(14)

The Customs Code Committee 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 appeal committee did not deliver an opinion,

18.12.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 341/50

(1)

Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations, the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products and periods stipulated in Annex XVI, Part A thereto.

(2)

The standard import value is calculated each working day, in accordance with Article 136(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011, taking into account variable daily data. Therefore this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union,

18.12.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 341/52

(1)

Since the adoption of Directive 2002/56/EC new methods of potato breeding have been developed, diagnostic tools to identify harmful organisms and agronomic practices to fight the spread of harmful organisms have been improved.

(2)

Those technical developments permit the production of seed potatoes fulfilling stricter requirements than those laid down in Annexes I and II to Directive 2002/56/EC. At the same time knowledge about new disease agents has become available and knowledge about existing diseases has evolved showing that some diseases require stricter measures.

(3)

Against this background, the standard of United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) concerning the marketing and commercial quality control of seed potatoes has been adapted in view of those technical and scientific developments (2).

(4)

Taking into account those developments, certain minimum conditions and tolerances, as set out in Annexes I and II to Directive 2002/56/EC, should be updated and restrictions concerning black scurf, powdery scab and seed potatoes, which have become excessively dehydrated and shrivelled, should be added in Annex II.

(5)

Since the adoption of Directive 2002/56/EC, scientific knowledge has developed concerning the link between the number of generations and the level of presence of pests of seed potatoes. Limiting the number of generations is a necessary way of mitigating the phytosanitary risk posed by pests in latent form. That limitation is necessary for the mitigation of that risk, and no other less stringent measures are available to replace it. A maximum of seven generations for pre-basic and basic seed potatoes achieves a balance between the need to multiply sufficient numbers of seed potatoes for the production of certified seed potatoes, and the protection of their health status.

(6)

The requirements concerning the harmful organism Synchytrium endobioticum (Schilb.) Perc. should be removed from Annex I because its presence on seed potatoes is regulated by Council Directive 69/464/EEC (3). The requirements concerning the harmful organism Corynebacterium sepedonicum (Spieck. et Kotth.) Skapt. and Burkh., the name of which has been replaced by Clavibacter michiganensis subsp. sepedonicus (Spieck. et Kotth.) Davis et al., should be removed from Annexes I and II because its presence on seed potatoes is regulated by Council Directive 93/85/EEC (4). The requirements concerning the harmful organism Heterodera rostochiensis Woll., the name of which has been replaced by Globodera rostochiensis (Wollenweber) Behrens should be removed from Annex II because its presence on seed potatoes is regulated by Council Directive 2007/33/EC (5). The requirements concerning the harmful organism Pseudomonas solanacearum (Smith) Smith, the name of which has been replaced byRalstonia solanacearum (Smith) Yabuuchi et al., should be removed from Annex II because its presence on seed potatoes is regulated by Council Directive 98/57/EC (6).

(7)

Annexes I and II to Directive 2002/56/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.

(8)

The measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Seeds and Propagating Material for Agriculture, Horticulture and Forestry,

18.12.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 341/56

(1)

On 6 December 2006, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 61/89 entitled ‘Towards an Arms Trade Treaty: establishing common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms’, thus initiating the UN process for an Arms Trade Treaty (the ‘ATT process’). On 2 December 2009, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 64/48 entitled ‘The Arms Trade Treaty’, by which it decided to convene in 2012 a UN Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty in order to elaborate a legally binding instrument on the highest possible common international standards for transfers of conventional arms.

(2)

Because the UN Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty convened in July 2012 was not able to agree on a concluding document within the timeframe set for it and further to Resolution 67/234 A adopted on 24 December 2012 by the UN General Assembly, the final UN Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty was convened in March 2013. It elaborated a balanced and broad based Treaty text that, however, failed to meet consensus due to the opposition of three UN Member States. The matter was consequently referred to the UN General Assembly which, on 2 April 2013, adopted by an overwhelming majority the Arms Trade Treaty through the vote of Resolution A/RES/67/234 B. The Treaty was subsequently opened for signature on 3 June 2013 and will enter into force upon the 50th ratification. All the Member States of the Union have signed the Treaty.

