(1)

At the 21st Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP 21), which took place in Paris from 30 November to 12 December 2015, the text of an agreement was adopted concerning the strengthening of the global response to the threat of climate change. The Paris Agreement will enter into force on the 30th day after the date on which at least 55 parties to the Convention accounting in total for at least an estimated 55 % of total greenhouse gas emissions, have deposited their instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession. Parties to the Convention include the Union and its Member States.

(2)

The Agreement, inter alia, sets out a long-term goal in line with the objective to keep the global temperature increase well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to keep it to 1,5 °C above pre-industrial levels. In order to achieve this goal, the Parties will prepare, communicate and maintain successive nationally determined contributions.

(3)

On 6 March 2015, the Union and its Member States communicated their intended nationally determined contribution, which provides for a commitment to a binding target of at least a 40 % domestic reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 compared to 1990, as set out in the conclusions of the European Council of 23 October 2014 on the 2030 climate and energy policy framework.

(4)

The Agreement is open for signature at the United Nations Headquarters in New York from 22 April 2016 to 21 April 2017.

(5)

The Agreement is in conformity with the environmental objectives of the Union as referred to in Article 191 of the Treaty, namely preserving, protecting and improving the quality of the environment; protecting human health; and promoting measures at international level to deal with regional or worldwide environmental problems, and in particular combating climate change.

(6)

There exists legislation in the Union implementing some of these objectives. Part of this existing Union legislation will have to be revised in order to implement certain provisions of the Agreement.

(7)

Therefore, the Agreement should be signed on behalf of the Union, subject to its conclusion at a later date,

(1)

The milk and milk products sector is experiencing a prolonged period of severe market imbalance. While world import demand for milk and milk products remained stable overall in 2015 in comparison with 2014, production significantly increased in the Union and other main exporting regions.

(2)

Investments in milk-production capacity in the Union, made in preparation for the expiry of milk quotas and in view of positive medium-term prospects on the world market, have resulted in steadily increasing milk production in the Union. Milk volumes produced in excess are processed into long-term storable products such as butter and skimmed milk powder.

(3)

Prices of butter and skimmed milk powder in the Union consequently declined in the years 2014 and 2015, when the prices of skimmed milk powder hit the public intervention price. Butter prices are still above the public intervention price, but are under downward pressure.

(4)

Council Regulation (EU) No 1370/2013 (1) sets quantitative limitations for the buying-in of butter and skimmed milk powder at the fixed price referred to in that Regulation. Once those limits are reached, buying-in is to be carried out by way of a tendering procedure to determine the maximum buying-in price.

(5)

As an exceptional measure to secure the undisrupted availability of the public intervention mechanism in a situation of market disturbance in the milk and milk products sector, Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/1549 (2) brought forward the start of the public intervention period for butter and skimmed milk powder in the year 2016 to 1 January.

(6)

In the additional public intervention period opened by Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/1549 for the year 2016, half of the volume of the quantitative limitation set by Regulation (EU) No 1370/2013 for the buying-in of skimmed milk powder at a fixed price has been reached.

(7)

In order to help the milk and milk products sector to find a new balance in the prevailing severe market situation and to preserve confidence in the effectiveness of public intervention mechanisms, it is appropriate to increase the quantitative limitations for the buying-in of butter and skimmed milk powder at a fixed price in 2016.

(8)

Where a tendering procedure is triggered before the entry into force of this Regulation, any volumes bought in under that procedure should not be taken into account for the purposes of determining the available volumes for the buying-in of butter and skimmed milk powder at a fixed price in 2016.

(9)

In order to ensure that the temporary measures provided for in this Regulation have an immediate impact on the market and contribute to the stabilisation of prices, this Regulation should enter into force on the date following that of its publication,

(1)

The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) has been notified of the classes of credit over the counter (OTC) derivatives that a central counterparty (CCP) has been authorised to clear. For each of those classes ESMA has assessed the criteria that are essential for subjecting them to the clearing obligation, including the level of standardisation, the volume and liquidity, and the availability of pricing information. With the overarching objective of reducing systemic risk, ESMA has determined the classes of credit OTC derivatives that should be subject to the clearing obligation in accordance with the procedure set out in Regulation (EU) No 648/2012.

