(1)

Pursuant to Article 8(1) of Regulation (EU) No 978/2012, the tariff preferences under the general arrangement of a generalised scheme of tariff preferences (‘GSP’) shall be suspended, in respect of products of a GSP section originating in a GSP beneficiary country, when the average value of Union imports of such products over three consecutive years from that GSP beneficiary country exceeds the thresholds listed in Annex VI. The thresholds shall be calculated as a percentage of the total value of Union imports of the same products from all GSP beneficiary countries.

(2)

Where the list of GSP beneficiary countries is amended, Regulation (EU) No 978/2012 empowers the Commission to adopt delegated acts to amend Annex VI in order to adjust the modalities listed in that Annex so as to maintain proportionally the same weight of the graduated product sections as defined in Article 8(1).

(3)

With effect from 1 January 2015, Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1421/2013 (2) removed China, Ecuador, the Maldives and Thailand from the list of GSP beneficiary countries listed in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 978/2012. Due to the substantial share of GSP imports represented by those countries, their removal from the list of beneficiaries necessitates the amendment of the modalities listed in Annex VI to Regulation (EU) No 978/2012.

(4)

As a result of all the amendments to the list of countries in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 978/2012 between the entry into force of that Regulation and 1 January 2015, the total imports into the Union from all GSP beneficiary countries taken as an average during the last three consecutive years (2012-2014) would decrease to 30,71 %. Sections S-2a, S-3 and S-5 of Annex V are outliers in the sense that for these sections the total imports into the Union from all GSP beneficiary countries would drop insignificantly (less than 10 %). Therefore, in order to maintain proportionally the same weight of the graduated product sections, the two thresholds listed in Annex VI should be increased to 47,2 % and 57,0 % respectively, except for Sections S-2a, S-3 and S-5 of Annex V, for which the threshold should remain at its present level.

(5)

As Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1421/2013 removed China, Ecuador, the Maldives and Thailand from the list of GSP beneficiary countries with effect from 1 January 2015, for the sake of coherence and legal certainty this Regulation should apply retroactively from 1 January 2015,

(1)

Article 4 of Regulation (EU) No 978/2012 establishes the criteria for granting tariff preferences under the general arrangement of the Generalised Scheme of Preferences (‘GSP’).

(2)

Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 978/2012 provides that a country that has been classified by the World Bank as a high-income or an upper-middle income country for 3 consecutive years should not benefit from GSP.

(3)

Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 978/2012 provides that a country that benefits from a preferential market access arrangement which provides the same tariff preferences as the GSP, or better, for substantially all trade, should not enjoy GSP.

(4)

The list of beneficiary countries of the general GSP referred to in point (a) of Article 1(2) of Regulation (EU) No 978/2012 is established in Annex II to that Regulation. Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 978/2012 lays down that Annex II is to be reviewed by 1 January of each year in order to reflect changes in relation to the criteria laid down in Article 4. Furthermore, it provides that a GSP beneficiary country and economic operators are to be given sufficient time for an orderly adaptation to the country's GSP status revision. Accordingly, the GSP arrangement is to continue for 1 year after the date of entry into force of a change in a country's status on the basis of Article 4(1)(a) and for 2 years from the date of application of a preferential market access arrangement, as provided in Article 4(1)(b).

(5)

Fiji, Iraq, the Marshall Islands and Tonga have been classified by the World Bank as upper-middle income countries in 2013, 2014 and 2015. Accordingly, those countries no longer qualify for GSP beneficiary status under Article 4(1)(a) and should be removed from Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 978/2012. The Regulation to remove a beneficiary country from the list of GSP beneficiary countries should apply as from 1 year after the date of entry into force of that Regulation. In the interests of simplicity and legal certainty, Fiji, Iraq, the Marshall Islands and Tonga should be removed from Annex II with application from 1 January 2017.

(6)

Preferential market access arrangements with the following countries started to apply at various dates in 2014: Georgia on 1 September 2014, Cameroon on 4 August 2014, and Fiji on 28 July 2014. In the interests of simplicity and legal certainty, Georgia and Cameroon should also be removed from Annex II with application from 1 January 2017. As explained in recital 5, Fiji would already be removed from Annex II on the basis of becoming an upper-middle income country.

