(1)

On 18 June 2007, the Council authorised the Commission to negotiate a Protocol to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an Association between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the People's Democratic Republic of Algeria, of the other part (1), on a Framework Agreement between the European Union and the People's Democratic Republic of Algeria on the general principles for the participation of the People's Democratic Republic of Algeria in Union programmes (‘the Protocol’).

(2)

The negotiations have been concluded.

(3)

The objective of the Protocol is to lay down the financial and technical rules enabling the People's Democratic Republic of Algeria to participate in certain Union programmes. The horizontal framework established by the Protocol constitutes an economic, financial and technical cooperation measure which allows for access to assistance, in particular financial assistance, to be provided by the Union pursuant to the Union programmes. This framework applies only to those Union programmes for which the relevant constitutive legal acts provide for the possibility of the participation of the People's Democratic Republic of Algeria. The signing and provisional application of the Protocol therefore does not entail the exercise of powers, under the various sectoral policies pursued by the programmes, which are exercised when establishing the programmes.

(4)

The Protocol should be signed on behalf of the Union and applied on a provisional basis, subject to the completion of the procedures necessary for its conclusion,

(1)

Algeria has concluded a Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an Association between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and Algeria, of the other part (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Agreement’), which entered into force on 1 September 2005.

(2)

The Brussels European Council of 17 and 18 June 2004 welcomed the European Commission's proposals for a European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) and endorsed the Council conclusions of 14 June 2004.

(3)

The Council has since adopted conclusions in favour of this policy on numerous occasions.

(4)

On 5 March 2007, the Council expressed support for the general and comprehensive approach outlined in the Commission's communication of 4 December 2006 to enable European Neighbourhood Policy partner countries to participate in Community agencies and Community programmes on their merits and where authorised by the legal bases.

(5)

Algeria has expressed its wish to participate in a number of Union programmes.

(6)

The specific terms and conditions, including the financial contribution and reporting and evaluation procedures, applicable to Algeria's participation in each particular Union programme should be determined in an agreement between the European Commission and the competent Algerian authorities,

(1)

Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 53(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Commission has examined Italy's application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the protected designation of origin ‘Pecorino Toscano’, registered under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1263/96 (2) as amended by Regulation (EU) No 306/2010 (3).

(2)

Since the amendments in question are not minor within the meaning of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Commission published the amendment application in the Official Journal of the European Union (4) as required by Article 50(2)(a) of that Regulation.

(3)

As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the amendments to the specification should be approved,

(1)

Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 53(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Commission has examined Italy's application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the protected geographical indication ‘Ciliegia di Vignola’, registered under Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1032/2012 (2).

(2)

Since the amendments in question are not minor within the meaning of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Commission published the amendment application in the Official Journal of the European Union (3) as required by Article 50(2)(a) of that Regulation.

(3)

As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the amendments to the specification should be approved,

(1)

Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 53(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Commission has examined the United Kingdom's application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the protected geographical indication ‘Welsh Beef’, registered under Commission Regulation (EC) No 2066/2002 (2) as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 97/2011 (3).

(2)

Since the amendments in question are not minor within the meaning of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Commission published the amendment application in the Official Journal of the European Union (4) as required by Article 50(2)(a) of that Regulation.

(3)

As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the amendments to the specification should be approved,

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 (3) lays down veterinary certification requirements for imports into and transit, including storage during transit, through the Union of poultry and poultry products (‘the commodities’). It provides that the commodities may only be imported into and transit through the Union from the third countries, territories, zones or compartments listed in columns 1 and 3 of the table in Part 1 of Annex I thereto.

(2)

Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 also lays down the conditions for a third country, territory, zone or compartment to be considered as free from highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI).

(3)

Canada is listed in Part 1 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 as a third country from which imports into and transit through the Union of the commodities covered by that Regulation are authorised from certain parts of its territory depending on the presence of HPAI outbreaks. That regionalisation was recognised by Regulation (EC) No 798/2008, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/198 (4) following outbreaks of HPAI in the Province of British Columbia.