(2)

The tenor is one common and essential characteristic of credit OTC derivatives. It corresponds to a fixed date on which a credit derivative contract expires. That feature should be taken into account when defining the classes of credit OTC derivatives to be subject to the clearing obligation.

(3)

Different counterparties need different periods of time for putting in place the necessary arrangements to clear the credit OTC derivatives subject to the clearing obligation. In order to ensure an orderly and timely implementation of that obligation, counterparties should be classified into categories in which sufficiently similar counterparties become subject to the clearing obligation from the same date.

(4)

A first category should include both financial and non-financial counterparties which, on the date of entry into force of this Regulation, are clearing members of at least one of the relevant CCPs and for at least one of the classes of credit OTC derivatives subject to the clearing obligation, as those counterparties already have experience with voluntary clearing and have already established the connections with those CCPs to clear at least one of those classes. Non-financial counterparties that are clearing members should also be included in this first category as their experience and preparation towards central clearing is comparable with that of financial counterparties included in it.

(5)

A second and a third category should comprise financial counterparties not included in the first category, grouped according to their levels of legal and operational capacity regarding OTC derivatives. The level of activity in OTC derivatives should serve as a basis to differentiate the degree of legal and operational capacity of financial counterparties, and a quantitative threshold should therefore be defined for division between the second and third categories on the basis of the aggregate month-end average notional amount of non-centrally cleared derivatives. That threshold should be set out at an appropriate level to differentiate smaller market participants, while still capturing a significant level of risk under the second category. The threshold should also be aligned with the threshold agreed at international level related to margin requirements for non-centrally cleared derivatives in order to enhance regulatory convergence and limit the compliance costs for counterparties. As in those international standards, whereas the threshold applies generally at group level given the potential shared risks within the group, for investment funds the threshold should be applied separately to each fund since the liabilities of a fund are not usually affected by the liabilities of other funds or their investment manager. Thus, the threshold should be applied separately to each fund as long as, in the event of fund insolvency or bankruptcy, each investment fund constitutes a completely segregated and ring-fenced pool of assets that is not collateralised, guaranteed or supported by other investment funds or the investment manager itself.

(6)

Certain alternative investment funds (‘AIFs’) are not captured by the definition of financial counterparties under Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 although they have a degree of operational capacity regarding OTC derivative contracts similar to that of AIFs captured by that definition. Therefore AIFs classified as non-financial counterparties should be included in the same categories of counterparties as AIFs classified as financial counterparties.

(7)

A fourth category should include non-financial counterparties not included in the other categories, given their more limited experience and operational capacity with OTC derivatives and central clearing than the other categories of counterparties.

(8)

The date on which the clearing obligation takes effect for counterparties in the first category should take into account the fact that they may not have the necessary pre-existing connections with CCPs for all the classes subject to the clearing obligation. In addition, counterparties in this category constitute the access point to clearing for counterparties that are not clearing members, client clearing and indirect client clearing being expected to increase substantially as a consequence of the entry into force of the clearing obligation. Finally, this first category of counterparties account for a significant portion of the volume of credit OTC derivatives already cleared, and the volume of transactions to be cleared will significantly increase after the date on which the clearing obligation set out in this Regulation will take effect. Therefore, a reasonable timeframe for counterparties in the first category to prepare for clearing additional classes, to deal with the increase of client clearing and indirect client clearing and to adapt to increasing volumes of transactions to be cleared should be set at 6 months. Furthermore, the date on which the clearing obligation takes effect for counterparties in the first category should also take into account whether more than one CCP already clear the same class of OTC derivatives by the time this Regulation enters into force. In particular, an important number of counterparties seeking to establish clearing arrangements with the same CCP at the same time would mean that more time is required than when counterparties have the choice of several CCPs to establish their clearing arrangements with. Therefore, an additional period of 3 months should be granted to ensure an orderly implementation of the clearing obligation.