(3)

In its conclusions of 11 December 2006, 10 December 2007, 12 July 2010, and 25 June 2012, the Council expressed its strongest commitment for a new legally binding international instrument that should establish the highest possible common international standards to regulate legal trade in conventional weapons, and that should be relevant to all States and could therefore be universal.

(4)

In order to promote the inclusiveness and relevance of the ATT process, the Council adopted Decision 2009/42/CFSP (1) and Decision 2010/336/CFSP (2), which supported, inter alia, a series of regional seminars of worldwide coverage. Further to the inconclusive July 2012 UN Conference, the Union's continuing activities in support of the Arms Trade Treaty were complemented by Council Decision 2013/43/CFSP (3).

(5)

The priority now is to support the early entry into force and full implementation of the Treaty. In line with its early committed support to the ATT process, the Union can contribute significantly to that objective, in particular, by building on its longstanding experience in funding export control assistance and outreach. Because arms and dual-use licensing remains a national responsibility within the EU, export control expertise used in support of the Union-funded assistance and outreach programmes is largely dependent on Member States. It is therefore crucial for the success of the Union's export control assistance and outreach activities that Member States allocate experts who will sustain the Union programmes.

(6)

In the area of arms export control, Union assistance and outreach activities have been carried out under Council Joint Action 2008/230/CFSP (4) and Council Decisions 2009/1012/CFSP (5) and 2012/711/CFSP (6). The activities undertaken have addressed a number of third countries in the close neighbourhood of the Union with a view to strengthening their arms export control systems and achieving greater responsibility and transparency.

(7)

The Union is also a longstanding provider of export control assistance in dual-use goods under Regulation (EC) No 1717/2006 (7), which established an Instrument for Stability that provides for assistance in the development of the legal framework and institutional capacities for the establishment and enforcement of effective export controls on dual-use goods, including regional cooperation measures. On 28 April 2004, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 1540 (2004) (‘UNSCR 1540 (2004)’), which mandates effective transfer controls over goods related to weapons of mass destruction. The Union has supported the implementation of UNSCR 1540 (2004), in particular through Council Joint Action 2006/419/CFSP (8), Council Joint Action 2008/368/CFSP (9) and Council Decision 2013/391/CFSP (10) and, with regard to the export control dimension of UNSCR 1540 (2004), through its dual-use export control assistance programmes.

(8)

In addition to the specific assistance in arms export control, controls developed for the implementation of UNCSR 1540 (2004) and under the Union dual-use export control assistance programmes contribute to the overall capacity to effectively implement the Arms Trade Treaty since, in many instances, the laws, administrative procedures and agencies in charge of dual-use export control overlap with those in charge of conventional arms export control. Assistance provided in the area of dual-use goods therefore supports arms export control capacities. It is thus crucial to ensure close coordination between activities carried out in dual-use goods export controls and activities supporting the implementation of the Arms Trade Treaty.

(9)

Against this background of desirable coordination of export control assistance provided in other relevant areas, the activities supported by this Decision aim at strengthening arms transfer control capacities in a number of beneficiary countries in order to support effective and capable implementation of the Arms Trade Treaty. Because the impact of the Treaty will depend on how universal it is and on the level of adherence to it, outreach and awareness-raising activities should also be supported with a view to enhancing support for the Treaty by relevant stakeholders and other third countries, as well as encouraging interest in its implementation.