(4)

An Agreement between the Union and Canada (5) provides for a swift mutual recognition of regionalisation measures in the event of outbreaks of a disease in the Union or in Canada (‘the Agreement’).

(5)

On 8 April 2015, Canada confirmed an outbreak of HPAI of subtype H5N2 in poultry in the Province of Ontario. The veterinary authorities of Canada immediately suspended issuing veterinary certificates for consignments of commodities intended for export to the Union from its whole territory. Canada has also implemented a stamping-out policy in order to control HPAI and limit its spread.

(6)

Following that outbreak in the Province of Ontario, Canada submitted updated information on the epidemiological situation on its territory and the measures it has taken to prevent the further spread of HPAI which has now been evaluated by the Commission. On the basis of that evaluation, as well as the commitments laid down in the Agreement and the guarantees provided by Canada, it is appropriate to conclude that limiting the restrictions on the introduction into the Union of the commodities to the area affected by HPAI, which the veterinary authorities of Canada have placed under restrictions due to the HPAI outbreaks in the Provinces of British Columbia and Ontario, should be sufficient to cover the risks associated with the introduction into the Union of the commodities.

(7)

Canada has further reported the completion of cleaning and disinfection measures following stamping-out on holdings where outbreaks had been detected between December 2014 and February 2015 in the Province of British Columbia. It is therefore appropriate to indicate the dates when these parts of the territory that were placed under veterinary restrictions in relation to these outbreaks may again be considered HPAI free and imports into the Union of certain poultry commodities originating from these areas should be re-authorised.

(8)

The entry for Canada in the list in Part 1 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 should therefore be amended to take account of the current epidemiological situation in that third country.

(9)

Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 should therefore be amended accordingly.

(10)

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

(1)

A need for accelerated renewal or maintenance resulting from a more intense use of the network may be taken into account for the purposes of calculation of direct costs, provided it is ensured that only costs directly incurred as a result of operating the train service are included.

(2)

Infrastructure managers are under the obligation to operate networks whilst they face restrictions hampering efficient management and cost control. Consequently, Member States should have the opportunity to set direct costs at the level of costs of efficient service provision.

(3)

Setting the track access charge at the costs directly incurred by the train service should not set out to cause that the infrastructure manager to experience either a net financial loss or a net financial gain as a result of operation of the train service.

(4)

Historical asset values should be based on the amounts paid for acquisition of assets by the infrastructure manager provided that the infrastructure manager remains liable for such amounts.

(5)

The infrastructure manager should not be allowed to recover the cost of investment in an asset where it is not obliged to repay that cost.

(6)

Since the modalities for the calculation of the cost that is directly incurred as a result of operating the train service should be applicable throughout the Union, they should be compatible with the existing infrastructure cost accounting systems and cost data applied by the infrastructure managers.

(7)

The use of forecast costs and performance levels should not give rise, under usual business circumstances, to higher levels of direct costs, track access charges and eventually an ineffective use of the network. Therefore historic asset values should be applied and only if such values are not available, or where current values are lower, could current values be considered. Alternatively, estimated values or replacement values, forecast costs and forecast performance levels could be used provided the infrastructure manager substantiates to the regulatory body how it established them and that it established them objectively.

(8)

The infrastructure manager should be allowed to include in the calculation of its direct costs only costs that it can objectively and robustly demonstrate that they are triggered directly by the operation of the train service. For example, wear and tear of track-side signals and signal boxes does not vary with traffic and therefore should not be subject to a direct cost-based charge (2). Conversely, parts, such as point infrastructure, will be exposed to wear and tear by operating the train service and thus should partially be subject to a direct cost charge. As sensors become more widely deployed on trains and infrastructure, these could provide additional information on the actual wear and tear caused by the train service.

(9)

The Court of Justice delivered a judgment on the calculation of direct costs incurred by operating the train service (3). This Regulation takes that judgement into account.