(9)

The date on which the clearing obligation takes effect for counterparties in the second and third categories should take into account the fact that most of them will get access to a CCP by becoming a client or an indirect client of a clearing member. This process may require between 12 and 18 months depending on the legal and operational capacity of counterparties and their level of preparation regarding the establishment of the arrangements with clearing members that are necessary for clearing the contracts. Furthermore, the date on which the clearing obligation takes effect for counterparties in the second and third categories should also take into account whether more than one CCP already clear the same class of OTC derivatives by the time this Regulation enters into force. In particular, an important number of counterparties seeking to establish clearing arrangements with the same CCP at the same time would mean that more time is required than when counterparties have the choice of several CCPs to establish their clearing arrangements with. Therefore, an additional period of 3 months should be granted to ensure an orderly implementation of the clearing obligation.

(10)

The date on which the clearing obligation takes effect for counterparties in the fourth category should take into account their legal and operational capacity, and their more limited experience with OTC derivatives and central clearing than other categories of counterparties.

(11)

For OTC derivative contracts concluded between a counterparty established in a third country and another counterparty established in the Union belonging to the same group and which are included in the same consolidation on a full basis and are subject to an appropriate centralised risk evaluation, measurement and control procedures, a deferred date of application of the clearing obligation should be provided. The deferred application should ensure that those contracts are not subject to the clearing obligation for a limited period of time in the absence of implementing acts pursuant to Article 13(2) of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 covering the OTC derivative contracts set out in the Annex to this Regulation and regarding the jurisdiction where the non-Union counterparty is established. Competent authorities should be able to verify in advance that the counterparties concluding those contracts belong to the same group and fulfil the other conditions of intragroup transactions pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 648/2012.

(12)

Unlike OTC derivatives whose counterparties are non-financial counterparties, where counterparties to OTC derivative contracts are financial counterparties, Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 requires the application of the clearing obligation to contracts concluded after the notification to ESMA that follows the authorisation of a CCP to clear a certain class of OTC derivatives, but before the date on which the clearing obligation takes effect, provided the remaining maturity of such contracts at the date on which the obligation takes effect justifies it. The application of the clearing obligation to those contracts should pursue the objective of ensuring the uniform and coherent application of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012. It should serve to seek financial stability and the reduction of systemic risk, as well as ensuring a level playing field for market participants when a class of OTC derivative contracts is declared subject to the clearing obligation. The minimum remaining maturity should therefore be set at a level that ensures the achievement of those objectives.

(13)

Before regulatory technical standards adopted pursuant to Article 5(2) of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 enter into force, counterparties cannot foresee whether the OTC derivative contracts they conclude would be subject to the clearing obligation on the date that obligation takes effect. This uncertainty has a significant impact on the capacity of market participants to accurately price the OTC derivative contracts they enter into since centrally cleared contracts are subject to a different collateral regime than non-centrally cleared contracts. Imposing forward-clearing to OTC derivative contracts concluded before the entry into force of this Regulation, irrespective of their remaining maturity on the date on which the clearing obligation takes effect, could limit counterparties' ability to hedge their market risks adequately and either impact the functioning of the market and financial stability, or prevent them from exercising their usual activities by hedging them by other appropriate means.

(14)

Moreover, OTC derivative contracts concluded after this Regulation enters into force and before the clearing obligation takes effect should not be subject to the clearing obligation until counterparties to those contracts can determine the category they are comprised in and the CCP available to clear those contracts, whether they are subject to the clearing obligation for a particular contract, including their intragroup transactions, and before they can implement the necessary arrangements to conclude those contracts taking into account the clearing obligation. Therefore, in order to preserve the orderly functioning and the stability of the market, as well as a level playing field between counterparties, it is appropriate to consider that those contracts should not be subject to the clearing obligation, irrespective of their remaining maturities.