(10)

The German Federal Office of Economics and Export Control (hereinafter ‘BAFA’) has been entrusted by the Council with the technical implementation of Decisions 2009/1012/CFSP and 2012/711/CFSP. It successfully completed the organisation of all activities provided for in Council Decision 2009/1012/CFSP. BAFA is also the implementing agency for projects on export controls on dual-use goods funded under the Instrument for Stability. Against this background, the selection of BAFA as the implementing agency for the Union activities supporting the implementation of the Arms Trade Treaty in third countries is justified by its proven experience, qualifications and necessary expertise over the full range of relevant Union export control activities both in the dual-use and arms export control areas. Selecting BAFA will facilitate the identification of synergies between the dual-use and arms-related export control activities in order to make sure that Arms Trade Treaty-related assistance appropriately supplements assistance already provided under the existing dual-use and arms export control assistance programmes,

—

to support a number of States upon their request to strengthen their arms transfer control systems with a view to being able to implement the ATT;

—

to increase at national and regional levels awareness and ownership of the ATT by relevant national and regional authorities and civil society stakeholders so that they are further involved in the ATT implementation.

(a)

assisting beneficiary countries in drafting, updating, and implementing, as appropriate, relevant legislative and administrative measures aiming at establishing and developing an effective system of arms transfer control in line with the requirements of the ATT;

(b)

strengthening the expertise and capacities of the beneficiary countries' licensing and enforcement officers, in particular through the sharing of best practices, training and access to relevant information sources in order to ensure the adequate implementation and enforcement of arms transfer controls;

(c)

promoting transparency in the international arms trade, building on the transparency requirements of the ATT;

(d)

promoting sustained adherence to the ATT by the beneficiary countries in involving relevant national and regional stakeholders such as national parliaments, competent regional organisations and civil society representatives who have a long term interest in monitoring the effective implementation of the ATT;

(e)

promoting wider interest in the ATT by engaging with countries that have taken no steps towards the ATT, in order to support its universalisation.

18.12.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 341/68

(1)

By notification registered at the Commission on 27 November 2013, Hungary requested authorisation to introduce a Quick Reaction Mechanism special measure derogating from Article 193 of Directive 2006/112/EC.

(2)

According to that notification, it has come to the attention of the national authorities that a number of traders have engaged in tax evasion by not paying VAT to the competent tax authorities.

(3)

The requested measure consists in designating the taxable person to whom goods, in this case sugar, are supplied as liable for the payment of VAT instead of the supplier.

(4)

On 4 December 2013, the Commission notified the Member States that it had all the information necessary to appraise the request.

(5)

On the basis of detailed fraud figures in this sector provided by Hungary, it clearly appears that fraud in the sector was already of a substantive nature in 2011 and 2012.

(6)

Therefore, it has been established that the fraud identified is not of a sudden nature within the meaning of Article 199b of Directive 2006/112/EC.

(7)

The requested derogation should therefore not be granted,

18.12.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 341/69

(1)

Regulation (EC) No 58/2003 empowers the Commission to delegate powers to the executive agencies to implement all or part of a Union programme or project, on its behalf and under its responsibility.

(2)

The purpose of entrusting the executive agencies with programme implementation tasks is to enable the Commission to focus on its core activities and functions which cannot be outsourced, without relinquishing control over, and ultimate responsibility for, activities managed by those executive agencies.

(3)

The delegation of tasks related to programme implementation to an executive agency requires a clear separation between the programming stages involving a large measure of discretion in making choices driven by policy considerations, this being carried out by the Commission, and programme implementation, which should be entrusted to the executive agency.

(4)

By Decision 2004/858/EC (2), the Commission created the Executive Agency for the Public Health Programme (hereinafter referred to as the Agency) and entrusted it with the management of the programme of Community action in the field of public health for the period from 1 January 2003 until 31 December 2008, adopted by Decision No 1786/2002/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (3).

(5)

Subsequently, the Commission amended the Agency’s mandate on several occasions, extending it to cover the management of new projects and programmes. Commission Decision 2008/544/EC (4) transformed the ‘Executive Agency for the Public Health Programme’ into the ‘Executive Agency for Health and Consumers’, extended its mandate until 31 December 2015 and included in it the implementation of the Public Health Programme 2008-2013 adopted by Decision No 1350/2007/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (5), the Consumer Programme for 2007-2013 as adopted by Decision No 1926/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (6) and the food safety training measures covered by Council Directive 2000/29/EC (7) and Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (8). Commission Implementing Decision 2012/740/EU (9) extended the scope of the Agency’s activities to training measures outside the Member States and entrusted it with managing the food safety training measures covered by Commission Decision C(2012) 1548 (10), and by Article 22(1) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council (11). It also entrusted the Agency with managing the agreement with ANEC, the European consumer voice in standardisation, which is governed by Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council (12).