(7)

Article 9(1) of Regulation (EU) No 978/2012 establishes specific eligibility criteria for granting tariff preferences under the special incentive arrangement for sustainable development and good governance (‘GSP+’). One key condition is that the country must be a GSP beneficiary. The list of GSP+ beneficiaries is established in Annex III to Regulation (EU) No 978/2012.

(8)

As a consequence of its ceasing to be GSP beneficiary as from 1 January 2017, Georgia also ceases to be a GSP+ beneficiary under Article 9(1) of Regulation (EU) No 978/2012. Georgia should therefore also be removed from Annex III to Regulation (EU) No 978/2012 with application from 1 January 2017.

(9)

Article 17(1) of Regulation (EU) No 978/2012 provides that a country which is identified by the United Nations (‘UN’) as a least-developed country should benefit from the tariff preferences under the special arrangement for the least-developed countries (Everything But Arms (‘EBA’)). The list of EBA beneficiary countries is established in Annex IV to that Regulation.

(10)

The UN removed Samoa from least developed country status on 1 January 2014. Accordingly, Samoa no longer qualifies for EBA beneficiary status under Article 17(1) and should be removed from Annex IV to Regulation (EU) No 978/2012. The Regulation to remove a beneficiary country from the list of EBA beneficiary countries should apply following a transitional period of 3 years as from the date on which that Regulation enters into force. Samoa should therefore be removed from Annex IV, with application from 1 January 2019,

(1)

In Annex II, the following countries and the corresponding alphabetical codes are removed from columns A and B, respectively:

(2)

In Annex III, the following country and the corresponding alphabetical code is removed from columns A and B, respectively:

(3)

In Annex IV, the following country and the corresponding alphabetical code is removed from columns A and B, respectively:

(1)

Annex IV to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008 (2), as last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/931 (3), lists Kiwa BCS Öko-Garantie GmbH as a recognised control body for product category D for South Korea, despite this recognition having been withdrawn by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/131 (4) following the inclusion of the Republic of Korea in Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008. Since the Republic of Korea is listed as a recognised third country in Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008 for product category D, including for the processing of imported ingredients, Kiwa BCS Öko-Garantie GmbH cannot be recognised for the Republic of Korea for that product category under Article 10(2)(b) of that Regulation. The recognition for product category D should therefore be deleted from Annex IV. To ensure consistency with the terms used in Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/131, ‘South Korea’ should be replaced by ‘Republic of Korea’ in the remaining recognitions for Kiwa BCS Öko-Garantie GmbH.

(2)

The recognition of Kiwa BCS Öko-Garantie GmbH for product categories A, D and F for Guinea-Bissau granted previously by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1287/2014 (5) does not appear in the table in Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008, although the recognition of that control body for that country has not been withdrawn. This recognition should therefore be reinserted in Annex IV.

(3)

Since Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008 as amended by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/931 also contains certain errors in relation to the code numbers, those errors should be corrected as well. The code numbers for Bosnia and Herzegovina for the control body ‘Abcert AG’, for Côte d'Ivoire for the control body ‘Istituto Certificazione Etica e Ambientale’ and for Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan for the control body ‘Organic Standard’ should therefore be corrected. At the same time it is appropriate to correct an error in relation to the code number for Kyrgyzstan for the control body ‘Bio.inspecta AG’, made by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 355/2014 (6).

(4)

Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008 should therefore be corrected accordingly.

(5)

In the interests of clarity and legal certainty, these corrections should be made without delay. This Regulation should therefore enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. However, for certain corrections made by this Regulation in respect of errors in Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/931, it is appropriate that they apply retroactively from the date of entry into force of this Regulation.

(6)

The provisions of this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the regulatory committee on organic production,

(1)

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1062/2014 (2) establishes a list of existing active substances to be evaluated for their possible approval for use in biocidal products.

(2)

That list includes N,N-Methylenebismorpholine, to be renamed formaldehyde released from N,N-Methylenebismorpholine (hereafter referred to as ‘MBM’), as the result of its evaluation.