(15)

OTC derivative contracts concluded after the notification to ESMA that follows the authorisation of a CCP to clear a certain class of OTC derivatives, but before the date on which the clearing obligation takes effect should not be subject to the clearing obligation when they are not significantly relevant for systemic risk, or when subjecting those contracts to the clearing obligation could otherwise jeopardise the uniform and coherent application of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012. Counterparty credit risk associated to credit OTC derivative contracts with longer maturities remains in the market for a longer period than that associated to credit OTC derivatives with low remaining maturities. Imposing the clearing obligation on contracts with short remaining maturities would imply a burden on counterparties disproportionate to the level of risk mitigated. In addition, credit OTC derivatives with low remaining maturities represent a relatively small portion of the total market and thus a relatively small portion of the total systemic risk associated to this market. The minimum remaining maturities should therefore be set at a level ensuring that contracts with remaining maturities of no more than a few months are not subject to the clearing obligation.

(16)

Counterparties in the third category bear a relatively limited share of overall systemic risk and have a lower degree of legal and operational capacity regarding OTC derivatives than counterparties in the first and second categories. Essential elements of the OTC derivative contracts, including the pricing of credit OTC derivatives subject to the clearing obligation and concluded before that obligation takes effect, will have to be adapted within short timeframes in order to incorporate the clearing that will only take place several months after the contract is concluded. This process of forward-clearing involves important adaptations to the pricing model and amendments to the documentation of those OTC derivatives contracts. Counterparties in the third category have a very limited ability to incorporate forward-clearing in their OTC derivative contracts. Thus, imposing the clearing of OTC derivative contracts concluded before the clearing obligation takes effect for those counterparties could limit their ability to hedge their risks adequately and either impact the functioning and the stability of the market or prevent them from exercising their usual activities if they cannot continue to hedge. Therefore, OTC derivative contracts concluded by counterparties in the third category before the date on which the clearing obligation takes effect should not be subject to the clearing obligation.

(17)

In addition, OTC derivative contracts concluded between counterparties belonging to the same group can be exempted from clearing, provided certain conditions are met, in order to avoid limiting the efficiency of intragroup-risk management processes and therefore, undermine the achievement of the overarching goal of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012. Therefore, intragroup transactions which fulfil certain conditions and which are concluded before the date on which the clearing obligation takes effect for those transactions should not be subject to the clearing obligation.

(18)

This Regulation is based on draft regulatory technical standards submitted by ESMA to the Commission.

(19)

ESMA has conducted open public consultations on the draft regulatory technical standards on which this Regulation is based, analysed the potential related costs and benefits, requested the opinion of the Security and Markets Stakeholder Group established by Article 37 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2), and consulted the European Systemic Risk Board,

(1)

Pursuant to 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 ‘Olive de Nîmes’, registered under Commission Regulation (EU) No 991/2010 (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)

Regulation (EU) No 223/2014 requires the managing authority of a food and/or basic material assistance operational programme (‘OP I’) to carry out a structured survey on end recipients in 2017 and 2022.

(2)

This structured survey on end recipients is one of the instruments to be used to evaluate the Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived (‘FEAD’). In order to ensure the survey yields high-quality results and makes a useful contribution to the evaluation of the FEAD, it is necessary to establish a template that enables the aggregation of data at European Union level,

(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)

On 15 April 2015, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2015/598 (1) appointing Mr Peter BURIAN as the European Union Special Representative (EUSR) for central Asia. The EUSR's mandate is to expire on 30 April 2016.

(2)

The mandate of the EUSR should be extended for a further period of 10 months.

