13.3.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 68/1

(1)

Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (4) and Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (5) establish a comprehensive legal framework for the authorisation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), which is fully applicable to GMOs to be used for cultivation purposes throughout the Union as seeds or other plant-propagating material (‘GMOs for cultivation’).

(2)

Under that legal framework, GMOs for cultivation are to undergo an individual risk assessment before being authorised to be placed on the Union market in accordance with Annex II to Directive 2001/18/EC taking into account the direct, indirect, immediate and delayed effects, as well as the cumulative long-term effects, on human health and the environment. That risk assessment provides scientific advice to inform the decision-making process and is followed by a risk management decision. The aim of that authorisation procedure is to ensure a high level of protection of human life and health, animal health and welfare, the environment and consumer interests, whilst ensuring the effective functioning of the internal market. A uniform high level of protection of health, the environment and consumers should be achieved and maintained throughout the territory of the Union. The precautionary principle should always be taken into account in the framework of Directive 2001/18/EC and its subsequent implementation.

(3)

Pursuant to the conclusions adopted by the Council on 4 December 2008 on Genetically Modified Organisms (‘2008 Council conclusions’), it is necessary to look for improvement of the implementation of the legal framework for the authorisation of GMOs. In this context, the rules on risk assessment should be, where needed, regularly updated to take account of continuous developments in scientific knowledge and analysis procedures, in particular regarding the long-term environmental effects of genetically modified crops as well as their potential effects on non-target organisms, the characteristics of receiving environments and the geographical areas in which genetically modified crops may be cultivated, and the criteria and requirements for assessing GMOs producing pesticides and herbicide tolerant GMOs. Therefore, the Annexes to Directive 2001/18/EC should be amended accordingly.

(4)

In addition to the authorisation for placing on the market, genetically modified varieties also need to comply with the requirements of Union law on the marketing of seed and plant propagating material, as set out in particular in Council Directives 66/401/EEC (6), 66/402/EEC (7), 68/193/EEC (8), 98/56/EC (9), 1999/105/EC (10), 2002/53/EC (11), 2002/54/EC (12), 2002/55/EC (13), 2002/56/EC (14), 2002/57/EC (15) and 2008/90/EC (16). Among those Directives, Directives 2002/53/EC and 2002/55/EC contain provisions which allow the Member States to prohibit, under certain well defined conditions, the use of a variety in all or in part of their territory or to lay down appropriate conditions for the cultivation of a variety.

(5)

Once a GMO is authorised for cultivation purposes in accordance with the Union legal framework on GMOs and complies, as regards the variety that is to be placed on the market, with the requirements of Union law on the marketing of seed and plant propagating material, Member States are not authorised to prohibit, restrict, or impede its free circulation within their territory, except under the conditions defined by Union law.

(6)

Experience has shown that cultivation of GMOs is an issue which is more thoroughly addressed at Member State level. Issues related to the placing on the market and the import of GMOs should remain regulated at Union level to preserve the internal market. Cultivation may however require more flexibility in certain instances as it is an issue with strong national, regional and local dimensions, given its link to land use, to local agricultural structures and to the protection or maintenance of habitats, ecosystems and landscapes. In accordance with Article 2(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), Member States are entitled to have the possibility to adopt legally binding acts restricting or prohibiting the cultivation of GMOs in their territory after such GMOs have been authorised to be placed on the Union market. However, the common authorisation procedure, in particular the evaluation process conducted primarily by the European Food Safety Authority (the ‘Authority’), should not be adversely affected by such flexibility.

(7)

In the past, in order to restrict or prohibit the cultivation of GMOs, some Member States had recourse to the safeguard clauses and emergency measures pursuant to Article 23 of Directive 2001/18/EC and Article 34 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 as a result of, depending on the cases, new or additional information made available since the date of the consent and affecting the environmental risk assessment, or of the reassessment of existing information. Other Member States have made use of the notification procedure set out in Article 114(5) and (6) TFEU which requires putting forward new scientific evidence relating to the protection of the environment or the working environment. In addition, the decision-making process has proved to be particularly difficult as regards the cultivation of GMOs in the light of the expression of national concerns which do not only relate to issues associated with the safety of GMOs for health or the environment.

(8)

In that context, it appears appropriate to grant Member States, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, more flexibility to decide whether or not they wish to cultivate GMOs on their territory without affecting the risk assessment provided in the system of Union authorisations of GMOs, either in the course of the authorisation procedure or thereafter, and independently of the measures that Member States cultivating GMOs are entitled or required to take by application of Directive 2001/18/EC to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in other products. The grant of that possibility to Member States is likely to improve the process for authorisations of GMOs and, at the same time, is also likely to ensure freedom of choice of consumers, farmers and operators whilst providing greater clarity to affected stakeholders concerning the cultivation of GMOs in the Union. This Directive should therefore facilitate the smooth functioning of the internal market.

(9)

In order to ensure that the cultivation of GMOs does not result in their unintended presence in other products and whilst respecting the principle of subsidiarity, particular attention should be paid to the prevention of possible cross-border contamination from a Member State where cultivation is allowed into a neighbouring Member State where it is prohibited, unless the Member States concerned agree that particular geographical conditions render it unnecessary.

(10)

The Commission Recommendation of 13 July 2010 (17) provides guidance to Member States for the development of coexistence measures, including in border areas. The recommendation encourages Member States to cooperate with each other to implement appropriate measures at the borders between Member States so as to avoid unintended consequences of cross-border contamination.

(11)

During the authorisation procedure of a given GMO, the possibility should be provided for a Member State to demand that the geographical scope of the notification/application submitted in accordance with Part C of Directive 2001/18/EC or in accordance with Articles 5 and 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 be adjusted to the effect that all or part of the territory of that Member State be excluded from cultivation. The Commission should facilitate the procedure by presenting the demand of the Member State to the notifier/applicant without delay and the notifier/applicant should respond to that demand within an established timelimit.

(12)

The geographical scope of the notification/application should be adjusted accordingly unless the notifier/applicant confirms the geographical scope of its notification/application within an established timelimit from the communication by the Commission of that demand. Such confirmation, however, is without prejudice to the Commission's powers in accordance with Article 19 of Directive 2001/18/EC or Articles 7 and 19 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, as the case may be, to make such an adjustment, where appropriate, in the light of the environmental risk assessment carried out by the Authority.

(13)

Whilst it is expected that most restrictions or prohibitions adopted pursuant to this Directive will be implemented at the stage of consent/authorisation or renewal thereof, there should, in addition, also be the possibility for Member States to adopt reasoned measures restricting or prohibiting the cultivation in all or part of their territory of a GMO, or of a group of GMOs defined by crop or trait, once authorised, on the basis of grounds distinct from and complementary to those assessed according to the harmonized set of Union rules, that is Directive 2001/18/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, which are in conformity with Union law. Those grounds may be related to environmental or agricultural policy objectives, or other compelling grounds such as town and country planning, land use, socioeconomic impacts, coexistence and public policy. Those grounds may be invoked individually or in combination, depending on the particular circumstances of the Member State, region or area in which those measures will apply.

(14)

The level of protection of human or animal health and of the environment chosen in the Union allows for a uniform scientific assessment throughout the Union and this Directive should not alter that situation. Therefore, to avoid any interference with the competences which are granted to the risk assessors and risk managers under Directive 2001/18/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, a Member State should only use grounds with respect to environmental policy objectives relating to impacts which are distinct from and complementary to the assessment of risks to health and the environment which are assessed in the context of the authorisation procedures provided in Directive 2001/18/EC and in Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, such as the maintenance and development of agricultural practices which offer a better potential to reconcile production with ecosystem sustainability, or maintenance of local biodiversity, including certain habitats and ecosystems, or certain types of natural and landscape features, as well as specific ecosystem functions and services.