(10)

Electric supply equipment such as cables or transformers are generally not subject to wear and tear by the operation of the train service. These are neither exposed to friction nor to other impacts caused by the operation of the train service. Therefore these costs of electric supply equipment should not be included in the calculation of costs directly incurred by an operation of the train service. However, trains, when they use electric traction, wear down the contact medium (overhead wire or the electrified third rail) due to friction and the electric arcs they cause. Consequently, a part of the maintenance and renewal costs of these contact mediums could be considered as directly incurred by operation of the train service. Maintenance and renewal costs of other components of overhead line equipment can also degrade as a direct result of traffic movements which cause electrical and mechanical stress.

(11)

The use of vehicles or railway lines with certain design features results in different levels of direct costs incurred by the train service. Member States may allow their infrastructure managers to modulate average direct costs in accordance with, inter alia, best international practice to reflect such differences.

(12)

It is a well-established economic principle that user charges based on marginal costs ensure the optimum effective use of available infrastructure capacity. Hence, the infrastructure manager may decide to use the proxy of marginal costs for calculating its cost directly incurred as a result of operating the train service.

(13)

Furthermore, international best practice (4) has established methods and models such as econometric or engineering modelling, to calculate the marginal costs of infrastructure use. At the same time, international best practice will continue to develop as further independent analysis and research — verified independently of the infrastructure manager, such as by the Regulatory Body — is undertaken, including analysis and research which may be specific to an individual Member State because of particular infrastructure characteristics. Consequently, the infrastructure manager should be allowed to use such models to identify the direct costs incurred by the operation of the train service.

(14)

Different forms of econometric or engineering modelling might offer a higher degree of precision in calculating direct costs or marginal costs of the use of infrastructure. However, cost modelling requires a higher level of data quality and expertise than methods based on deducting from the full costs certain non-eligible cost categories. Moreover, regulatory bodies may not yet be able to verify the compliance of a concrete calculation with the provisions of Directive 2012/34/EU. Consequently, where these higher requirements are met, the infrastructure manager should be given the right to calculate direct costs on the basis of econometric or engineering modelling or a combination of both.

(15)

Regulatory bodies should be able to check whether the different charging principles are applied consistently with the information the infrastructure manager provided to them. Therefore, Annex IV of Directive 2012/34/EU requires the infrastructure manager to detail in the network statement the methodology, rules and, where applicable, scales as regards both costs and charges.

(16)

International studies (5) calculated values of direct unit costs in close collaboration with infrastructure managers. Although these studies analysed various methods used in Member States for different fleet compositions and different destinations, many values of direct costs per train kilometres were found to be below EUR 2 (at 2005 prices and exchange rates, using an appropriate price index) per train km of a 1 000 t train. To curb administrative effort for regulatory bodies, the same degree of detail should not be required of the calculation of direct costs when their value remains below this level.

(17)

For different reasons, such as productivity gains, the spread of new technologies or a better understanding of cost causation, the calculation of direct costs should be updated or reviewed regularly in accordance with, inter alia, best international practice.

(18)

Given that railway undertakings need predictable charging systems and have reasonable expectations for the development of infrastructure charges, the infrastructure manager should provide a phasing-in plan for railway undertakings operating the train services that may see their charges significantly increase following a review of the implementation of the existing calculation modalities, if such a phase-in plan is required by the regulatory body.

(19)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee referred to in Article 62(1) of Directive 2012/34/EU,

(1)

‘direct cost’ means the cost which is directly incurred as a result of operating the train service;

(2)

‘direct unit cost’ means the direct cost per train kilometre, vehicle kilometre, gross tonne kilometre of a train, or a combination of those;

(3)

‘cost centre’ means a business unit within the infrastructure manager's accounting system to which costs are allocated for the sake of apportioning those costs directly or indirectly to a marketable service.

(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 Decision 2007/777/EC (2) lays down animal and public health rules for imports into the Union and the transit and storage in the Union of consignments of meat products and treated stomachs, bladders and intestines (‘the commodities’).

(2)

Part 1 of Annex II to Decision 2007/777/EC describes the areas of third countries for which the introduction into the Union of the commodities is restricted for animal health reasons and for which regionalisation is applied. Part 2 of that Annex sets out a list of third countries or parts thereof from which the introduction into the Union of the commodities is authorised, provided that the commodities have undergone the relevant treatment, as set out in Part 4 of that Annex.