(3)

The EUSR will implement the mandate in the context of a situation which may deteriorate and could impede the achievement of the objectives of the Union's external action as set out in Article 21 of the Treaty,

(a)

promoting good and close relations between the Union and the countries of central Asia on the basis of common values and interests as set out in relevant agreements;

(b)

contributing to strengthening the stability and cooperation between the countries in the region;

(c)

contributing to strengthening democracy, the rule of law, good governance and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in central Asia;

(d)

addressing key threats, especially specific problems with direct implications for the Union;

(e)

enhancing the Union's effectiveness and visibility in the region, including through closer coordination with other relevant partners and international organisations, such as the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the United Nations (UN).

(a)

establishing a specific security plan based on guidance from the EEAS, including for specific physical, organisational and procedural security measures governing the management of the secure movement of personnel to, and within, the area of responsibility as well as the management of security incidents, and including a contingency plan and evacuation plan;

(b)

ensuring that all personnel deployed outside the Union are covered by high-risk insurance, as required by the conditions in the area of responsibility;

(c)

ensuring that all agreed recommendations made following regular security assessments are implemented, and providing the Council, the HR and the Commission with written reports on their implementation and on other security issues within the framework of the progress report and the report on the implementation of the mandate.

(1)

On 15 April 2015, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2015/599 (1) appointing Mr Fernando GENTILINI as the European Union Special Representative (EUSR) for the Middle East Peace Process (MEPP). The EUSR's mandate is to expire on 30 April 2016.

(2)

The mandate of the EUSR should be extended for a further period of 10 months.

(3)

The EUSR will implement the mandate in the context of a situation which may deteriorate and could impede the achievement of the objectives of the Union's external action as set out in Article 21 of the Treaty,

(a)

establishing a specific security plan based on guidance from the EEAS, including specific physical, organisational and procedural security measures governing the management of the secure movement of personnel to, and within, the area of responsibility as well as the management of security incidents and including a contingency plan and evacuation plan;

(b)

ensuring that all personnel deployed outside the Union are covered by high-risk insurance, as required by the conditions in the area of responsibility;

(c)

ensuring that all members of the EUSR's team to be deployed outside the Union, including locally contracted personnel, have received appropriate security training before or upon arriving in the area of responsibility, based on the risk ratings assigned to that area by the EEAS;

(d)

ensuring that all agreed recommendations made following regular security assessments are implemented, and providing the Council, the HR and the Commission with written reports on their implementation and on other security issues within the framework of the progress report and the report on the implementation of the mandate.

(1)

Commission Decision 2009/752/EC (2) authorised, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 258/97, the placing on the market of lipid extract from Antarctic Krill (Euphausia superba) as a novel food ingredient to be used in certain foods and foodstuffs.

(2)

On 11 December 2009, the company Aker BioMarine Antarctic AS notified the Commission about the intention to place on the market a lipid extract from Antarctic Krill (Euphausia superba) based on an opinion by the competent food assessment body of Finland on its substantial equivalence to a lipid extract from Antarctic Krill (Euphausia superba) authorised by Decision 2009/752/EC.

(3)

On 15 September 2014, the company Aker BioMarine Antarctic AS made a request to the competent authorities of Ireland for extension of uses of lipid extract from Antarctic Krill (Euphausia superba) as a novel food ingredient.

(4)

On 23 December 2014, the competent food assessment body of Ireland issued its initial assessment report. In that report, it came to the conclusion that the extension of uses of lipid extract from Antarctic Krill (Euphausia superba) meets the criteria for novel food set out in Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 258/97.

(5)

On 22 January 2015, the Commission forwarded the initial assessment report to the other Member States.

(6)

Reasoned objections were raised within the 60-day period laid down in the first subparagraph of Article 6(4) of Regulation (EC) No 258/97. The applicant consequently modified the request concerning the food categories proposed. This change and additional explanations by the applicant alleviated the concerns to the satisfaction of the Member States and the Commission.

(7)

Directive 2002/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) lays down requirements for food supplements. The use of lipid extract from Antarctic Krill (Euphausia superba) should be authorised without prejudice to the requirements of that legislation.