(15)

Member States should also be able to base the decisions which they adopt pursuant to Directive 2001/18/EC on grounds concerning socioeconomic impacts which might arise from the cultivation of a GMO on the territory of the Member State concerned. While coexistence measures have been addressed by the Commission Recommendation of 13 July 2010, there should also be the possibility for Member States to adopt measures restricting or prohibiting cultivation of authorised GMOs in all or part of their territory under this Directive. Those grounds may be related to the high cost, impracticability or impossibility of implementing coexistence measures due to specific geographical conditions, such as small islands or mountain zones, or the need to avoid GMO presence in other products such as specific or particular products. Furthermore, the Commission has, as requested in the 2008 Council conclusions, reported to the European Parliament and the Council on socioeconomic implications of GMO cultivation. The outcome of that report may provide valuable information for Member States considering taking decisions on the basis of this Directive. Grounds relating to agricultural policy objectives may include the need to protect the diversity of agricultural production and the need to ensure seed and plant propagating material purity. Member States should also be allowed to base their measures on other grounds that may include land use, town and country planning, or other legitimate factors including those relating to cultural traditions.

(16)

The restrictions or prohibitions adopted pursuant to this Directive should refer to the cultivation, and not to the free circulation and import, of genetically modified seeds and plant propagating material as, or in, products and of the products of their harvest, and should, furthermore, be in conformity with the Treaties, in particular as regards the principle of non-discrimination between national and non-national products, the principle of proportionality and Article 34, Article 36 and Article 216(2) TFEU.

(17)

Member States' measures adopted pursuant to this Directive should be subject to a procedure of scrutiny and information at Union level. In the light of the level of Union scrutiny and information, it is not necessary to provide, in addition, for the application of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (18). Member States may restrict or prohibit the cultivation of GMOs in all or part of their territory as from the date of entry into force of the Union authorisation and for the whole duration of the consent/authorisation, provided that an established standstill period, during which the Commission was given the opportunity to comment on the proposed measures, has elapsed. The Member State concerned should therefore communicate a draft of those measures to the Commission at least 75 days prior to their adoption, in order to give the Commission an opportunity to comment thereon, and should refrain from adopting and implementing those measures during that period. On the expiry of the established standstill period, the Member State should be able to adopt the measures as originally proposed or amended to take into account the Commission's comments.

(18)

During the established standstill period, the authorisation applicant/holder who would be affected by measures restricting or prohibiting the cultivation of a GMO in a Member State should refrain from all activities related to the cultivation of that GMO in that Member State.

(19)

Decisions to restrict or prohibit the cultivation of GMOs by Member States in all or part of their territory should not prevent biotechnology research from being carried out provided that, in carrying out such research, all necessary safety measures relating to human and animal health and environmental protection are observed and that the activity does not undermine the respect of the grounds on which the restriction or prohibition has been introduced. Moreover, the Authority and the Member States should aim to establish an extensive network of scientific organisations representing all disciplines including those relating to ecological issues, and should cooperate to identify at an early stage any potential divergence between scientific opinions with a view to resolving or clarifying contentious scientific issues. The Commission and the Member States should ensure that the necessary resources for independent research on the potential risks arising from the deliberate release or the placing on the market of GMOs are secured, and that independent researchers should be given access to all relevant material, while respecting intellectual property rights.

(20)

Given the importance of scientific evidence in taking decisions on the prohibition or approval of GMOs, the Authority should collect and analyse the results of research regarding the risk or danger to human health or the environment of GMOs and inform the risk managers of any emerging risks. Such information should be made available to the public.

(21)

A Member State should be able to request the competent authority or the Commission to reintegrate all or part of its territory into the geographical scope of the consent/authorisation from which it was previously excluded. In that case, there should be no need to forward the request to the consent/authorisation holder and ask for his agreement. The competent authority which has issued the written consent or the Commission, under Directive 2001/18/EC or Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 respectively, should amend the geographical scope of the consent or of the decision of authorisation accordingly.

(22)

Written consents or decisions of authorisation issued or adopted with a geographical scope limited to certain areas or measures adopted by Member States, in accordance with this Directive, which restrict or prohibit the cultivation of GMOs, should not prevent or restrict the use of authorised GMOs by other Member States. In addition, this Directive and the national measures adopted pursuant to it should be without prejudice to Union law requirements concerning unintended and adventitious presence of GMOs in non-genetically modified varieties of seed and plant propagating material, and should not prevent the cultivation of varieties complying with these requirements.

(23)

Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 provides that references made in Parts A and D of Directive 2001/18/EC to GMOs authorised under Part C of that Directive are to be considered as applying equally to GMOs authorised under that Regulation. Accordingly, measures adopted by the Member States in accordance with Directive 2001/18/EC should also apply to GMOs authorised in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003.

(24)

This Directive is without prejudice to Member States' obligations as regards the free movement of conventional seeds, plant propagating material and of the product of the harvest pursuant to relevant Union law and in accordance with the TFEU.

(25)

In order to guarantee a high level of consumer protection, Member States and operators should also take effective labelling and information measures pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 and Regulation (EC) No 1830/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (19) to guarantee transparency with regard to the presence of GMOs in products.

(26)

In order to reconcile the objectives of this Directive with the legitimate interests of economic operators in relation to GMOs which have been authorised, or which were in the process of being authorised, before the entry into force of this Directive, provision should be made for appropriate transitional measures. Transitional measures are also justified by the need to avoid creating potential distortions of competition by treating existing authorisation holders differently from future applicants for authorisation. In the interests of legal certainty, the period during which such transitional measures may be adopted should be limited to that which is strictly necessary in order to ensure a smooth transition to the new regime. Such transitional measures should therefore allow Member States to apply the provisions of this Directive to products which have been authorised or which were in the process of being authorised before the entry into force of this Directive, provided that authorised genetically modified varieties of seed and plant propagating material already lawfully planted are not affected.

(27)

The provisions laid down in Articles 26b and 26c of Directive 2001/18/EC apply without prejudice to Article 23 of that Directive as well as Article 34 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003.

(28)

Directive 2001/18/EC should therefore be amended accordingly,

(1)

In Article 26a, the following paragraph is inserted:

‘1a.   As from 3 April 2017 Member States in which GMOs are cultivated shall take appropriate measures in border areas of their territory with the aim of avoiding possible cross-border contamination into neighbouring Member States in which the cultivation of those GMOs is prohibited, unless such measures are unnecessary in the light of particular geographical conditions. Those measures shall be communicated to the Commission.’

(2)

The following Articles are inserted:

‘Article 26b

Cultivation

1.   During the authorisation procedure of a given GMO or during the renewal of consent/authorisation, a Member State may demand that the geographical scope of the written consent or authorisation be adjusted to the effect that all or part of the territory of that Member State is to be excluded from cultivation. That demand shall be communicated to the Commission at the latest 45 days from the date of circulation of the assessment report under Article 14(2) of this Directive, or from receiving the opinion of the European Food Safety Authority under Article 6(6) and Article 18(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003. The Commission shall present the demand of the Member State to the notifier/applicant and to the other Member States without delay. The Commission shall make the demand publicly available by electronic means.

2.   Within 30 days from the presentation by the Commission of that demand, the notifier/applicant may adjust or confirm the geographical scope of its initial notification/application.

In the absence of confirmation, the adjustment of the geographical scope of the notification/application shall be implemented in the written consent issued under this Directive and, where applicable, the decision issued in accordance with Article 19 of this Directive as well as the decision of authorisation adopted under Articles 7 and 19 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003.

The written consent issued under this Directive and, where applicable, the decision issued in accordance with Article 19 of this Directive, as well as the decision of authorisation adopted under Articles 7 and 19 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, shall then be issued on the basis of the adjusted geographical scope of the notification/application.

