(1)

Regulation (EC) No 1236/2005 imposes a prohibition on exports of goods which have no practical use other than for the purpose of capital punishment, torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and controls on exports of certain goods that could be used for such purposes. It respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular respect for and protection of human dignity, the right to life and the prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

(2)

The lists of goods subject to the controls and to the prohibition have been reviewed in consultation with a group of experts.

(3)

It is generally accepted that ordinary handcuffs can be used as restraints in law enforcement and such handcuffs are regular equipment for law enforcement authorities. The UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners prohibit using chains or irons as restraints and provide that handcuffs and other restraints shall never be applied as a punishment. Using restraints other than chains and irons is only allowed for certain specific purposes, in particular as a precaution against the escape of a prisoner during transfers, or in order to prevent a prisoner from injuring himself or others.

(4)

Thumb and finger cuffs and neck restraints are not considered admissible for use in law enforcement, whereas using leg restraints for law enforcement is usually not considered admissible. Serrated thumb and finger cuffs, thumb and finger screws, bar fetters and weighted leg restraints are more likely to cause severe pain or suffering than other thumb and finger cuffs and other leg restraints because of their characteristics.

(5)

Using a combination of mechanical restraints is more likely to cause severe pain or suffering, e.g. if handcuffs and ankle cuffs are linked together behind the back. Such restraining techniques often involve a risk of asphyxiation, especially if neck restraints are used.

(6)

It is therefore necessary to prohibit the trade in thumb and finger cuffs, thumb and finger screws, bar fetters and weighted leg restraints. Taking into account that their use may exceptionally be justified, exports of other shackles and cuffs which are not normal handcuffs should be controlled.

(7)

Such controls are also appropriate for exports of individual cuffs or rings, such as neck restraints or the rings of leg restraints.

(8)

The definition of ordinary handcuffs should provide more clarity on the range of handcuffs whose exports are not subject to control by defining the size of the individual cuffs.

(9)

Using mechanical restraints such as handcuffs in order to shackle a prisoner to a fixed object anchored to either a floor, wall or ceiling is not an acceptable restraining technique. It is therefore necessary to prohibit the trade in cuffs that are designed to be so anchored.

(10)

Like combinations of mechanical restraints, multipoint restraint devices are more likely to cause severe pain or suffering than, e.g. ordinary handcuffs. Restraint chairs, shackle boards and shackle beds restrict movement of the prisoner much more than simultaneous application of, e.g. handcuffs and ankle cuffs. The inherent risk of torture or inhuman treatment increases when this restraining technique is applied for longer periods. It is therefore necessary to prohibit the trade in restraint chairs, shackle boards and shackle beds.

(11)

Chairs, boards and beds fitted exclusively with straps or belts should be exempt from this prohibition as in certain circumstances their use may be justified for short periods of time, e.g. to prevent patients in a state of agitation from causing injury to themselves or to other persons. However, applying straps, belts or any other restraints on patients lacks any therapeutic or medical justification.

(12)

Cage beds and net beds are not an appropriate means for restraining patients or prisoners. It is therefore necessary to prohibit trade in cage beds and in net beds.

(13)

In order to protect staff and other people against spitting, prisoners are sometimes made to wear a so-called spit hood. As such a hood covers the mouth and often also the nose, it presents an inherent risk of asphyxiation. If it is combined with restraints, such as handcuffs, there is also a risk of neck injury. Exports of spit hoods should therefore be controlled.

(14)

It is generally accepted that batons or truncheons are regular equipment for law enforcement authorities and that shields are regular defensive equipment. Trade in so-called spiked batons is already prohibited as they are more likely to cause severe pain or suffering than ordinary batons. In the same vein it is necessary to prohibit trade in spiked shields.

(15)

Corporal punishment such as flogging constitutes torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment. Knouts and other whips having multiple lashes or thongs have been designed for flogging of human beings as a punishment and have no legitimate use. Whips that have a single lash or thong fitted with nails, barbs or similar devices present an inherent risk of causing severe pain or suffering and have no legitimate use either. It is therefore necessary to prohibit trade in such whips. However, whips having a single, plain lash or thong have both legitimate and non-legitimate uses and trade in them should, therefore, not be prohibited.

(16)

As regards electric shock weapons and devices of items 2.1 of Annex II and 2.1 of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1236/2005, it is appropriate to remove the 10 000 V discharge requirement in an effort to prevent that the prohibition on trade and the export controls would be circumvented by weapons and devices which are capable of administering an electric shock but have a slightly lower no-load voltage.

