26.6.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 161/1

(1)

On 23 March 2012, the Council adopted Regulation (EU) No 267/2012.

(2)

In accordance with Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1008 (2), one person and eight entities should be removed from the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures, set out in Annex IX to Regulation (EU) No 267/2012.

(3)

In addition, the entries concerning six entities subject to restrictive measures, set out in Annex IX to Regulation (EU) No 267/2012, should be amended.

(4)

Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 should therefore be amended accordingly,

26.6.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 161/5

(1)

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

(2)

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

26.6.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 161/6

(1)

In accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 53(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Commission has examined France's application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the protected designation of origin ‘Saint-Nectaire’, registered under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 (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,

26.6.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 161/7

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 (3) lays down detailed rules for implementing the system of additional import duties and fixes representative prices in the poultrymeat and egg sectors and for egg albumin.

(2)

Regular monitoring of the data used to determine representative prices for poultrymeat and egg products and for egg albumin shows that the representative import prices for certain products should be amended to take account of variations in price according to origin.

(3)

Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 should be amended accordingly.

(4)

Given the need to ensure that this measure applies as soon as possible after the updated data have been made available, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication,

26.6.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 161/9

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 (2) sets maximum levels for certain contaminants in foodstuffs.

(2)

The Scientific Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain (Contam Panel) of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) adopted an opinion on lead in food on 18 March 2010 (3). The Contam Panel identified developmental neurotoxicity in young children and cardiovascular effects and nephrotoxicity in adults as potential critical adverse effects of lead on which to base the risk assessment. It further indicated that protection of children and women of child-bearing age against the potential risk of neurodevelopmental effects is sufficient to protect all populations from the other adverse effects of lead. It is therefore appropriate to reduce the dietary exposure to lead in food by lowering existing maximum levels and setting additional maximum levels for lead in relevant commodities.

(3)

Maximum levels already exist for infant formulae and follow-on formulae. In order to further guarantee a continued lowering of dietary exposure of infants and young children, existing maximum levels should be lowered and new maximum levels established for processed cereal-based foods and baby foods for infants and young children, food for special medical purposes for infants and young children and drinks, which are highly consumed by this vulnerable group of consumers.

(4)

New occurrence data show that some of the existing exemptions from default maximum levels are no longer necessary as the default maximum levels can be complied with by following good practices or that lower maximum levels would be achievable. Specific maximum levels are therefore no longer necessary for brassica other than leafy brassica, fresh legumes, most of the berries and small fruits while existing maximum levels should be lowered for cephalopods, most fruiting vegetables, most fruit juices, wine and aromatised wine.

(5)

For salsify, compliance with current maximum levels is difficult. Since consumption of this commodity is low and effects on human exposure are negligible, it is appropriate to raise the maximum levels of lead for salsify.

(6)

Erratic findings of high levels of lead in honey have triggered enforcement actions by Member States at differing levels of lead. Differences in rules adopted by the Member States may hinder the functioning of the common market, therefore a harmonised maximum level for lead in honey should be set.

(7)

As consumption of tea and herbal infusions can be an important contributor to dietary exposure, a maximum level for these commodities should be established. However, in absence of data on dry tea leaves and dry parts of other plants for the preparation of herbal infusions allowing the establishment of such a maximum level, occurrence data should be collected in view of the possible establishment of a specific maximum level in the future.

(8)

Legislation related to processed cereal-based foods, baby foods for infants and young children and dietary foods for special medical purposes has been replaced necessitating changes to certain endnotes.

(9)

Member States and food business operators should be allowed time to adapt to the new maximum levels established by this Regulation. The date of application of the maximum levels of lead should therefore be deferred.

(10)

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

26.6.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 161/14

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 (2) sets maximum levels for certain contaminants in foodstuffs.

(2)

The Scientific Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain (CONTAM Panel) of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) adopted an opinion on arsenic in food (3) on 12 October 2009. In this opinion, CONTAM Panel concluded that the provisional tolerable weekly intake (PTWI) of 15 μg/kg body weight established by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) is no longer appropriate as data had shown that inorganic arsenic causes cancer of the lung and urinary bladder in addition to skin, and that a range of adverse effects had been reported at exposures lower than those reviewed by the JECFA.