Where a demand in accordance with paragraph 1 of this Article is communicated to the Commission after the date of circulation of the assessment report under Article 14(2) of this Directive, or after receipt of the opinion of the European Food Safety Authority under Article 6(6) and Article 18(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, the timelines set out in Article 15 of this Directive to issue the written consent or, as the case may be, in Articles 7 and 19 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 to submit to the Committee a draft of the decision to be taken, shall be extended by a single period of 15 days regardless of the number of Member States presenting such demands.

3.   Where no demand was made pursuant to paragraph 1 of this Article, or where the notifier/applicant has confirmed the geographical scope of its initial notification/application, a Member State may adopt measures restricting or prohibiting the cultivation in all or part of its territory of a GMO, or of a group of GMOs defined by crop or trait, once authorised in accordance with Part C of this Directive or with Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, provided that such measures are in conformity with Union law, reasoned, proportional and non-discriminatory and, in addition, are based on compelling grounds such as those related to:

Those grounds may be invoked individually or in combination, with the exception of the ground set out in point (g) which cannot be used individually, depending on the particular circumstances of the Member State, region or area in which those measures will apply, but shall, in no case, conflict with the environmental risk assessment carried out pursuant to this Directive or to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003.

4.   A Member State which intends to adopt measures pursuant to paragraph 3 of this Article shall first communicate a draft of those measures and the corresponding grounds invoked to the Commission. This communication may take place before the GMO authorisation procedure under Part C of this Directive or under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 has been completed. During a period of 75 days starting from the date of such communication:

On expiry of the 75-day period referred to in the first subparagraph, the Member State concerned may, for the whole duration of the consent/authorisation and as from the date of entry into force of the Union authorisation, adopt the measures either in the form originally proposed, or as amended to take account of any non-binding comments received from the Commission. Those measures shall be communicated to the Commission, the other Member States and the authorisation holder without delay.

Member States shall make publicly available any such measure to all operators concerned, including growers.

5.   Where a Member State wishes all or part of its territory to be reintegrated into the geographical scope of the consent/authorisation from which it was previously excluded pursuant to paragraph 2, it may make a request to that effect to the competent authority which issued the written consent under this Directive or to the Commission if the GMO has been authorised under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003. The competent authority which has issued the written consent or the Commission, as the case may be, shall amend the geographical scope of the consent or of the decision of authorisation accordingly.

6.   For the purposes of an adjustment of the geographical scope of the consent/authorisation of a GMO under paragraph 5:

7.   Where a Member State has revoked measures taken pursuant to paragraphs 3 and 4, it shall notify the Commission and the other Member States without delay.

8.   Measures adopted under this Article shall not affect the free circulation of authorised GMOs as, or in, products.

Article 26c

Transitional measures

1.   From 2 April 2015 until 3 October 2015, a Member State may demand that the geographical scope of a notification/application submitted, or of an authorisation granted, under this Directive or Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 before 2 April 2015 be adjusted. The Commission shall present the demand of the Member State to the notifier/applicant and to the other Member States without delay.

2.   Where the notification/application is pending and the notifier/applicant has not confirmed the geographical scope of its initial notification/application within 30 days from the communication of the demand referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article, the geographical scope of the notification/application shall be adjusted accordingly. The written consent issued under this Directive and, where applicable, the decision issued in accordance with Article 19 of this Directive as well as the decision of authorisation adopted under Articles 7 and 19 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 shall then be issued on the basis of the adjusted geographical scope of the notification/application.

3.   Where the authorisation has already been granted and the authorisation holder has not confirmed the geographical scope of the authorisation within 30 days from the communication of the demand referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article, the authorisation shall be modified accordingly. For a written consent under this Directive, the competent authority shall amend the geographical scope of the consent accordingly and shall inform the Commission, the Member States, and the authorisation holder once this is complete. For an authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, the Commission shall amend the decision of authorisation accordingly, without applying the procedure set out in Article 35(2) of that Regulation. The Commission shall inform the Member States and the authorisation holder accordingly.

4.   Where no demand was made pursuant to paragraph 1 of this Article, or where a notifier/applicant or, as the case may be, an authorisation holder has confirmed the geographical scope of its initial application or, as the case may be, authorisation, paragraphs 3 to 8 of Article 26b shall apply mutatis mutandis.

5.   This Article is without prejudice to the cultivation of any authorised GMO seeds and plant propagating materials which were planted lawfully before the cultivation of the GMO is restricted or prohibited in the Member State.

6.   Measures adopted under this Article shall not affect the free circulation of authorised GMOs as, or in, products.’

13.3.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 68/9

(1)

Improving road safety is a prime objective of the Union's transport policy. The Union is pursuing a policy to improve road safety with the objective of reducing fatalities, injuries and material damage. An important element of that policy is the consistent enforcement of sanctions for road traffic offences committed in the Union which considerably jeopardise road safety.

(2)

However, due to a lack of appropriate procedures and notwithstanding existing possibilities under Council Decision 2008/615/JHA (3) and Council Decision 2008/616/JHA (4) (the ‘Prüm Decisions’), sanctions in the form of financial penalties for certain road traffic offences are often not enforced if those offences are committed with a vehicle which is registered in a Member State other than the Member State where the offence took place. This Directive aims to ensure that even in such cases, the effectiveness of the investigation of road-safety-related traffic offences should be ensured.

(3)

In its communication of 20 July 2010 entitled ‘Towards a European road safety area: policy orientations on road safety 2011-2020’, the Commission emphasised that enforcement of road traffic rules remains a key factor in creating the conditions for a considerable reduction in the number of deaths and injuries. In its conclusions of 2 December 2010 on road safety, the Council called for consideration of the need for further strengthening of enforcement of road traffic rules by Member States and, where appropriate, at Union level. It invited the Commission to examine the possibilities of harmonising traffic rules at Union level where appropriate and adopting further measures on facilitating cross-border enforcement with regard to road traffic offences, in particular those related to serious traffic accidents.

(4)

On 19 March 2008, the Commission adopted a proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council facilitating cross-border enforcement in the field of road safety on the basis of Article 71(1)(c) of the Treaty establishing the European Community (now Article 91 of Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)). Directive 2011/82/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (5) was, however, adopted on the basis of Article 87(2) TFEU. The judgment of the Court of Justice of 6 May 2014 in Case C-43/12 (6) annulled Directive 2011/82/EU on the grounds that it could not validly be adopted on the basis of Article 87(2) TFEU. The judgment maintained the effects of Directive 2011/82/EU until the entry into force within a reasonable period of time — which is not to exceed 12 months as from the date of delivery of the judgment — of a new directive based on Article 91(1)(c) TFEU. Therefore a new Directive should be adopted on the basis of that Article.

(5)

Greater convergence of control measures between Member States should be encouraged and the Commission should examine in this respect the need for developing common standards for automatic checking equipment for road safety controls.

(6)

The awareness of Union citizens should be raised as regards the road safety traffic rules in force in different Member States and as regards the implementation of this Directive, in particular through appropriate measures guaranteeing the provision of sufficient information on the consequences of not respecting the road safety traffic rules when travelling in a Member State other than the Member State of registration.

(7)

In order to improve road safety throughout the Union and to ensure equal treatment of drivers, namely resident and non-resident offenders, enforcement should be facilitated irrespective of the Member State of registration of the vehicle. To this end, a system of cross-border exchange of information should be used for certain identified road-safety-related traffic offences, regardless of their administrative or criminal nature under the law of the Member State concerned, granting the Member State of the offence access to vehicle registration data (VRD) of the Member State of registration.

(8)

A more efficient cross-border exchange of VRD, which should facilitate the identification of persons suspected of committing a road-safety-related traffic offence, might increase the deterrent effect and induce more cautious behaviour by the driver of a vehicle that is registered in a Member State other than the Member State of the offence, thereby preventing casualties due to road traffic accidents.