(3)

MBM has been evaluated in accordance with Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) for use in product-type 6, in-can preservatives, and product-type 13, metalworking-fluid preservatives, as defined in Annex V to that Directive, which correspond respectively to product-types 6 and 13 as defined in Annex V to Regulation (EU) No 528/2012.

(4)

Austria was designated as evaluating competent authority and submitted the assessment reports, together with its recommendations, to the Commission on 25 July 2013 in accordance with paragraphs 4 and 6 of Article 14 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007 (4).

(5)

In accordance with Article 7(1)(b) of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1062/2014, the opinions of the European Chemicals Agency were formulated on 3 October 2014 by the Biocidal Product Committee, having regard to the conclusions of the evaluating competent authority.

(6)

According to those opinions, biocidal products used for product-types 6 and 13 and containing MBM may be expected to satisfy the requirements laid down in Article 5 of Directive 98/8/EC provided that certain conditions concerning its use are complied with.

(7)

It is therefore appropriate to approve MBM for use in biocidal products for product-types 6 and 13 subject to compliance with the specific conditions in the Annex.

(8)

The opinions conclude that MBM meets the criteria for classification as carcinogenic category 1B in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council (5).

(9)

Since pursuant to Article 90(2) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012, substances for which the Member States' evaluation has been completed by 1 September 2013 should be approved in accordance with Directive 98/8/EC, the period of approval should be 5 years in accordance with the practice established under that Directive.

(10)

For the purposes of Article 23 of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 however, MBM meets the conditions of Article 10(1)(a) of that Regulation and should therefore be considered a candidate for substitution.

(11)

Furthermore, pursuant to point 10 of Annex VI to Regulation (EU) No 528/2012, the competent authorities should also evaluate whether the conditions of Article 5(2) can be satisfied to decide if a biocidal product containing MBM can be authorised or not.

(12)

Since MBM meets the criteria for classification as carcinogenic category 1B, and as skin sensitiser category 1 as defined in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008, treated articles treated with or incorporating MBM should be appropriately labelled when placed on the market.

(13)

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.

(14)

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

(1)

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1062/2014 (2) establishes a list of existing active substances to be evaluated for their possible approval for use in biocidal products. That list includes hexaflumuron.

(2)

Hexaflumuron has been evaluated in accordance with Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) for use in product-type 18, insecticides, acaricides and products to control other arthropods, as defined in Annex V to that Directive, which corresponds to product-type 18, as defined in Annex V to Regulation (EU) No 528/2012.

(3)

Portugal was designated as evaluating competent authority and submitted the assessment report, together with its recommendations, to the Commission on 11 July 2011 in accordance with paragraphs 4 and 6 of Article 14 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007 (4).

(4)

In accordance with Article 7(1)(b) of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1062/2014, the opinion of the European Chemicals Agency was formulated on 3 December 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 hexaflumuron may be expected to satisfy the requirements laid down in Article 5 of Directive 98/8/EC provided that certain conditions concerning its use are complied with.

(6)

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

(7)

The opinion concludes that the characteristics of hexaflumuron render it very persistent (vP), very bioaccumulative (vB) 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 (5).

(8)

Since, pursuant to Article 90(2) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012, substances for which the Member States' evaluation has been completed by 1 September 2013 should be approved in accordance with Directive 98/8/EC, the period of approval should be 5 years in accordance with the practice established under that Directive.

(9)

For the purposes of Article 23 of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 however, hexaflumuron meets the conditions of Article 10(1)(a) and (d) of that Regulation and should therefore be considered a candidate for substitution.

(10)

Furthermore, pursuant to point 10 of Annex VI to Regulation (EU) No 528/2012, the competent authorities should also evaluate whether the conditions of Article 5(2) can be satisfied to decide if a biocidal product containing hexaflumuron can be authorised or not.

(11)

Since hexaflumuron meets the criteria for being very persistent (vP), very bioaccumulative (vB) and toxic (T) in accordance with the criteria laid down in Annex XIII to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, treated articles treated with or incorporating hexaflumuron should be appropriately labelled when placed on the market.