(6)

The Agency set up by Decision 2004/858/EC has demonstrated its effectiveness and efficiency. An interim evaluation of the Public Health Executive Agency (known as the Executive Agency for Health and Consumers since July 2008) has been carried out by external consultants. The final report of December 2010 has shown that public health programme implementation tasks could be performed more efficiently by the Agency, whilst ensuring the overall management by the Commission of those Community programmes and measures.

(7)

In its Communication of 29 June 2011‘A budget for Europe 2020’ (13), the Commission proposed to use the option of more extensive recourse to existing executive agencies for the implementation of Union programmes in the next multiannual financial framework.

(8)

The cost-benefit analysis (14) carried out in accordance with Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 58/2003 has shown that entrusting the Agency with programme implementation tasks related to the Consumer Programme, the Public Health Programme and the food safety training measures would entail significant qualitative and quantitative benefits compared with the in-house scenario under which all aspects of the new programmes would be managed internally within the Commission. The three successor programmes are in line with the mandate and mission of the Agency and represent a continuation of the Agency’s activities. The Agency has built up competence, skills and capacity in the management of those programmes over several years. The Commission as well as the programme beneficiaries would therefore benefit from the Agency’s accumulated experience and expertise and resultant productivity gains, in particular a high quality programme management, a simplification of procedures and a better service delivery in terms of faster contracting and quicker payments. Overtime the Agency has developed effective channels for ensuring beneficiary proximity and a high level of visibility of the Union as the promoter of the programmes concerned. The delegation of programme management to the Agency would ensure business continuity for the currently delegated programmes’ beneficiaries and all stakeholders. A shift to an in-house arrangement would thus be disruptive. Delegation of programme management to the Agency is estimated to deliver efficiency gains of EUR 14 million over the period of years 2014 to 2024 as compared to the in-house scenario.

(9)

In order to give executive agencies a coherent identity, the Commission has, as far as possible, grouped work by thematic policy area in establishing their new mandates.

(10)

Management of the Public Health Programme for the years 2008 to 2013 adopted by Decision No 1350/2007/EC, the Consumer Programme for the years 2007 to 2013 adopted by Decision 1926/2006/EC, the food safety training measures covered by Directive 2000/29/EC, Regulation (EC) No 882/2004, Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006 and Decision C(2012) 1548 and the management of the agreement with ANEC governed by Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012, all of which are currently implemented by the agency, as well as the management of the Consumer Programme for the years 2014 to 2020 (15), the Public Health Programme for the years 2014 to 2020 (16) and the food safety training measures covered by Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 and Directive 2000/29/EC involve implementation of technical projects which do not entail political decision-making and require a high level of technical and financial expertise throughout the project cycle.

(11)

The Agency should be responsible for the provision of administrative and logistical support services in particular where centralisation of those support services would result in additional cost-efficiency gains and economies of scale.

(12)

In order to ensure a consistent implementation in time of this Decision and of the programmes concerned, it is necessary to ensure that the Agency shall exercise its tasks linked to the implementation of those programmes subject to and from the date on which those programmes enter into force.

(13)

The Consumers, Health and Food Executive Agency should be established. It should replace and succeed the executive agency established by Decision 2004/858/EC. It should operate in accordance with the general statute laid down by Regulation (EC) No 58/2003.

(14)

Decision 2004/858/EC should therefore be repealed and transitional provisions should be set out.

(15)

The measures provided for by this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for Executive Agencies,

(a)

the Consumer Programme 2014-2020;

(b)

the Public Health Programme 2014-2020;

(c)

the food safety training measures covered by Directive 2000/29/EC and Regulation (EC) No 882/2004.