(9)

The road-safety-related traffic offences covered by this Directive are not subject to homogeneous treatment in the Member States. Some Member States qualify such offences under national law as ‘administrative’ offences while others qualify them as ‘criminal’ offences. This Directive should apply regardless of how those offences are qualified under national law.

(10)

Member States should grant each other the right of access to their VRD in order to improve the exchange of information and to speed up the procedures in force. To this end, the provisions concerning the technical specifications and the availability of automated data exchange set out in the Prüm Decisions should, as far as possible, be included in this Directive.

(11)

Decision 2008/616/JHA specifies the security features for existing software applications and the related technical requirements for the exchange of vehicle registration data. Without prejudice to the general applicability of that Decision, those security features and technical requirements should, for reasons of regulatory and practical efficiency, be used for the purposes of this Directive.

(12)

Existing software applications should be the basis for the data exchange under this Directive and should, at the same time, also facilitate the reporting by Member States to the Commission. Such applications should provide for the expeditious, secure and confidential exchange of specific VRD between Member States. Advantage should be taken of the European Vehicle and Driving Licence Information System (Eucaris) software application, which is mandatory for Member States under the Prüm Decisions as regards VRD. The Commission should assess and report on the functioning of the software applications used for the purposes of this Directive.

(13)

The scope of those software applications should be limited to the processes used in the exchange of information between the national contact points in the Member States. Procedures and automated processes in which the information is to be used are outside the scope of such applications.

(14)

The Information Management Strategy for EU internal security aims to find the simplest and most easily traceable and cost-effective solutions for data exchange.

(15)

Member States should be able to contact the owner, the holder of the vehicle or the otherwise identified person suspected of committing the road-safety-related traffic offence in order to keep the person concerned informed of the applicable procedures and the legal consequences under the law of the Member State of the offence. In doing so, Member States should consider sending the information concerning road-safety-related traffic offences in the language of the registration documents, or in the language most likely to be understood by the person concerned, to ensure that that person has a clear understanding of the information which is being shared with the person concerned. Member States should apply the appropriate procedures to ensure that only the person concerned is informed and not a third party. To that effect, Member States should use detailed arrangements similar to those adopted for following up such offences including means such as, where appropriate, registered delivery. This will allow that person to respond to the information letter in an appropriate way, in particular by asking for more information, by settling the fine or by exercising his/her rights of defence, especially in the case of mistaken identity. Further proceedings are covered by applicable legal instruments, including instruments on mutual assistance and on mutual recognition, for example Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA (7).

(16)

Member States should provide equivalent translation with respect to the information letter sent by the Member State of the offence, as provided for in Directive 2010/64/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (8).

(17)

With a view to pursuing a road safety policy that aims to provide a high level of protection for all road users in the Union, and taking into account the widely differing circumstances pertaining within the Union, Member States should act, without prejudice to more restrictive policies and laws, in order to ensure greater convergence of road traffic rules and of their enforcement between Member States. In the framework of its report to the European Parliament and to the Council on the application of this Directive, the Commission should examine the need to develop common standards in order to establish comparable methods, practices and minimum standards at Union level taking into account international cooperation and existing agreements in the field of road safety, in particular the Vienna Convention on Road Traffic of 8 November 1968.

(18)

In its report to the European Parliament and to the Council on the application of this Directive by the Member States, the Commission should examine the need for common criteria for follow-up procedures by Member States in the event of non-payment of a financial penalty, in accordance with Member States' laws and procedures. In that report, the Commission should address issues such as the procedures between the competent authorities of the Member States for the transmission of the final decision to impose a sanction and/or financial penalty as well as the recognition and enforcement of the final decision.

(19)

In preparing the review of this Directive, the Commission should consult the relevant stakeholders, such as road safety and law enforcement authorities or competent bodies, victims' associations and other non-governmental organisations active in the field of road safety.

(20)

Closer cooperation between law enforcement authorities should go hand in hand with respect for fundamental rights, in particular the right to respect for privacy and to the protection of personal data, guaranteed by special data protection arrangements. Those arrangements should take particular account of the specific nature of cross-border online access to databases. It is necessary that the software applications to be set up enable the exchange of information to be carried out in secure conditions and ensure the confidentiality of the data transmitted. The data collected under this Directive should not be used for purposes other than those of this Directive. Member States should comply with the obligations on the conditions of use and of temporary storage of the data.

(21)

The processing of personal data provided by this Directive is appropriate for attaining the legitimate aims pursued by this Directive in the field of road safety, namely to ensure a high level of protection for all road users in the Union by facilitating the cross-border exchange of information on road-safety-related traffic offences and, thereby, the enforcement of sanctions, and does not exceed what is appropriate and necessary in order to achieve those objectives.

(22)

Data relating to the identification of an offender are personal data. Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (9) should apply to the processing activities carried out in application of this Directive. Without prejudice to the procedural requirements for appeal and the redress mechanisms of the Member State concerned, the data subject should accordingly be informed, when notified of the offence, of the right to access and the right to rectification and deletion of personal data, as well as of the maximum legal storage period of the data. In this context, the data subject should also have the right to obtain the correction of any inaccurate personal data or the immediate deletion of any data recorded unlawfully.

(23)

In the framework of the Prüm Decisions, the processing of VRD containing personal data is subject to the specific provisions on data protection set out in Decision 2008/615/JHA. In that respect, Member States have the possibility to apply those specific provisions to personal data which are also processed for the purposes of this Directive provided that they ensure that the processing of data related to all of the offences covered by this Directive complies with the national provisions implementing Directive 95/46/EC.

(24)

It should be possible for third countries to participate in the exchange of VRD provided that they have concluded an agreement with the Union to this effect. Such an agreement would have to include necessary provisions on data protection.

(25)

This Directive upholds the fundamental rights and principles recognised by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, including the respect for private and family life, the protection of personal data, the right to a fair trial, the presumption of innocence and the right of defence.

(26)

In order to achieve the objective of the exchange of information between Member States through interoperable means, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 TFEU should be delegated to the Commission in respect of the taking into account of relevant changes to Prüm Decisions or where required by legal acts of the Union directly relevant for the updating of Annex I. It is of particular importance that the Commission follow its usual practice and carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level. The Commission, when preparing and drawing up delegated acts, should ensure a simultaneous, timely and appropriate transmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and to the Council.

(27)

The Commission should analyse the application of this Directive with a view to identifying further effective and efficient measures to improve road safety. Without prejudice to obligations to transpose this Directive, Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom should also cooperate with the Commission in this work, where appropriate, to ensure timely and complete reporting on this matter.

(28)

Since the objective of this Directive, namely to ensure a high level of protection for all road users in the Union by facilitating the cross-border exchange of information on road-safety-related traffic offences, where they are committed with a vehicle registered in a Member State other than the Member State where the offence took place, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, but can rather, by reason of the scale and effects of the action, be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective.

(29)

Given that Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom were not subject to Directive 2011/82/EU and therefore have not transposed it, it is appropriate to allow those Member States sufficient additional time to do so.

(30)

The European Data Protection Supervisor was consulted in accordance with Article 28(2) of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council (10) and delivered an opinion on 3 October 2014,

(a)

speeding;

(b)

failing to use a seat-belt;

(c)

failing to stop at a red traffic light;

(d)

drink-driving;

(e)

driving while under the influence of drugs;

(f)

failing to wear a safety helmet;

(g)

the use of a forbidden lane;

(h)

illegally using a mobile telephone or any other communication devices while driving.