(17)

It is also essential to broaden the scope of the export controls to include, in addition to the portable weapons that are already controlled, fixed or mountable electric discharge weapons covering a wide area and targeting multiple individuals. Such weapons are often presented as so-called non-lethal weapons but present, at the very least, the same risk of causing severe pain or suffering as portable electric discharge weapons.

(18)

As regards portable weapons or devices disseminating incapacitating chemical substances, it is appropriate to broaden the scope of the export controls to include weapons and devices disseminating irritating chemical substances which qualify as riot control agents.

(19)

As fixed devices for dissemination of irritating chemical substances for use inside a building are being marketed, and indoor use of such substances presents a risk of causing severe pain or suffering not associated with traditional use outdoors, exports of such equipment should be controlled.

(20)

Export controls should also be applied to fixed or mountable equipment for the dissemination of incapacitating or irritating substances which covers a wide area, where such equipment is not yet subject to export controls in accordance with Council Common Position 2008/944/CFSP (3). Such equipment is often presented as so-called non-lethal technology but presents at the very least the same risk of causing severe pain or suffering as portable weapons and devices. Although water is not one of the incapacitating or irritating chemical agents, water cannons may be used to disseminate such agents in liquid form and their exports should be controlled.

(21)

The export controls concerning oleoresin capsicum (OC) and pelargonic acid vanillylamide (PAVA) should be supplemented by export controls on certain mixtures containing these substances which can be administered as such as incapacitating or irritating agents or used for manufacturing of such agents. It is appropriate to clarify that, where appropriate, references to incapacitating or irritating chemical agents must be construed as including oleoresin capsicum and the relevant mixtures containing it.

(22)

The code of OC from the Combined Nomenclature should be replaced by another code and a number of codes should be added to the lists of goods in Annexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 1236/2005.

(23)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on common rules for exports of products,

(1)

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

(2)

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

(1)

According to point (d) of the first subparagraph of Article 139(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, the sugar or isoglucose produced in excess of the quota referred to in Article 136 of that Regulation may be exported only within the quantitative limit to be fixed by the Commission.

(2)

Detailed implementing rules for out-of-quota exports, in particular concerning the issue of export licences are laid down by Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 (2). However, the quantitative limit should be fixed per marketing year in view of the possible opportunities on the export markets.

(3)

For certain Union producers of sugar and isoglucose, exports from the Union represent an important part of their economic activities and they have established traditional markets outside the Union. Exports of sugar and isoglucose to those markets could be economically viable also without granting export refunds. To that end it is necessary to fix a quantitative limit for out-of-quota sugar and isoglucose exports so that the EU producers concerned may continue to supply their traditional markets.

(4)

For the 2014/2015 marketing year it is estimated that fixing the quantitative limit initially at 650 000 tonnes, in white sugar equivalent, for out-of-quota sugar exports and 70 000 tonnes, in dry matter, for out-of-quota isoglucose would correspond to the market demand.

(5)

Exports of sugar from the Union to certain close destinations and to third countries granting Union products a preferential import treatment are currently in a particular favorable competitive position. In view of the absence of appropriate instruments of mutual assistance to fight against irregularities and in order to minimize the risk of fraud and to prevent any abuse associated with the re-import or reintroduction into the Union of out-of-quota sugar certain close destinations should be excluded from the eligible destinations.

(6)

In view of the estimated lower risks for eventual frauds regarding isoglucose due to the nature of the product it is not necessary to restrict the eligible destinations for the export of out-of-quota isoglucose.

(7)

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

(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,

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 341/2007 (3) opens and provides for the administration of tariff quotas and introduces a system of import licences and certificates of origin for garlic and other agricultural products imported from third countries.

(2)

The quantities for which ‘A’ licence applications have been lodged by traditional importers and by new importers during the first seven working days of July 2014, pursuant to Article 10(1) of Regulation (EC) No 341/2007 exceed the quantities available for products originating in China.

(3)

Therefore, in accordance with Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006, it is now necessary to establish the extent to which the ‘A’ licence applications sent to the Commission by 14 July 2014 can be met in accordance with Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 341/2007.

(4)

In order to ensure sound management of the procedure of issuing import licences, the present Regulation should enter into force immediately after its publication,

(1)

The supplier DENSO Corporation (the ‘Applicant’) submitted an application for the approval of the DENSO efficient alternator as an innovative technology on 31 October 2013. The completeness of the application was assessed in accordance with Article 4 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011 (2). The Commission identified certain relevant information as missing in the original application and requested the Applicant to complete it. The Applicant provided the information on 30 January 2014. The application was found to be complete and the period for the Commission's assessment of the application started on the day following the date of official receipt, i.e. 31 January 2014.