(3)

Canada is listed in Part 2 of Annex II to Decision 2007/777/EC as a third country from which imports into and transit through the Union of commodities obtained from poultry, farmed feathered game and wild game birds are authorised from the whole territory or certain parts of its territory. The regionalisation of Canada was recognised by Decision 2007/777/EC as amended by Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/204 (3) following outbreaks of HPAI in poultry in the Province of British Columbia in Canada. Decision 2007/777/EC provides that commodities from the affected area may be authorised for introduction into the Union after being subjected to treatment ‘D’ as set out in Part 4 of Annex II to Decision 2007/777/EC (‘treatment D’).

(4)

Canada confirmed a new outbreak of HPAI in poultry in the Province of Ontario during April 2015. The veterinary authorities of Canada immediately suspended issuing veterinary certificates for consignments of the concerned commodities intended for introduction to the Union from the entire territory of Canada due to this new outbreak. Canada has also implemented a stamping-out policy in order to control HPAI and limit its spread.

(5)

An Agreement between the Union and Canada (4) provides for a swift mutual recognition of regionalisation measures in the event of outbreaks of disease in the Union or in Canada (‘the Agreement’).

(6)

Based on the new outbreak of HPAI in Canada in the Province of Ontario, commodities obtained from poultry, farmed feathered game and wild game birds from those parts of that Province that the veterinary authorities of Canada have placed under restrictions should undergo at least ‘treatment D’ in order to prevent the introduction of the HPAI virus into the Union.

(7)

In relation to HPAI outbreaks in British Columbia regionalisation of the Canadian territory was also recognised by Commission Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 (5), as amended by Commission Implementing Regulations (EU) 2015/198 (6) and (EU) 2015/908 (7) for imports of certain poultry commodities falling within the scope of that Regulation.

(8)

For reasons of consistency, the description of the territories in Part 1 of Annex II to Decision 2007/777/EC should refer to the regionalisation as described in column 3 of the table in Part 1 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 subject to the dates referred to in columns 6A and 6B of that table.

(9)

Part 1 of Annex II to Decision 2007/777/EC should therefore be amended.

(10)

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

(1)

According to Commission Implementing Decision 2013/493/EU (2), the 21st region where the collection and transmission of data to the Visa Information System (VIS) for all applications should start comprises Andorra, the Holy See, Monaco, and San Marino, the 22nd region where the collection and transmission of data to the VIS for all applications should start comprises Ireland and the United Kingdom, and the 23rd region where the collection and transmission of data to the VIS for all applications should start comprises Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland.

(2)

Member States have notified the Commission that they have made the necessary technical and legal arrangements to collect and transmit the data referred to in Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 767/2008 to the VIS for all applications in these regions, including arrangements for the collection and/or transmission of the data on behalf of another Member State.

(3)

The condition laid down by the first sentence of Article 48(3) of Regulation (EC) No 767/2008 thus being fulfilled, it is therefore necessary to determine the date from which the VIS is to start operations in the 21st, 22nd and 23rd regions.

(4)

Given that Regulation (EC) No 767/2008 builds upon the Schengen acquis, Denmark, in accordance with Article 5 of the Protocol on the position of Denmark annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty establishing the European Community, decided to implement Regulation (EC) No 767/2008 in its national law. Denmark is therefore bound under international law to implement this Decision.

(5)

This Decision constitutes a development of provisions of the Schengen acquis in which the United Kingdom does not take part, in accordance with Council Decision 2000/365/EC (3). The United Kingdom is therefore not bound by this Decision or subject to its application.

(6)

This Decision constitutes a development of provisions of the Schengen acquis in which Ireland does not take part, in accordance with Council Decision 2002/192/EC (4). Ireland is therefore not bound by this Decision or subject to its application.

(7)

As regards Iceland and Norway, this Decision constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis within the meaning of the Agreement concluded by the Council of the European Union and the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway concerning the latters' association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis (5), which fall within the area referred to in Article 1, point B of Council Decision 1999/437/EC (6).