(8)

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

(1)

Pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 549/2004, the Member States are to adopt national or functional airspace block (‘FAB’) plans, including binding national targets or targets at the level of FABs, ensuring consistency with the Union-wide performance targets. That Regulation also provides that the Commission is to assess the consistency of those targets on the basis of the assessment criteria referred to in point (d) of its Article 11(6). Detailed rules in this regard have been set out in Implementing Regulation (EU) No 390/2013.

(2)

Union-wide performance targets in the key performance areas of safety, environment, capacity and cost-efficiency for the second reference period (2015-2019) were adopted by Commission Implementing Decision 2014/132/EU (3).

(3)

On 2 March 2015, the Commission adopted Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/347 (4) concerning the inconsistency of certain targets included in the initial performance plans with the Union-wide performance targets as well as setting out recommendations to revise those targets. This Decision was addressed to Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, Spain, France, Croatia, Italy, Cyprus, Luxembourg, Hungary, Malta, Netherlands, Austria, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia and Slovakia and required revisions of targets in the key performance areas of capacity and/or cost-efficiency.

(4)

Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, Spain, France, Croatia, Italy, Cyprus, Luxembourg, Hungary, Malta, Netherlands, Austria, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia and Slovakia all submitted by 2 July 2015 revised national or functional airspace block plans including revised performance targets. Spain and Portugal submitted an amendment to the functional airspace block plan with further revised performance targets on 4 February 2016.

(5)

The Performance Review Body, which is charged with assisting the Commission in the implementation of the performance scheme pursuant to Article 3 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 390/2013, submitted its assessment report to the Commission on 15 October 2015.

(6)

The assessment of the revised performance targets regarding their consistency with the Union-wide performance targets has been done by using the same assessment criteria and methodologies that were used in the assessment of the initially submitted performance targets.

(7)

Concerning the key performance area of capacity, the consistency of the revised targets submitted by the Member States concerned for en route Air Traffic Flow Management (ATFM) delay has been assessed, in accordance with the principle laid down in point 4 of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 390/2013, by using the respective FAB reference values for capacity that, when applied, ensure at Union level that the Union-wide performance target is met, calculated by the Network Manager and set out in the Network Operations Plan (2014-2018/2019) in its most recent version of June 2014 (‘Network Operations Plan’). That assessment has demonstrated that the revised targets submitted by Czech Republic, Croatia, Hungary, Austria, Slovenia and Slovakia as regards FABCE, Spain and Portugal as regards SW FAB and Bulgaria and Romania as regards Danube FAB are consistent with the relevant Union-wide performance target.

(8)

Concerning the key performance area of cost-efficiency, the targets expressed in en route determined unit costs submitted by the Member States concerned have been assessed, in accordance with the principles laid down in point 5, in conjunction with point 1, of Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 390/2013, by taking account of the trend of en route determined unit costs over the second reference period and the combined period of the first and the second reference period (2012-2019), the number of service units (traffic forecast) and the level of en route determined unit costs in comparison to Member States having a similar operational and economic environment. That assessment has demonstrated that the revised targets submitted by Austria and Slovakia as laid down in the FABCE revised performance plan and by Italy as laid down in the revised Blue Med FAB performance plan are consistent with the relevant Union-wide performance target.

(9)

The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Single Sky Committee,

(1)

Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 provides that Member States, third countries or regions thereof (‘countries or regions’) are to be classified according to their bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) status into one of three categories: negligible BSE risk, controlled BSE risk and undetermined BSE risk.

(2)

The Annex to Commission Decision 2007/453/EC (2) lists countries or regions according to their BSE status.

(3)

The World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) plays a leading role in the categorisation of countries or regions according to their BSE risk.

(4)

In May 2014, the OIE General Assembly decided to grant ‘negligible BSE risk’ status to Romania in its Resolution No 18 — Recognition of the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Risk Status of Member Countries (3). On 27 June 2014, the OIE Scientific Commission for Animal Diseases suspended that negligible BSE risk status due to the notification by Romania on 20 June 2014 of an atypical BSE case.