(2)

The application has been assessed in accordance with Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009, Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011 and the Technical Guidelines for the preparation of applications for the approval of innovative technologies pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 (the Technical Guidelines) (3).

(3)

The application refers to the DENSO efficient alternator, for the output classes of 150A, 180A, and 210A. The alternator has an efficiency of at least 77 per cent as determined in accordance with the VDA approach described in point 5.1.2 in Annex I to the Technical Guidelines. That approach makes reference to the testing methodology specified in the International standard ISO 8854:2012 (4). The Applicant's alternator has an increased efficiency compared to the baseline alternator by reducing the following three losses: rectification losses by optimising the rectification by the use of a ‘MOSFET module’, i.e. by a use of metal–oxide–semiconductor field-effect transistor; stator iron losses by the use of thin laminated core made by magnetic steel, and stator copper losses by the use of a ‘segment conductor’, which has higher space factor and shorter coil end. This technology is therefore different from the Valeo Efficient Generation Alternator approved as an eco-innovation by Commission Implementing Decision 2013/341/EU (5).

(4)

The Commission finds that the information provided in the application demonstrates that the conditions and criteria referred to in Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 and in Articles 2 and 4 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011 have been met.

(5)

The Applicant has demonstrated that a high efficiency alternator of the kind described in this application did not exceed 3 % of the new passenger cars registered in the reference year 2009.

(6)

In order to determine the CO2 savings that the innovative technology will deliver when fitted to a vehicle, it is necessary to define the baseline vehicle against which the efficiency of the vehicle equipped with the innovative technology should be compared as provided for in Articles 5 and 8 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011. The Commission finds that it is appropriate to consider an alternator with 67 % efficiency as an appropriate baseline technology in the case the innovative technology is fitted on a new vehicle type. Where the DENSO efficient alternator is fitted to an existing vehicle type, the baseline technology should be the alternator of the most recent version of that type placed on the market.

(7)

The Applicant has provided a methodology for testing the CO2 reductions which includes formulae that are consistent with the formulae described in the Technical Guidelines for the simplified approach with regard to efficient alternators. The Commission considers that the testing methodology will provide testing results that are verifiable, repeatable and comparable and that it is capable of demonstrating in a realistic manner the CO2 emissions benefits of the innovative technology with strong statistical significance in accordance with Article 6 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011.

(8)

The Commission notes that the Applicant in its methodology has used a formula for calculating the standard deviation of the efficiency value of the alternator which increases the accuracy of the result as compared to the formula (1) in the methodology specified in the Annex to Implementing Decision 2013/341/EU. The Applicant's testing methodology and formulae to calculate the CO2 savings are in all other respects identical to the methodology specified in that Implementing Decision. As a consequence, the Commission considers that the methodology specified in Implementing Decision 2013/341/EU should be used to determine the reduction in CO2 emissions due to the use of the DENSO efficient alternator. However, in view of the improved accuracy due to the standard deviation calculation proposed by Denso, it is appropriate to adjust formula (1) set out in the Annex to Implementing Decision 2013/341/EU. The adjustment should not affect any CO2 savings certified using the methodology laid down in Implementing Decision 2013/341/EU prior to the entry into force of this Implementing Decision.

(9)

Against that background the Commission finds that the Applicant has demonstrated satisfactorily that the emission reduction achieved by the innovative technology is at least 1 g CO2/km.

(10)

The Commission notes that the savings of the innovative technology may be partially demonstrated on the standard test cycle, and the final total savings to be certified should therefore be determined in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 8(2) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011.

(11)

The Commission finds that the verification report has been prepared by the Vehicle Certification Agency (VCA) which is an independent and certified body and that the report supports the findings set out in the application.

(12)

Against that background, the Commission finds that no objections should be raised as regards the approval of the innovative technology in question.

(13)

For the purposes of determining the general eco-innovation code to be used in the relevant type approval documents in accordance with Annexes I, VIII and IX to Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (6), the individual code to be used for the innovative technology approved through this Implementing Decision should be specified,

(14)

Any manufacturer wishing to benefit from a reduction of its average specific CO2 emissions for the purpose of meeting its specific emissions target by means of the CO2 savings from the use of the innovative technology approved by this Implementing Decision, should in accordance with Article 11(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011, refer to this Implementing Decision in its application for an EC type-approval certificate for the vehicles concerned,