(8)

As regards Switzerland, this Decision constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis within the meaning of the Agreement between the European Union, the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on the Swiss Confederation's association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis (7), which fall within the area referred to in Article 1, point B of Decision 1999/437/EC read in conjunction with Article 3 of Council Decision 2008/146/EC (8).

(9)

As regards Liechtenstein, this Decision constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis within the meaning of the Protocol between the European Union, the European Community, the Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein on the accession of the Principality of Liechtenstein to the Agreement between the European Union, the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on the Swiss Confederation's association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis (9), which fall within the area referred to in Article 1, point B of Decision 1999/437/EC read in conjunction with Article 3 of Council Decision 2011/350/EU (10).

(10)

As regards Cyprus, this Decision constitutes an act building upon, or otherwise related to, the Schengen acquis within, respectively, the meaning of Article 3(2) of the 2003 Act of Accession, of Article 4(2) of the 2005 Act of Accession and of Article 4(2) of the 2011 Act of Accession.

(11)

In view of the need to set the date for the start of the VIS in the 21st, 22nd and 23rd region in the very near future, this Decision should enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union,

(1)

According to Commission Implementing Decision 2013/493/EU (2), the twentieth region where the collection and transmission of data to the Visa Information System (VIS) for all applications should start comprises Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri-Lanka.

(2)

Member States have notified the Commission that they have made the necessary technical and legal arrangements to collect and transmit the data referred to in Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 767/2008 to the VIS for all applications in this region, including arrangements for the collection and/or transmission of the data on behalf of another Member State.

(3)

The condition laid down by the first sentence of Article 48(3) of Regulation (EC) No 767/2008 thus being fulfilled, it is therefore necessary to determine the date from which the VIS is to start operations in the twentieth region.

(4)

Given that Regulation (EC) No 767/2008 builds upon the Schengen acquis, Denmark, in accordance with Article 5 of the Protocol on the position of Denmark annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty establishing the European Community, decided to implement Regulation (EC) No 767/2008 in its national law. Denmark is therefore bound under international law to implement this Decision.

(5)

This Decision constitutes a development of provisions of the Schengen acquis in which the United Kingdom does not take part, in accordance with Council Decision 2000/365/EC (3). The United Kingdom is therefore not bound by this Decision or subject to its application.

(6)

This Decision constitutes a development of provisions of the Schengen acquis in which Ireland does not take part, in accordance with Council Decision 2002/192/EC (4). Ireland is therefore not bound by this Decision or subject to its application.

(7)

As regards Iceland and Norway, this Decision constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis within the meaning of the Agreement concluded by the Council of the European Union and the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway concerning the latters' association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis (5), which fall within the area referred to in Article 1, point B of Council Decision 1999/437/EC (6).

(8)

As regards Switzerland, this Decision constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis within the meaning of the Agreement between the European Union, the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on the Swiss Confederation's association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis (7), which fall within the area referred to in Article 1, point B of Decision 1999/437/EC read in conjunction with Article 3 of Council Decision 2008/146/EC (8).

(9)

As regards Liechtenstein, this Decision constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis within the meaning of the Protocol between the European Union, the European Community, the Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein on the accession of the Principality of Liechtenstein to the Agreement between the European Union, the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on the Swiss Confederation's association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis (9), which fall within the area referred to in Article 1, point B of Decision 1999/437/EC read in conjunction with Article 3 of Council Decision 2011/350/EU (10).

(10)

This Decision constitutes an act building upon, or otherwise related to, the Schengen acquis within respectively, the meaning of Article 3(2) of the 2003 Act of Accession, of Article 4(2) of the 2005 Act of Accession and of Article 4(2) of the 2011 Act of Accession.

(11)

In view of the need to set the date for the start of the VIS in the twentieth region in the very near future, this Decision should enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union,

(1)

The European Council meeting in extraordinary session on 23 April 2015 recalled the seriousness of the situation in the Mediterranean and expressed its determination that the Union should mobilise all efforts at its disposal to prevent further loss of life at sea and to tackle the root causes of the humanitarian emergency. The European Council further committed to set up a first voluntary pilot project on resettlement across the Union, offering places to persons qualifying for protection (1).