(a)

‘vehicle’ means any power-driven vehicle, including motorcycles, which is normally used for carrying persons or goods by road;

(b)

‘Member State of the offence’ means the Member State where the offence was committed;

(c)

‘Member State of registration’ means the Member State where the vehicle with which the offence was committed is registered;

(d)

‘speeding’ means exceeding speed limits in force in the Member State of offence for the road or type of vehicle concerned;

(e)

‘failing to use a seat-belt’ means not complying with the requirement to wear a seat-belt or to use a child restraint in accordance with Council Directive 91/671/EEC (11) and the law of the Member State of the offence;

(f)

‘failing to stop at a red traffic light’ means driving through a red traffic light or any other relevant stop signal, as defined in the law of the Member State of the offence;

(g)

‘drink-driving’ means driving while impaired by alcohol, as defined in the law of the Member State of the offence;

(h)

‘driving under the influence of drugs’ means driving while impaired by drugs or other substances having a similar effect, as defined in the law of the Member State of the offence;

(i)

‘failing to wear a safety helmet’ means not wearing a safety helmet, as defined in the law of the Member State of the offence;

(j)

‘use of a forbidden lane’ means illegally using part of a road section, such as an emergency lane, public transport lane or temporary closed lane for reasons of congestion or road works, as defined in the law of the Member State of the offence;

(k)

‘illegally using a mobile telephone or any other communication devices while driving’ means illegally using a mobile telephone or any other communication devices while driving, as defined in the law of the Member State of the offence;

(l)

‘national contact point’ means a designated competent authority for the exchange of VRD;

(m)

‘automated search’ means an online access procedure for consulting the databases of one, more than one, or all of the Member States or of the participating countries;

(n)

‘holder of the vehicle’ means the person in whose name the vehicle is registered, as defined in the law of the Member State of registration.

(a)

data relating to vehicles; and

(b)

data relating to owners or holders of the vehicle.

—

an assessment of whether other road-safety-related traffic offences should be added to the scope of this Directive,

—

an assessment of the effectiveness of this Directive on the reduction in the number of fatalities on Union roads,

—

an assessment of the need for developing common standards for automatic checking equipment and for procedures. In this context, the Commission is invited to develop at Union level road safety guidelines within the framework of the common transport policy in order to ensure greater convergence of the enforcement of road traffic rules by Member States through comparable methods and practices. These guidelines may cover at least the offences listed in points (a) to (d) of Article 2,

—

an assessment of the need to strengthen the enforcement of sanctions with regard to road-safety-related traffic offences and to propose common criteria concerning the follow-up procedures in the case of non-payment of a financial penalty, within the framework of all relevant Union policies, including the common transport policy,

—

the possibilities for harmonising traffic rules where appropriate,

—

an assessment of the software applications as referred to in Article 4(4), with a view to ensuring proper implementation of this Directive as well as guaranteeing an effective, expeditious, secure and confidential exchange of specific VRD.

13.3.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 68/26

(1)

Annex II to Directive 2002/46/EC establishes the list of vitamin and mineral substances, and for each of them the forms, which may be used in the manufacture of food supplements. Commission Regulation (EC) No 1170/2009 (2) has replaced Annexes I and II to Directive 2002/46/EC.

(2)

According to Article 14 of Directive 2002/46/EC, provisions on vitamin and mineral substances in food supplements which may have an effect upon public health are to be adopted after consultation with the European Food Safety Authority (‘the Authority’).

(3)

Following a request for the addition of (6S)-5-methyltetrahydrofolic acid, glucosamine salt as a source of folate to the list set out in Annex II to Directive 2002/46/EC, the Authority adopted on 11 September 2013 a Scientific Opinion on (6S)-5-methyltetrahydrofolic acid, glucosamine salt as a source of folate added for nutritional purposes to food supplements and the bioavailability of folate from this source (3).

(4)

It follows from the Authority's opinion that the use of (6S)-5-methyltetrahydrofolic acid, glucosamine salt in food supplements is not of safety concern as a source of folate.

(5)

Following the Authority's favourable opinion, (6S)-5-methyltetrahydrofolic acid, glucosamine salt should be added to the list set out in Annex II to Directive 2002/46/EC.

(6)

(6S)-5-methyltetrahydrofolic acid, glucosamine salt is a novel food ingredient the placing on the market of which has been authorised by Commission Implementing Decision 2014/154/EU (4).

(7)

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

(8)

Directive 2002/46/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.

(9)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed,

13.3.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 68/28

(1)

Part A of the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 (2) sets out the active substances deemed to have been approved under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.

(2)

The approvals of the active substances ethephon and fenamiphos will expire on 31 July 2017. Applications have been submitted for the renewal of the approval of those active substances. As the requirements laid down in Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 844/2012 (3) apply to those active substances, it is necessary to provide for sufficient time to complete the renewal procedure in accordance with that Regulation. Consequently, the approvals of those active substances are likely to expire before a decision has been taken on their renewal. It is therefore necessary to extend their approval periods.

(3)

Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 should therefore be amended accordingly.

(4)

In view of the aim of the first paragraph of Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, as regards cases where no supplementary dossier in accordance with Implementing Regulation (EU) No 844/2012 is submitted no later than 30 months before the respective expiry date laid down in the Annex to this Regulation, the Commission will set the expiry date at the same date as before this Regulation or at the earliest date thereafter.

(5)

In view of the aim of the first paragraph of Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, as regards cases where the Commission will adopt a Regulation providing that the approval of an active substance referred to in the Annex to this Regulation is not renewed because the approval criteria are not satisfied, the Commission will set the expiry date at the same date as before this Regulation or at the date of the entry into force of the Regulation providing that the approval of the active substance is not renewed, whichever date is later.

(6)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed,

13.3.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 68/30

(1)

The United Kingdom received on 29 March 2012 an application, in accordance with Article 11(1) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (2), for the inclusion of the active substance dinotefuran in its Annex I for use in product-type 18, insecticides, acaricides and products to control other arthropods, as defined in Annex V to that Directive.

(2)

Dinotefuran was not on the market on 14 May 2000 as an active substance of a biocidal product.

(3)

The United Kingdom submitted an assessment report, together with its recommendations, to the European Chemicals Agency on 15 October 2013 in accordance with Article 8(1) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012.

(4)

The opinion of the European Chemicals Agency was formulated on 17 June 2014 by the Biocidal Product Committee, having regard to the conclusions of the evaluating competent authority.

(5)

According to that opinion, biocidal products used for product-type 18 and containing dinotefuran may be expected to satisfy the requirements laid down in Article 19(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012, provided that certain specifications and conditions relating to its use are satisfied.

(6)

It also appears from that opinion that the characteristics of dinotefuran render it very persistent (vP) and toxic (T) in accordance with the criteria laid down in Annex XIII to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3). Therefore, dinotefuran should be considered as a candidate for substitution pursuant to Article 10(1)(d) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 for the purpose of authorising products in accordance with Article 23 of that Regulation.

(7)

It is therefore appropriate to approve dinotefuran for use in biocidal products for product-type 18 subject to compliance with certain specifications and conditions.

(8)

Since the evaluations did not address nanomaterials, the approvals should not cover such materials in accordance with Article 4(4) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012.

(9)

Since the conditions of the first subparagraph of Article 90(2) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 are met, the provisions of that Regulation should apply. Dinotefuran should be approved for a period not exceeding 7 years in accordance with Article 10(4) of that Regulation.

(10)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Biocidal Products,

13.3.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 68/33

(1)

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1062/2014 (2) establishes a list of active substances to be evaluated with a view to their possible approval for use in biocidal products or inclusion into Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 528/2012. That list includes Bacillus sphaericus.

(2)

Bacillus sphaericus has been evaluated in accordance with Article 90(2) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 for use in biocidal products for product-type 18, insecticides, acaricides and products to control other arthropods, as defined in Annex V to Regulation (EU) No 528/2012.