(5)

In May 2015, the OIE General Assembly amended the BSE Chapter of the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code (‘the Code’), by adding the following sentence in Article 11.4.1 of the Code: ‘For the purpose of official BSE risk status recognition, BSE excludes “atypical BSE” as a condition believed to occur spontaneously in all cattle populations at a very low rate’ (4).

(6)

As the negligible BSE risk status of Romania had been suspended because of the detection of an atypical BSE case and as the new version of the Code excludes atypical BSE for the purpose of official BSE risk status recognition, the OIE Scientific Commission for Animal Diseases decided, with effect as from 8 December 2015, to reinstate the negligible BSE status of Romania.

(7)

To reflect that decision, the list of countries in the Annex to Decision 2007/453/EC should therefore be amended.

(8)

Decision 2007/453/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.

(9)

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

(1)

the entry ‘— Romania’ is inserted in Part ‘A. Countries or regions with a negligible BSE risk’, after ‘— Portugal’ and before ‘— Slovenia’;

(2)

the entry ‘— Romania’ is deleted in Part ‘B. Countries or regions with a controlled BSE risk’.

(1)

Directive 96/23/EC lays down measures to monitor the substances and groups of residues listed in Annex I thereto. That Directive requires that third countries from which Member States are authorised to import animals and animal products covered by that Directive submit a residue monitoring plan providing required guarantees. That plan should at least include the groups of residues and substances listed in that Annex I.

(2)

Commission Decision 2011/163/EU (2) approves the plans provided for in Article 29 of Directive 96/23/EC (‘the plans’) submitted by certain third countries listed in the Annex to that Decision for the animals and animal products indicated in the list in Annex I to the Directive.

(3)

In the light of the recent plans submitted by certain third countries and additional information obtained by the Commission from those third countries, it is necessary to update the list of third countries from which Member States are authorised to import certain animals and animal products, as provided for in Directive 96/23/EC and currently listed in the Annex to Decision 2011/163/EU (‘the list’).

(4)

The Dominican Republic has submitted a plan for honey to the Commission. That plan provides sufficient guarantees and should be approved. An entry for the Dominican Republic for honey should therefore be included in the list.

(5)

The Falkland Islands have submitted a plan for aquaculture to the Commission. That plan provides sufficient guarantees and should be approved. An entry for the Falkland Islands for aquaculture should therefore be included in the list.

(6)

The Commission requested that French Polynesia provide information on the implementation of its plan for honey. In their reply, the competent authorities of French Polynesia stated that the residue monitoring programme for honey has not been elaborated as French Polynesia does not project to export honey to the EU. The entry for that third country concerning honey should be deleted from the list. French Polynesia has been informed accordingly.

(7)

The Commission requested that Namibia provide information on the implementation of its plans for wild game. In their reply, the competent authorities of Namibia stated that the residue monitoring programme for wild game has not been elaborated as Namibia does not project to export wild game to the EU. The entry for that third country concerning wild game products should be deleted from the list. Namibia has been informed accordingly.

(8)

The Republic of Korea has submitted a plan for poultry to the Commission. That plan provides sufficient guarantees and should be approved. An entry for the Republic of Korea for poultry products should therefore be included in the list.

(9)

Saint Pierre and Miquelon has submitted a plan for poultry to the Commission. That plan provides sufficient guarantees and should be approved. An entry for Saint Pierre and Miquelon poultry products should therefore be included in the list.

(10)

Commission Regulation (EU) No 206/2010 (3) authorises Singapore for the introduction into the Union of consignments of fresh meat of New Zealand origin, eligible for introduction into the Union and destined to the Union. In order to permit that activity, the entry for Singapore in the list should include equine, wild game and farmed game but it should be restricted to commodities of fresh meat originating from New Zealand, destined to the Union and being unloaded, reloaded and transited with or without storage through Singapore. Singapore and New Zealand have been informed accordingly. A footnote setting out this limitation should be included in the list for Singapore.

(11)

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