(3)

CONTAM Panel identified a range of benchmark dose lower confidence limit (BMDL01) values between 0,3 and 8 μg/kg b.w. per day for cancers of the lung, skin and bladder, as well as skin lesions. The scientific opinion concluded that the estimated dietary exposures to inorganic arsenic for average and high level consumers in Europe are within the range of the BMDL01 values identified, and that therefore there is little or no margin of exposure and the possibility of a risk to some consumers cannot be excluded.

(4)

The scientific opinion identified high consumers of rice in Europe, such as certain ethnic groups, and children under three years of age as the most exposed to inorganic arsenic dietary exposure. Dietary exposure to inorganic arsenic for children under three years old, including from rice-based foods, is in general estimated to be about 2 to 3-fold that of adults.

(5)

Since the analysis of inorganic arsenic is reliable for rice and rice based products, maximum levels for inorganic arsenic should be set for rice and rice based products. Differentiated maximum levels should be proposed in view of the arsenic content.

(6)

The scientific information on the need for a specific maximum level for parboiled milled rice is very recent. Therefore, Member States should collect additional data before 1 January 2018 on the inorganic arsenic content of this commodity in order to confirm the need for a specific maximum level for this commodity and to reassess the maximum limit.

(7)

The occurrence data demonstrate that rice waffles, rice wafers, rice crackers and rice cakes can contain high levels of inorganic arsenic and these commodities can make an important contribution to the dietary exposure of infants and young children. Therefore, a specific maximum level for these commodities should be envisaged.

(8)

Rice is an important ingredient in a broad variety of food for infants and young children. Therefore, a specific maximum level should be established for this commodity when used as an ingredient for the production of such food.

(9)

Member States and food business operators should be allowed time to adapt to the new maximum levels established by this Regulation. The date of application of the maximum levels of arsenic should therefore be deferred.

(10)

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

26.6.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 161/17

(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,

26.6.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 161/19

(1)

On 26 July 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/413/CFSP.

(2)

In accordance with Article 26(3) of Decision 2010/413/CFSP, the Council has reviewed the list of designated persons and entities set out in Annex II to that Decision.

(3)

One person and eight entities should be removed from the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures, set out in Annex II to Decision 2010/413/CFSP.

(4)

In addition, the entries concerning six entities subject to restrictive measures, set out in Annex II to Decision 2010/413/CFSP, should be amended.

(5)

Decision 2010/413/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly,

26.6.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 161/22

(1)

The particular situation in Libya and in Syria and the lack of disease reporting to the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) does not allow those third countries to provide the necessary assurances regarding compliance or equivalence with the relevant animal health conditions applicable to imports of equidae into the Union as referred to in Directive 2009/156/EC. It is therefore necessary to delete the entries for Libya and Syria from the lists of third countries set out in Annex I to Commission Decisions 92/260/EEC (3) and 93/195/EEC (4), and to delete the entry for Syria from the list of third countries set out in Annex I to Commission Decision 93/197/EEC (5).

(2)

Israel is also included in the lists of third countries set out in Annex I to Decisions 92/260/EEC, 93/195/EEC and 93/197/EEC and in the list of countries set out in footnote 3 of Annex II to Commission Decision 93/196/EEC (6). For the sake of market transparency and in accordance with international law it should be clarified that in the case of Israel the territorial coverage of the veterinary certificates is limited to the territory of the State of Israel, excluding the territories under Israeli administration since June 1967, namely the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem and the rest of the West Bank.

(3)

Since the amendment to the entry for Israel in the respective Annex I to Decisions 92/260/EEC, 93/195/EEC and 93/197/EEC, and in Annex II to Decision 93/196/EEC does not constitute a regionalisation, the amended geographical denomination for Israel should be explained in a new footnote to be added to the respective lists of third countries in the Annexes to those Decisions.