(3)

The data submitted for the purpose of the evaluation allowed conclusions to be drawn only regarding a certain form of Bacillus sphaericus, i.e. Bacillus sphaericus 2362 serotype H5a5b, strain ABTS1743. The evaluation did not allow conclusions to be drawn regarding any other substance complying with the definition of Bacillus sphaericus in the abovementioned list of active substances in Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1062/2014. Therefore, only Bacillus sphaericus 2362 serotype H5a5b, strain ABTS1743 should be covered by this approval.

(4)

Italy was designated as evaluating competent authority and submitted an assessment report, together with its recommendations, to the Commission on 9 January 2009 in accordance with paragraphs 4 and 6 of Article 14 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007 (3).

(5)

The opinion of the European Chemicals Agency was formulated on 19 June 2014 by the Biocidal Product Committee, having regard to the conclusions of the evaluating competent authority.

(6)

According to that opinion, biocidal products used for product-type 18 and containing Bacillus sphaericus 2362 serotype H5a5b, strain ABTS1743 may be expected to satisfy the requirements laid down in Article 5 of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (4) provided that certain specifications and conditions relating to its use are satisfied.

(7)

It is therefore appropriate to approve Bacillus sphaericus 2362 serotype H5a5b, strain ABTS1743 for use in biocidal products for product-type 18 subject to compliance with certain specifications and conditions.

(8)

Since the evaluations did not address nanomaterials, the approval should not cover such materials in accordance with Article 4(4) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012.

(9)

A reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before an active substance is approved, in order to permit interested parties to take the preparatory measures necessary to meet the new requirements.

(10)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Biocidal Products,

13.3.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 68/36

(1)

The active substance Z-13-hexadecen-11-yn-1-yl acetate was included in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC (2) by Commission Directive 2008/127/EC (3) in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 24b of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2229/2004 (4). Since the replacement of Directive 91/414/EEC by Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, this substance is deemed to have been approved under that Regulation and is listed in Part A of the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 (5).

(2)

In accordance with Article 25a of Regulation (EC) No 2229/2004, the European Food Safety Authority, hereinafter ‘the Authority’, presented to the Commission its view on the draft review report for Z-13-hexadecen-11-yn-1-yl acetate (6) on 18 December 2013. The Authority communicated its view on Z-13-hexadecen-11-yn-1-yl acetate to the notifier.

(3)

The Commission invited the notifier to submit comments on the draft review report for Z-13-hexadecen-11-yn-1-yl acetate. The draft review report and the view of the Authority were reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed and finalised on 12 December 2014 in the format of the Commission review report for Z-13-hexadecen-11-yn-1-yl acetate.

(4)

It is confirmed that the active substance Z-13-hexadecen-11-yn-1-yl acetate is to be deemed to have been approved under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.

(5)

In accordance with Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 in conjunction with Article 6 thereof and in the light of current scientific and technical knowledge, it is necessary to amend the conditions of approval of Z-13-hexadecen-11-yn-1-yl acetate. In particular, it is appropriate to require further confirmatory information.

(6)

The Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 should therefore be amended accordingly.

(7)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed,

13.3.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 68/39

(1)

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1062/2014 (2) establishes a list of active substances to be evaluated with a view to their possible approval for use in biocidal products or inclusion into Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 528/2012. That list includes tolylfluanid.

(2)

Tolylfluanid has been evaluated in accordance with Article 90(2) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 for use in biocidal products for product-type 21, antifouling products, as defined in Annex V to Regulation (EU) No 528/2012.

(3)

Finland was designated as evaluating competent authority and submitted an assessment report, together with its recommendations, to the Commission on 18 September 2012 in accordance with paragraphs 4 and 6 of Article 14 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007 (3).

(4)

The opinion of the European Chemicals Agency was formulated on 17 June 2014 by the Biocidal Product Committee, having regard to the conclusions of the evaluating competent authority.

(5)

According to that opinion, biocidal products used for product-type 21 and containing tolylfluanid may be expected to satisfy the requirements laid down in Article 5 of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (4) provided that certain specifications and conditions relating to its use are satisfied.

(6)

Nevertheless, the acceptability of the risks related to the use of antifouling products, as well as the suitability of the proposed risk mitigation measures, need to be further confirmed. In order to facilitate, at the time of the renewal of the approvals of existing antifouling active substances, the review and comparison of the risks and benefits of these substances as well as of the risk mitigation measures applied, the expiry date of approval of these substances should be the same.

(7)

It is therefore appropriate to approve tolylfluanid for use in biocidal products for product-type 21 subject to compliance with certain specifications and conditions.

(8)

Since the evaluations did not address nanomaterials, the approval should not cover such materials in accordance with Article 4(4) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012.

(9)

A reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before an active substance is approved, in order to permit interested parties to take the preparatory measures necessary to meet the new requirements.

(10)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Biocidal Products,

13.3.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 68/43

(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,

13.3.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 68/45

(1)

Article 11 of Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1311/2013 (2) allows the mobilisation of the Flexibility Instrument within the annual ceiling of EUR 471 million (2011 prices) to allow the financing of clearly identified expenditure which could not be financed within the limits of the ceilings available for one or more other headings.

(2)

After having examined all possibilities for re-allocating appropriations under sub-heading 1b, it appears necessary to mobilise the Flexibility Instrument to complement the financing in the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2015, beyond the ceiling of sub-heading 1b, by EUR 83 285 595 towards the financing of the Cypriot Structural Funds programmes, to grant an additional allocation from the Structural Funds to Cyprus for the year 2015 for a total amount of EUR 100 000 000.

(3)

For the financial year 2014, the European Parliament and the Council have already mobilised the Flexibility Instrument by Decision of 20 November 2013 for the financing of the Cypriot Structural Funds programmes for an amount of EUR 89 330 000 in commitment appropriations only.

(4)

Taking into account the supplementary nature of the Flexibility Instrument, it is necessary to provide additional payment appropriations to cover the additional commitment appropriations for Cyprus for the two financial years 2014 and 2015 on the basis of the expected payment profile, estimated to EUR 11,3 million in 2015, EUR 45,7 million in 2016, EUR 75,4 million in 2017 and EUR 40,2 million in 2018. The annual amounts for each year of the period 2015-2018 will have to be confirmed by each draft budget presented by the Commission during this period,

13.3.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 68/47

(1)

The European Union has created a European Union Solidarity Fund (the ‘Fund’) to show solidarity with the population of regions struck by disasters.

(2)

Article 10 of Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1311/2013 (3) allows the mobilisation of the Fund within the annual ceiling of EUR 500 million (2011 prices).

(3)

Article 4a(4) of Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 foresees that the Fund may be mobilised in an amount up to a maximum of EUR 50 000 000 for the payment of advances and the corresponding appropriations entered into the general budget of the Union,

13.3.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 68/48

(1)

The Union approved the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for certain hazardous chemicals and pesticides in international trade (the ‘Rotterdam Convention’) by Council Decision 2006/730/EC (1).

(2)

Regulation (EU) No 649/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) implements the Rotterdam Convention in the Union.

(3)

In order to ensure that importing countries benefit from the protection offered by the Rotterdam Convention, it is necessary and appropriate to support the recommendation from the Chemical Review Committee as regards the inclusion in Annex III to the Rotterdam Convention of chrysotile asbestos, methamidophos, trichlorfon, fenthion (ultra low volume (ULV) formulations at or above 640 g active ingredient/l) and liquid formulations (emulsifiable concentrate and soluble concentrate) containing paraquat dichloride at or above 276 g/l, corresponding to paraquat ion at or above 200 g/l. Those substances are already banned or severely restricted in the Union and are therefore subject to export requirements which go beyond what is required under the Rotterdam Convention.

