(1)

Council Regulation (EU) 2017/127 (2) lays down quotas for 2017.

(2)

According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2017.

(3)

It is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,

(1)

Council Regulation (EU) 2017/127 (2) lays down quotas for 2017.

(2)

According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2017.

(3)

It is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,

(1)

Council Regulation (EU) 2017/127 (2) lays down quotas for 2017.

(2)

According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2017.

(3)

It is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,

(1)

Council Regulation (EU) 2016/2285 (2) lays down quotas for 2017.

(2)

According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2017.

(3)

It is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,

(1)

Council Regulation (EU) 2016/2285 (2) lays down quotas for 2017.

(2)

According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2017.

(3)

It is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,

(1)

Council Regulation (EU) 2016/2285 (2) lays down quotas for 2017.

(2)

According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2017.

(3)

It is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,

(1)

Council Regulation (EU) 2017/127 (2) lays down quotas for 2017.

(2)

According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2017.

(3)

It is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,

(1)

Council Regulation (EU) 2017/127 (2) lays down quotas for 2017.

(2)

According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2017.

(3)

It is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,

(1)

Council Regulation (EU) 2017/127 (2) lays down quotas for 2017.

(2)

According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2017.

(3)

It is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,

(1)

Council Regulation (EU) 2017/127 (2) lays down quotas for 2017.

(2)

According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2017.

(3)

It is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,

(1)

In order to define the quantities of skimmed milk powder covered by the tendering procedure opened by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2080 (3), Article 1 of that Regulation lays down a time limit before which the skimmed milk powder must have entered into public storage.

(2)

Given the current situation on the milk and milk products market in terms of price recovery and the high level of intervention stocks, it is appropriate that an additional volume of skimmed milk powder is made available for sale by changing the date of entry into storage.

(3)

Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2080 should therefore be amended accordingly.

(4)

In order to make the skimmed milk powder available for sale without delay, this Regulation should enter into force on the day after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

(5)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for the Common Organisation of the Agricultural Markets,

(1)

The Council, by decision adopted on 12 July 2016, under Article 126(8) of the Treaty, established that no effective action has been taken by Portugal to correct the excessive deficit in response to the Council recommendation of 21 June 2013 under Article 126(7) of the Treaty.

(2)

Following the Council's decision of 12 July 2016 that Portugal has not taken effective action to correct the excessive deficit, the Commission should recommend that the Council impose a fine.

(3)

The fine to be imposed on Portugal should in principle amount to 0,2 % of its GDP in the preceding year but its amount may be reduced or cancelled on grounds of exceptional economic circumstances or following a reasoned request by the Member State concerned.

(4)

The GDP of Portugal in 2015 was EUR 179,37 billion and 0,2 % of that GDP corresponds to EUR 358 738 200.

(5)

In accordance with point 3 of Article 2 of Regulation (EU) No 1173/2011, ‘exceptional economic circumstances’ means circumstances where an excess of a government deficit over the reference value is considered exceptional within the meaning of the second indent of point (a) of Article 126(2) of the Treaty, as specified in Council Regulation (EC) No 1467/97 (2). According to the latter Regulation, such an excess is exceptional when it results (i) from an unusual event outside the control of the Member State concerned and with a major impact on the financial position of general government; or (ii) from a severe economic downturn, meaning a negative annual GDP volume growth rate or an accumulated loss of output during a protracted period of very low annual GDP volume growth relative to its potential.

(6)

An evaluation of the application of the abovementioned conditions to Portugal yields the following conclusions:

(7)

Therefore, exceptional economic circumstances that would warrant a reduction of the amount of the fine do not exist.

(8)

On 18 July 2016, Portugal submitted a reasoned request to the Commission to recommend that the Council set the amount of the fine to zero. In support of its request, Portugal gave the following reasons:

Portugal recalls the substantial fiscal consolidation effort and the structural reforms implemented during the recent economic adjustment programme. It also reaffirms the strong commitment to correct the excessive deficit in 2016, including the commitment to adopt measures when necessary to correct budgetary deviations, and to implement a fiscal adjustment in 2017 in line with the fiscal country specific recommendation adopted by the Council on 12 July 2016. Portugal considers that the application of sanctions would be detrimental to the achievement of the budgetary targets correcting the excessive deficit this year. It also points to economic policy commitments in particular as regards the stabilisation of the financial system and the measures presented in the 2016 National Reform Programme. Finally, Portugal considers any sanction inappropriate in the current European and international environment, in particular in view of the high uncertainties arising from the outcome of the referendum in the United Kingdom on membership of the Union.

(9)

An assessment of the abovementioned arguments leads to the considerations below.

(10)

While Portugal did not take effective action to address the excessive deficit in compliance with the Council's recommendation of 21 June 2013, the overall fiscal adjustment from 2010 to 2014 was indeed very sizeable. The reduction of the headline deficit net of one-offs by more than 5 % of GDP was driven by the improvement of the structural balance by more than 6 %. Nonetheless, this momentum stalled after the conclusion of the economic programme as highlighted in the Council decision of 12 July 2016. The fiscal adjustment has been accompanied by a comprehensive set of structural reforms under the adjustment programme that has been successfully completed on June 2014, setting the ground for a sounder economic recovery. Important challenges remain, as the still high private and public debt levels are a burden for the economy, and the still high unemployment hampers economic adjustment.