(a)

the Consumer Programme 2007-2013;

(b)

the Public Health Programme 2008-2013;

(c)

the food safety training measures covered by Directive 2000/29/EC, Regulation (EC) No 882/2004, Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006 and Decision C(2012) 1548;

(d)

the management of the agreement with ANEC, the European consumer voice in standardisation, governed by Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012.

(a)

managing all or part of the stages of programme implementation and all or part of the phases in the lifetime of specific projects on the basis of the relevant work programmes adopted by the Commission, where the Commission has empowered it to do so in the instrument of delegation;

(b)

adopting the instruments of budget execution for revenue and expenditure and carrying out all the operations necessary for the management of the programme where the Commission has empowered it to do so in the instrument of delegation;

(c)

providing support in programme implementation where the Commission has empowered it to do so in the instrument of delegation.

18.12.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 341/73

(1)

Regulation (EC) No 58/2003 empowers the Commission to delegate powers to the executive agencies to implement all or part of a Union programme or project, on its behalf and under its responsibility.

(2)

The purpose of entrusting the executive agencies with programme implementation tasks is to enable the Commission to focus on its core activities and functions which cannot be outsourced, without relinquishing control over, and ultimate responsibility for, activities managed by those executive agencies.

(3)

The delegation of tasks related to programme implementation to an executive agency requires a clear separation between the programming stages involving a large measure of discretion in making choices driven by policy considerations, this being carried out by the Commission, and programme implementation, which should be entrusted to the executive agency.

(4)

By Decision 2004/20/EC (2), the Commission created the ‘Intelligent Energy Executive Agency’ (hereinafter referred to as the Agency) and entrusted it with the management of Community actions in the field of renewable energy and energy efficiency.

(5)

Subsequently, the Commission amended the Agency’s mandate by Decision 2007/372/EC (3) extending it to cover the management of new projects and programmes in the field of innovation, entrepreneurship and mobility and changing its name into ‘Executive Agency for Competitiveness and Innovation’.

(6)

The Agency set up by Decision 2004/20/EC has demonstrated that outsourcing the management of specific operational programmes has enabled parent-Directorates-General to focus on policy-related aspects of the programmes. Given the continuing constraints in EU-budget delegating tasks to an executive agency proves to be more cost-efficient. The two interim evaluations of the Agency have shown that overall, the Agency is performing well and is an efficient and effective delivery mechanism for the initiatives for which it has operational responsibility.

(7)

In its Communication of 29 June 2011‘A budget for Europe 2020’ (4), the Commission proposed to use the option of more extensive recourse to existing executive agencies for the implementation of Union programmes in the next Multiannual Financial Framework.

(8)

The cost-benefit analysis (5) carried out in accordance with Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 58/2003 has shown that expected costs will be EUR 295 million compared to EUR 399 million under the in-house scenario. On the benefit side, efficiency gains of EUR 104 million are to be expected by implementing the agency scenario compared to the in-house scenario. Furthermore, the alignment of more coherent programme portfolios with the Agency’s core competences and its brand identity will lead to significant qualitative benefits. Analysis has shown that by assembling the management of Horizon 2020 — The Framework Programme for Research and Innovation 2014-2020 (6) (hereinafter referred to as Horizon 2020), the Programme for the Competitiveness of Enterprises and small and medium-sized enterprises 2014-2020 (7) (hereinafter referred to as COSME) and the Programme for the Environment and Climate Action (8) (herein after referred to as LIFE), the Agency will profit from synergies, simplification and economies of scale. The pooling of all aspects of the Horizon 2020 ‘SME instrument’ will additionally provide a single point of access to potential beneficiaries and guarantee consistent service delivery. Within the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (9) (herein after referred to as EMFF) in particular actions envisaged in the Integrated Maritime Policy strand correspond well to the current profile of the Agency related to innovation and competitiveness. Moving the management of the legacy for the Marco Polo programme (2007-2013) to the Innovation and Network Executive Agency will additionally centralize the management of infrastructure programmes for transport in the previously mentioned Agency and therefore provide beneficiaries with a single access point of funding.