(4)

The seventh meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Rotterdam Convention is expected to decide on the proposed amendments to Annex III. The Union should support those amendments,

13.3.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 68/50

(1)

By letter of 13 August 2014, received by the Commission on 1 September 2014, the Croatian authorities notified, pursuant to Article 9(3) of Directive 96/67/EC (hereinafter: ‘the Directive’), the exemption decision of the government of the Republic of Croatia, taken on the basis of Article 9(1)(b) and (d) of the Directive, relating to Zagreb International Airport. The Croatian authorities submitted additional information by letter dated 1 December 2014, received by the Commission on 17 December 2014, completing the notification.

(2)

The notified decision provides for two exemptions. In the first place, it reserves to a single supplier the groundhandling services categories listed under points 3, 4 and 5, with the exception of point 5.1, of the Annex to the Directive, namely baggage handling, freight and mail handling as regards physical handling of freight and mail, whether incoming, outgoing or being transferred between the air terminal and the aircraft, and ramp handling, except for marshalling of the aircraft on the ground. In the second place, it bans self-handling for those three categories of groundhandling services, except for marshalling of the aircraft on the ground. Both exemptions apply for a period of two years, from 1 January 2015 until 31 December 2016.

(3)

Zagreb International Airport is operated by Zagreb International Airport Jsc. The airport handled 2,3 million passengers in 2013.

(4)

Zagreb International Airport currently has one passenger terminal and is in the process of building a new passenger terminal with associated infrastructure (apron, access roads and parking lots). The new terminal will be completed and operational by the end of 2016 at the latest. It will have a capacity of 5 million passengers. The existing terminal will be closed except for use by general aviation and other miscellaneous activities (office rental etc.).

(5)

According to the Croatian authorities, the limitations of the current terminal, both in infrastructure and operational aspects, would not allow for the economic and effective introduction of additional groundhandling services suppliers in the period of construction of the new terminal. Once the building of the new passenger terminal and the new apron will be achieved and its operations started, the space and capacity problems associated with the existing infrastructure would be solved.

(6)

According to the Croatian authorities, access to the market for the provision of baggage handling, ramp handling and freight and mail handling is currently open. However, up to now no third-party suppliers of groundhandling services have submitted an application to be issued an approval and a license for the provision of these groundhandling services at Zagreb International Airport. Those services are currently provided to airport users by the Zagreb International Airport Jsc. through a fully owned subsidiary.

(7)

The freedom to self-handle also applies at Zagreb International Airport. However, only one airline currently self-handles one sub-category of ramp handling services (loading and unloading of food and beverages). No other air carrier has expressed an interest in self-handling.

(8)

Zagreb International Airport has one sorting facility for locally checked baggage and all transfer baggage. The surface area of the sorting facilities is 515 m2. The sorting area is situated at the basement level of the central part of the terminal.

(9)

Zagreb International Airport has one cargo terminal with a total surface area of 2 160 m2 and the entire freight handling process takes place in this warehouse. Due to significant space limitations, this entire process is carried out manually using hand tools and fork lifts. An operational cargo delivery and collection platform with a single entry-exit ramp is located on the bonded warehouse landside.

(10)

The cargo terminal of Zagreb International Airport handles between 8 000 and 8 500 tons of freight and mail annually whereof mail amounts to between 1 000 and 1 500 tons per year.

(11)

Zagreb International Airport has one commercial aviation apron with a total surface area of 140 000 m2 and 22 positions, and a general aviation apron with a total surface area of 28 000 m2 and capacity of 20 aircraft.

(12)

Pursuant to Article 9(3) of the Directive, the Commission published a summary of the exemption decision notified by the Croatian authorities in the Official Journal of the European Union and invited interested parties to submit comments.

(13)

The Commission received one comment from a groundhandling services provider, requesting information if a tender procedure would be organised during the exemption period so that the selected groundhandler could start operations once the exemption period has expired. No other comments were received from interested parties.

(14)

The Croatian authorities based their exemption decision on Article 9(1)(b) and (d) of the Directive, which allow in case of specific constraints of available space or capacity to reserve to a single supplier one or more of the categories referred to in Article 6(2) and to ban self-handling for the categories referred to in Article 7(2) of the Directive.

(15)

In accordance with Article 9(2)(a) of the Directive, the Croatian authorities have specified that the two exemptions apply to the groundhandling services categories listed under points 3, 4 and 5, with the exception of point 5.1, of the Annex to the Directive, namely baggage handling, freight and mail handling and ramp handling except for marshalling the aircraft on the ground.

(16)

As regards baggage handling, the Commission considers that, through the information submitted, the Croatian authorities have demonstrated that it is not possible to accommodate a second third-party handler in addition to the airport's groundhandling services department or any self-handling airport user.

(17)

Operational space is limited and narrow and baggage cart manoeuvring is difficult. Baggage sorting during peak load periods when both check-in sections are in operation is particularly problematic. There is therefore not enough space to allow for more than one operator to operate effectively.

(18)

It is not possible to solve this space problem at the current location, as the location of the baggage sorting facility makes it impossible to expand the facility to other areas. The use of an underground level would not be a feasible solution due to the groundwater level and associated risk of flooding. An external location for the construction of an extension of the sorting facility would also require significant reconstructions which would greatly affect the existing traffic processes and would generate great expenses while the efficiency of such installation would be questionable.

(19)

As regards freight and mail handling, the Commission considers that, through the information submitted, the Croatian authorities have demonstrated that it is not possible to accommodate a second third-party handler in addition to the airport's groundhandling services department or any self-handling airport user.

(20)

The cargo terminal is of limited size. The cargo delivery and collection platform only has one single entry-exit ramp which significantly reduces the operational functions of the platform when several tow trucks are parked within the enclosed space while waiting or performing loading and unloading tasks. There is therefore no space to accommodate an additional operator.

(21)

The Commission also notes in this context that the volume of freight and mail is around 8 000 and 8 500 tonnes of freight and mail annually, which is well below the threshold of 50 000 tonnes of freight in the Directive for the obligation to open groundhandling for third parties and to allow self-handling.

(22)

As regards ramp handling, with the exception of marshalling the aircraft on the ground at arrival and departure, the Commission considers that, through the information submitted, the Croatian authorities have demonstrated that it is not possible to accommodate a second third-party handler in addition to the airport's groundhandling subsidiary or any self-handling airport user.

(23)

The flight schedule of Zagreb International Airport is characterized by three short-duration peak loads, namely a morning peak load, an afternoon peak load and an evening peak load. During this peak loads numerous different equipment units have to be put in operation during relatively short periods of time to meet all requirements related to timely aircraft handling.

(24)

Parking space for such large number of equipment units presents a problem. Taking into account the area occupied by buildings and other developments, there is no available space in the vicinity of the aircraft parking position to accommodate parking for additional new equipment units. Parking space required for the existing equipment presents already a problem for the airport management. The problem is even greater during the winter season, when snow removal and disposal service vehicles are also parked within the limited parking space. Due to this lack of parking space it is therefore not possible to accommodate a second operator.

(25)

The above constraints due to the lack of parking space do not apply to the marshalling of the aircraft on the ground, however, as not bulky equipment is needed for those services. Those services are not covered by the exemption decision notified by the Croatian authorities and there will therefore be no limitations in the number of suppliers for the marshalling of the aircraft at Zagreb International Airport.

(26)

It further appears from the information available to the Commission that the construction of a new terminal at Zagreb International Airport started in December 2013. The first phase of the construction of a new terminal is expected to be finalised in 2016 and the terminal is expected to be operational by the end of 2016. The new terminal will have a capacity of 5 million passengers annually and will feature a new fully integrated baggage system, a new apron as well as new taxiways and service roads. The Croatian authorities explained that the construction and operation of the new terminal will solve the existing space and capacity constraints. The construction and operation of the new terminal can therefore be considered as an appropriate measure to overcome the constraints in accordance with Article 9(2)(b).