(12)

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.

(13)

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

(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)

Notification of electronic identification schemes by Member States is a prerequisite of mutual recognition of electronic identification means.

(2)

Cooperation on interoperability and security of electronic identification schemes requires simplified procedures. Since the cooperation between Member States referred to in Article 12(6) of Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 and regulated in detail in Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/296 (2) already requires the use of the English language, the same solution for the purposes of the notification of electronic identification schemes should facilitate reaching interoperability and security of the schemes. However, translation of already existing documentation should not cause unreasonable burden.

(3)

Schemes may involve multiple parties issuing the electronic identification means and/or multiple levels of assurance. For the sake of clarity and legal certainty, the notification of such schemes should however be a single process, with separate notification forms for each party issuing the electronic identification means and/or for each level of assurance.

(4)

The organisation of electronic identification schemes varies among Member States involving public and private sector entities. Although the purpose of the notification form should be to give as precise information as possible, among others, on the various authorities or entities involved in the electronic identification process, it should not aim at listing e.g. all local municipalities when those are involved. In that case, the respective field of the notification form should identify the level of the authority or entity involved.

(5)

Providing a description of electronic identification schemes prior to notification to other Member States as set out in Article 7(g) of Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 is a prerequisite of mutual recognition of electronic identification means. The notification form set out in this implementing act should be used in the context of providing a description of the scheme to other Member States, in order to enable peer review as set out in Article 10(2) of Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/296.

(6)

The deadline for the Commission to publish a notification, as provided for in Article 9(3) of Regulation (EU) No 910/2014, should be counted from the day when the complete form is submitted. The notification form should not be considered complete if the Commission needs to request additional information or clarification.

(7)

In order to ensure uniform use of the notification form, it is appropriate for the Commission to provide guidance to the Member States in particular with regard to whether changes to the notification form may lead to re-notification.

(8)

The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee referred to in Article 48 of Regulation (EU) No 910/2014,

(1)

On 28 April 2015, Belgium requested the Commission to decide, pursuant to Article 3(3) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012, whether an anti-viral tissue placed on the market with the claim ‘kills 99,9 % of cold & flu viruses in the tissue’ is a biocidal product or a treated article and, if considered a biocidal product, whether it would belong to product-type 1 (human hygiene) or 2 (disinfectants and algaecides not intended for direct application to humans or animals).

(2)

According to the information provided by Belgium, the tissue is a 3-ply tissue of which the middle layer is impregnated with citric acid. Citric acid is stated to be irreversibly bound into the tissue's matrix and to remain in the product throughout its lifecycle. After the tissue has been used, i.e. when moisture after sneezing, coughing or blowing of the nose into the tissue hits the middle layer, citric acid is claimed to deactivate the viral load within the tissue in order to prevent transfer back to the hands, transmittance of the virus from hand to hand contact and transmittance to surfaces with which the tissue comes into contact.

(3)

The tissue meets the definition of an article as provided under Article 3(2)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012.

(4)

The tissue meets the definition of a treated article as provided under Article 3(1)(l) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012, as citric acid is intentionally incorporated into it with the aim to deactivate viruses and to limit cross-contamination with these viruses.

(5)

Viruses meet the definition of harmful organism as provided under Article 3(1)(g) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 since they may have a detrimental effect on humans.

(6)

Destroying, deterring, rendering harmless, preventing the action of, or otherwise exerting a controlling effect on any harmful organism is a biocidal function.

(7)

It is therefore essential to establish whether the tissue has a primary biocidal function or not, in order to define whether the tissue is a treated article or a biocidal product.

(8)

The claim made on the tissue packaging and advertising is ‘kills 99,9 % of cold & flu viruses in the tissue’. Through such a claim, greater prominence and first importance is given to the biocidal function of the tissue than to its other functions (for example to blow the nose). The anti-viral tissue has therefore a primary biocidal function.

(9)

Since product-type 1 covers biocidal products used to disinfect the skin or the scalp and product-type 2 covers biocidal products used for wider purposes, such as the disinfection of surfaces, materials or air, the use of the tissue would rather correspond to the latter product-type.

(10)

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