(9)

In order to give executive agencies a coherent identity, the Commission has, as far as possible, grouped work by thematic policy area in establishing their new mandates.

(10)

The Agency should be entrusted with the management of LIFE succeeding the predecessor programme LIFE+, which under the Multiannual Financial Framework (2007-2013) is managed in-house by the Commission. Management of LIFE involves implementation of technical projects which do not entail political decision-making and requires a high level of technical and financial expertise throughout the project cycle. LIFE is characterised by projects which generate a large number of homogenous and standardised operations.

(11)

The Agency should be entrusted with the management of parts of COSME succeeding parts of the Entrepreneurship and Innovation Programme under the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme 2007-2013 (10) (hereinafter referred to as CIP), which are currently managed in part by the Agency and in part in-house by the Commission. Management of the parts of COSME to be delegated to the Agency involves implementation of technical projects which do not entail political decision-making and requires a high level of technical and financial expertise throughout the project cycle. Some parts of COSME are further characterised by projects which generate a large number of homogenous and standardised operations.

(12)

The Agency should be entrusted with the management of parts of the EMFF in the area of Integrated Maritime Policy (IMP), Control and Scientific Advice and Knowledge, succeeding similar activities which under the Multiannual Financial Framework (2007-2013) are managed in-house by the Commission. Management of EMFF involves implementation of technical projects which do not entail political decision-making and requires a high level of technical and financial expertise throughout the project cycle.

(13)

The Agency should be entrusted with the management of the following parts of ‘Horizon 2020’:

(14)

The Agency should be entrusted with the management of the legacy of the actions already delegated to it as part of CIP under the Multiannual Financial Framework (2007-2013): ‘Intelligent Energy Europe (IEE II)’, the ‘Enterprise Europe Network’, ‘Your Europe Business Portal’, the ‘European IPR Helpdesk’, the ‘Eco-innovation initiative’ and the ‘IPorta Project’.

(15)

The Agency should be responsible for the provision of administrative and logistical support services in particular where centralisation of those support services would result in additional cost-efficiency gains and economies of scale.

(16)

The Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises should be established. It should replace and succeed the Agency established by Decision 2004/20/EC as amended by Decision 2007/372/EC. It should operate in accordance with the general statute laid down by Regulation (EC) No 58/2003.

(17)

Decisions 2004/20/EC and 2007/372/EC should be repealed and transitional provisions should be set out.

(18)

The measures provided for by this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for Executive Agencies,

(a)

Programme for the Competitiveness of Enterprises and small and medium-sized enterprises (COSME) 2014-2020 (11);

(b)

Programme for the Environment and Climate Action (LIFE) 2014-2020 (12);

(c)

European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) (13) including the Integrated Maritime Policy (IMP), Control and Scientific advice and Knowledge;

(d)

The Framework Programme for Research and Innovation 2014-2020 (Horizon 2020) (14) - parts of ‘Part II – Industrial Leadership’ and ‘Part III Societal challenges’.

(a)

the Intelligent Energy Europe (IEE II);

(b)

the ‘Eco-innovation initiative’;

(c)

the ‘Enterprise Europe Network’;

(d)

the ‘Your Europe Business Portal’;

(e)

the ‘European IPR Helpdesk’;

(f)

the ‘IPorta Project’.

(a)

managing some or all stages of programme implementation and some or all phases in the lifetime of specific projects on the basis of the relevant work programmes adopted by the Commission, where the Commission has empowered it to do so in the instrument of delegation;

(b)

adopting the instruments of budget execution for revenue and expenditure and carrying out all the operations necessary for the management of the programme, where the Commission has empowered it to do so in the instrument of delegation;

(c)

providing support in programme implementation where the Commission has empowered it to do so in the instrument of delegation.