(27)

The exemptions laid down in the exception decision notified by the Croatian authorities are limited in time, namely for the period of two years. They therefore respect the requirements set out in Article 9(6) of the Directive.

(28)

Finally, in light of the foregoing, and in particular of the current situation at Zagreb International Airport, of the limitations of those exemptions in terms of material and temporal scope and of the measures taken to overcome the existing constraints, the Commission considers that the exemptions do not unduly prejudice the aims of this Directive, do not give rise to distortions of competition between suppliers of groundhandling services and/or self-handling airport users, and do not extend further than necessary, in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 9(2) of the Directive.

(29)

In this connection account has also been taken of the facts that the limitations provided for by the exemptions apply in a non-discriminatory manner to all (potential) suppliers of groundhandling services, apart from the airport's groundhandling services department, and to all self-handling airport users, that to date no groundhandling service provider or airport user has made a request to be entitled to carry out groundhandling activities at Zagreb International Airport although there are currently no access limitations for third-party providers or limitations of the right to self-handle, and that no interested parties submitted objections to the exemption decision. With respect to the comment received regarding a possible tender procedure, the Commission recalls the obligation for the Croatian authorities to comply, in a timely manner, with all relevant rules of Union law in this regard, including Article 11 of the Directive.

(30)

This decision is without prejudice to Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union which prohibits any abuse by one or more undertakings of a dominant position within the internal market or in a substantial part as incompatible with the internal market in so far as it may affect trade between Member States.

(31)

Therefore, in light of the outcome of the examination carried out by the Commission and after having consulted the Republic of Croatia, the exemption decision taken by that Member State pursuant to Article 9(1)(b) and (d) of the Directive relating to Zagreb International Airport, notified to the Commission on 1 September 2014 and 17 December 2014, should be approved.

(32)

The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Advisory Committee referred to in Article 10 of the Directive,

13.3.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 68/54

(1)

Decision ECB/2010/21 (1) lays down the rules for drawing up the annual accounts of the European Central Bank (ECB).

(2)

There is a need to further clarify the valuation approach of securities held for monetary policy purposes.

(3)

Technical clarifications need to be incorporated into Decision ECB/2010/21 following Decision ECB/2014/40 (2) and Decision ECB/2014/45 (3).

(4)

Some further technical changes to Decision ECB/2010/21 are also required.

(5)

Therefore Decision ECB/2010/21 should be amended accordingly,

1.

Article 8 is replaced by the following:

‘Article 8

Balance sheet valuation rules

1.   Current market rates and prices shall be used for balance sheet valuation purposes unless specified otherwise in Annex I.

2.   The revaluation of gold, foreign currency instruments, securities (other than securities classified as held-to-maturity, non-marketable securities, and securities held for monetary policy purposes that are accounted for at amortised costs), as well as financial instruments, both on-balance-sheet and off-balance-sheet, shall be performed at the year-end at mid-market rates and prices.

3.   No distinction shall be made between price and currency revaluation differences for gold, but a single gold revaluation difference shall be accounted for, based on the euro price per defined unit of weight of gold derived from the euro/US dollar exchange rate on the quarterly revaluation date. For foreign exchange, including on-balance-sheet and off-balance-sheet transactions, revaluation shall take place on a currency-by-currency basis. For the purpose of this Article, holdings of SDRs, including designated individual foreign exchange holdings underlying the SDR basket, shall be treated as one holding. For securities, revaluation shall take place on a code-by-code basis, i.e. same ISIN number/type, while any embedded options will not be separated for valuation purposes. Securities held for monetary policy purposes or included in the items “Other financial assets” or “Sundry” shall be treated as separate holdings.

4.   Securities classified as held-to-maturity shall be treated as separate holdings, valued at amortised costs and be subject to impairment. The same treatment shall apply to non-marketable securities and securities held for monetary policy purposes that are accounted for at amortised costs. Securities classified as held-to-maturity may be sold before their maturity in any of the following circumstances:

2.

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

13.3.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 68/69

(1)

Guideline ECB/2010/20 (1) lays down the rules for standardising the accounting and financial reporting of operations undertaken by the national central banks.

(2)

There is a need to further clarify the valuation approach of securities held for monetary policy purposes.

(3)

Technical clarifications need to be incorporated into Guideline ECB/2010/20 following Decision ECB/2014/40 (2) and Decision ECB/2014/45 (3).

(4)

Some further technical changes to Guideline ECB/2010/20 are also required.

(5)

Therefore, Guideline ECB/2010/20 should be amended accordingly,

1.

Article 7 is replaced by the following:

‘Article 7

Balance sheet valuation rules

1.   Current market rates and prices shall be used for balance sheet valuation purposes unless specified otherwise in Annex IV.

2.   The revaluation of gold, foreign currency instruments, securities (other than securities classified as held-to-maturity, non-marketable securities, and securities held for monetary policy purposes that are accounted for at amortised costs), as well as financial instruments, both on-balance-sheet and off-balance-sheet, shall be performed as at the quarterly revaluation date at mid-market rates and prices. This shall not preclude reporting entities from revaluing their portfolios on a more frequent basis for internal purposes, provided that they report items in their balance sheets only at transaction value during the quarter.

3.   No distinction shall be made between price and currency revaluation differences for gold, but a single gold revaluation difference shall be accounted for, based on the euro price per defined unit of weight of gold derived from the euro/US dollar exchange rate on the quarterly revaluation date. For foreign exchange, including on-balance-sheet and off-balance-sheet transactions, revaluation shall take place on a currency-by-currency basis. For the purpose of this Article, holdings of SDRs, including designated individual foreign exchange holdings underlying the SDR basket, shall be treated as one holding. For securities, revaluation shall take place on a code-by-code basis, i.e. same ISIN number/type, while any embedded options will not be separated for valuation purposes. Securities held for monetary policy purposes or included in the items “Other financial assets” or “Sundry” shall be treated as separate holdings.

4.   Revaluation bookings shall be reversed at the end of the next quarter, except for unrealised losses taken to the profit and loss account at the end of the year; any transactions during the quarter shall be reported at transaction prices and rates.

5.   Securities classified as held-to-maturity shall be treated as separate holdings, valued at amortised costs and be subject to impairment. The same treatment shall apply to non-marketable securities and securities held for monetary policy purposes that are accounted for at amortised costs. Securities classified as held-to-maturity may be sold before their maturity in any of the following circumstances:

2.

in Article 13, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:

‘2.   Premiums or discounts arising on issued and purchased securities shall be calculated and presented as part of interest income and shall be amortised over the remaining contractual life of the securities, either according to the straight-line method or the internal rate of return (IRR) method. The IRR method shall, however, be mandatory for discount securities with a remaining maturity of more than one year at the time of acquisition.’

3.

in Article 15, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:

‘2.   Interest rate swaps, futures, forward rate agreements, other interest rate instruments and options, with the exception of options embedded in securities, shall be accounted for and revalued on an item-by-item basis. These instruments shall be treated separately from on-balance-sheet items.’

4.

Article 19 is amended as follows:

5.

in Article 22, paragraph 6 is replaced by the following:

‘6.   With the exception of options embedded in securities, every option contract shall be individually revalued. Unrealised losses taken to the profit and loss account shall not be reversed in subsequent years against unrealised gains. Unrealised revaluation gains shall be credited to a revaluation account. There shall be no netting of unrealised losses in any one option against unrealised gains in any other option.’

6.

in Annex II, the following definition is added:

‘—    Central clearing counterparty (CCP) : a legal person that interposes itself between the counterparties to the contracts traded on one or more financial markets, becoming the buyer to every seller and the seller to every buyer.’

7.

in Annex III, point 2.2 is replaced by the following:

;

8.

Annex IV is replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Guideline.