(2)

In its resolution of 29 April 2015, the European Parliament called upon the Member States to make greater contributions to existing resettlement programmes and stressed the need to ensure safe and legal access to the Union asylum system (2).

(3)

There is currently a significant imbalance between Member States as regards the commitment to resettle persons. Only 15 Member States and three Associated States have a resettlement programme (with one further Member State announcing the start of a resettlement programme), three Member States and one Associated State have carried out resettlement on an ad hoc basis, while the others do not engage in resettlement at all.

(4)

In 2014, the number of asylum applicants in the Union reached a peak of 626 000, while 6 380 third-country nationals in need of international protection were resettled in the Union (3). The number of refugees, asylum-seekers and internally displaced people worldwide in 2013 exceeded 50 million people, for the first time since World War II (4).

(5)

The Justice and Home Affairs Council Conclusions of 10 October 2014 acknowledged that ‘[…] while taking into account the efforts carried out by Member States affected by migratory flows, all Member States should give their contribution to [resettlement] in a fair and balanced manner’ (5).

(6)

On 13 May 2015, the Commission presented a comprehensive European Agenda on Migration (6) that, inter alia, defines a set of immediate measures tailored to respond to the human tragedy in the whole of the Mediterranean.

(7)

To avoid displaced persons in need of protection having to resort to the criminal networks of smugglers and traffickers, the Agenda calls the European Union to step up its resettlement efforts. Accordingly, the Commission is making this Recommendation proposing for an EU-wide resettlement scheme to offer 20 000 places on the basis of a distribution key.

(8)

In case Associated States decide to participate, the distribution key and allocations per each Member State and participating Associated State would be adapted accordingly.

(9)

In the light of previous discussions during a dedicated meeting of the Resettlement and Relocation Forum on 25 November 2014, the distribution key should be based on (a) the size of the population (40 % weighting), (b) the total GDP (40 % weighting), (c) the average number of spontaneous asylum applications and the number of resettled refugees per million inhabitants over the period 2010-2014 (10 % weighting), and (d) the unemployment rate (10 % weighting).

(10)

A total of 20 000 persons should be admitted to the Union during a 2-year period of implementation of this scheme by the Member States. The responsibility for hosting such persons should lie solely with the participating States, in line with the relevant Union and international rules. This corresponds to the call by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) who urged European countries to make larger commitments to receive refugees through sustainable resettlement programmes, endorsing the campaign led by the International Organisation for Migration and five non-governmental organisations.

(11)

In identifying the priority regions, the situation in the neighbourhood and the current migratory flows should be taken into account, in particular the link with the Regional Development and Protection Programmes in the Middle East, North Africa and the Horn of Africa.

(12)

The experience and expertise of the UNHCR and other relevant bodies, including the European Asylum Support Office, should be called upon to assist in the implementation of the resettlement scheme.

(13)

Measures should be taken in order to avoid secondary movements of resettled persons from the State of resettlement to other Member States and participating Associated States.

(14)

The Commission envisages contributing to the scheme by making available an extra EUR 50 million in the years 2015 and 2016 under the Union Resettlement Programme, set out in Article 17 of Regulation (EU) No 516/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council (7). In order to optimise the use of the financial incentives, the Commission will adjust the lump sums and resettlement priorities provided for in that programme through a delegated act, in accordance with Article 17(4) and (10) of Regulation (EU) No 516/2014. In case the Associated States decide to participate in the resettlement scheme, they could not benefit from lump sums under Regulation (EU) No 516/2014 in compensation for their pledges,

(1)

The Agreement was signed on 21 June 1999 and entered into force on 1 June 2002.

(2)

Annex III (Mutual recognition of professional qualifications) to the Agreement was replaced by Decision No 2/2011 of the EU-Swiss Joint Committee (2) and should be updated to take into account new legal acts of the European Union and Switzerland since that date,