(4)

Decisions 92/260/EEC, 93/195/EEC, 93/196/EEC and 93/197/EEC should therefore be amended accordingly.

(5)

Directive 2009/156/EC provides that imports of equidae into the Union are only authorised from third countries, or parts of the territory of third countries where regionalisation is applied, which have been free from glanders for a period of six months.

(6)

The list of third countries, or parts thereof where regionalisation applies, from which Member States are to authorise the importation of equidae and semen, ova and embryos thereof, is set out in Annex I to Commission Decision 2004/211/EC (7).

(7)

Brazil is currently included in that list of third countries. As glanders occurs in parts of the territory of Brazil, imports of equidae, and of their semen, ova and embryos, are only authorised from region BR-1 of the territory of that third country, as described in column 4 of Annex I to Decision 2004/211/EC. The States of Rio Grande do Sul, Santa Catarina, Mato Grosso do Sul, Goiás, Distrito Federal, Rio de Janeiro are currently included in region BR-1 of Brazil.

(8)

By letter of 20 November 2014, Brazil notified the Commission of the confirmation of a case of glanders in the State of Goiás. As a consequence, Brazil ceased issuing animal health certificates in accordance with Directive 2009/156/EC for the entire group of federal states included in region BR-1.

(9)

On 21 April 2015, Brazil informed the Commission of the measures taken to prevent the introduction of glanders into the areas of that third country eligible for listing in Annex I to Decision 2004/211/EC and provided a list of federal states where that disease is not present. It also confirmed that the State of Rio de Janeiro has remained free of glanders since the last case was reported on 16 July 2012.

(10)

Since the States of Goiás and, according to the list of glanders-free States submitted by Brazil, Santa Catarina are no longer free of glanders, and Brazil has provided guarantees as regards the absence of that disease in the other federal states, of which some are currently included in region BR-1, the entry for that region in Annex I to Decision 2004/211/EC should be amended in order to delete the States of Goiás and Santa Catarina from the current list and to reinstate the State of Paraná.

(11)

The equestrian events of the Olympic Games from 5 to 21 August 2016 and Paralympics from 7 to 21 September 2016, as well as the 2015 pre-Olympic test event from 7 to 9 August 2015 will take place at the Deodoro Equestrian Centre in Rio de Janeiro, which is managed as a separate equine disease-free zone within the State of Rio de Janeiro.

(12)

Therefore, a separate region ‘BR-2’ should be added temporarily to the entry for Brazil in Annex I to Decision 2004/211/EC, comprising the Deodoro Equestrian Centre in Rio de Janeiro in the State of Rio de Janeiro and the connecting road to the Galeão International Airport.

(13)

For the reason explained in recitals No 2 and No 3, the entry for Israel in Annex I to Decision 2004/211/EC should be amended and explained in a new footnote.

(14)

In addition, Decision 2004/211/EC provides that Member States are only to authorise the importation of equidae which meet the animal health requirements laid down in the corresponding model certificates provided for in Decisions 92/260/EEC, 93/195/EEC, 93/196/EEC and 93/197/EEC in respect of the relevant category of equidae, the type of importation and the sanitary group indicated in Annex I to Decision 2004/211/EC to which the third country or part of the territory of the third country of export has been assigned. Therefore the changes made to those Decisions in relation to Libya and Syria must be reflected accordingly in Annex I to Decision 2004/211/EC.

(15)

Unlike in other cases where the importation of equidae is suspended for disease reasons by way of deleting the crosses in columns 6 to 14 of the table in Annex I to 2004/211/EC, the deletion of Libya and Syria from that list of third countries or parts thereof is necessary because this list is used as a reference list for imports into the Union of other commodities, such as certain animal by-products in accordance with Commission Regulation (EU) No 142/2011 (8) and dogs, cats and ferrets in accordance with Commission Implementing Decision 2013/519/EU (9).

(16)

Decisions 92/260/EEC, 93/195/EEC, 93/196/EEC, 93/197/EEC and 2004/211/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.

(17)

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