(11)

The commitment by the Portuguese authorities to correct the excessive deficit in 2016 and respect the fiscal country-specific recommendation in 2017 is an important sign of the intention of the Government to comply with the Stability and Growth Pact. For 2016, the government reiterates its commitment given in the Eurogroup of 11 February 2016 to adopt, when necessary, fiscal measures to correct any potential budget execution deviations. Also, the Government commits itself to maintaining the freezing of certain appropriations amounting to 0,2 % of GDP as highlighted in the Stability Programme. The annex to the reasoned request of 18 July 2016 provides additional information on the way these appropriations can be used, making more credible the commitment not to spend them as long as the freeze is needed. First, it indicates that the appropriations have been earmarked for public institutions whose funding has already increased compared to 2015; hence they may eventually not request more funding. Second, to access these appropriations, any public service must present spending authorisations that require the explicit approval of the Minister of Finance. Finally, these appropriations are also on top of already budgeted appropriations and of reserves that are also subject to approval.

(12)

As regards the durable correction of the excessive deficit and, in particular, the budget for 2017, the reasoned request of 18 July 2016 refers mainly to the forthcoming Draft Budgetary Plan to be submitted in October 2016 and commits to compliance with the fiscal country-specific recommendation, which requires a structural adjustment of at least 0,6 % of GDP. This is an improvement compared to the structural adjustment of only 0,35 % of GDP laid out in the Stability Programme for 2017 while the specific adjustment measures are still to be defined.

(13)

As regards the alleged detrimental effect of sanctions to the correction of the excessive deficit in 2016, the fine is limited by Article 6(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1173/2011 to 0,2 % of GDP, an amount small enough to be compatible with the correction of the excessive deficit. Moreover, any potential fine would not impact the variation of the structural balance.

(14)

The commitment to proceed with structural reforms in key economic policy areas and with measures to stabilise the banking system is welcome as indeed they are also part of the relevant country-specific recommendations addressed to Portugal. With respect to other structural reforms planned for 2016 and onwards, like those intended to improve the business environment or address the undercapitalisation of firms, the measures indicated do not depart substantially from what was already presented in the 2016 National Reform Programme. While in principle these reforms are sound, they are subject to implementation risks. Finally, the annex to the reasoned request of 18 July 2016 refers explicitly to the need to define a programme to reduce non-performing loans.

(15)

Regarding the appropriateness of the decision in the current European and international environment, the Council is fully aware of increased uncertainties in the current context, in particular in view of the outcome of the referendum in the United Kingdom on membership of the Union.

(16)

In view of Portugal's reasoned request of 18 July 2016 and having regard of the points given above, in particular the fiscal adjustment undergone during the economic adjustment programme which was accompanied by a comprehensive set of structural reforms; the commitments (i) to adopt, when necessary, fiscal measures to correct any potential budget execution deviations in 2016; (ii) to implement an additional structural adjustment of 0,25 % of GDP in 2017 compared with the adjustment of 0,35 % of GDP laid out in the April 2016 Stability Programme; and (iii) to implement structural reforms in key areas in view of existing challenges including measures to stabilise the banking system, the reasons put forward by Portugal are considered to warrant a cancellation of the fine of 0,2 % of GDP,

(1)

The Council, by decision adopted on 12 July 2016, under Article 126(8) of the Treaty, established that no effective action has been taken by Spain to correct the excessive deficit in response to the Council Recommendation of 21 June 2013 under Article 126(7) of the Treaty.

(2)

Following the Council's decision of 12 July 2016 that Spain has not taken effective action to correct the excessive deficit, the Commission should recommend that the Council impose a fine.

(3)

The fine to be imposed on Spain should in principle amount to 0,2 % of its GDP in the preceding year, but its amount may be reduced or cancelled on grounds of exceptional economic circumstances or following a reasoned request by the Member State concerned.

(4)

The GDP of Spain in 2015 was EUR 1 081,19 billion and 0,2 % of that GDP corresponds to EUR 2 162,38 million.

(5)

In accordance with point 3 of Article 2 of Regulation (EU) No 1173/2011, ‘exceptional economic circumstances’ means circumstances where an excess of a government deficit over the reference value is considered exceptional within the meaning of the second indent of point (a) of Article 126(2) of the Treaty, as specified in Council Regulation (EC) No 1467/97 (2). According to the latter Regulation, such an excess is exceptional when it results (i) from an unusual event outside the control of the Member State concerned and with a major impact on the financial position of general government or (ii) from a severe economic downturn, meaning a negative annual GDP volume growth rate or an accumulated loss of output during a protracted period of very low annual GDP volume growth relative to its potential.

(6)

An evaluation of the application of the abovementioned conditions to Spain yields the following conclusions:

(7)

Therefore, exceptional economic circumstances that would warrant a reduction of the amount of the fine do not exist.

(8)

On 13 July 2016, Spain submitted a reasoned request to the Commission to recommend that the Council set the amount of the fine at zero. In support of its request, Spain gave the following reasons:

Spain recalls its important achievements in implementing a far-reaching reform agenda, despite a very challenging economic context, that proved decisive in supporting the strong rebound of economic activity and job creation, as well as the correction of accumulated imbalances. It also highlights the significant fiscal effort implemented in the wake of the crisis and the negative impact of low and even negative inflation on the fiscal adjustment process and the economy as a whole. Methodological issues are also raised, concerning the alleged inability of the current methodology to assess SGP compliance to take account of negative inflation surprises or to accurately measure potential GDP growth in the case of Spain. Finally, it reports on measures and commitments taken to reduce the public deficit in 2016 and reaffirms the commitment to correct the excessive deficit by 2017.

(9)

An assessment of the abovementioned arguments leads to the considerations below.

(10)

The Spanish economy has experienced a significant turnaround in recent years, also thanks to reforms undertaken in a challenging economic environment that helped ease existing rigidities in labour and product markets. The successful completion of the financial assistance programme for the recapitalisation of financial institutions in Spain in early 2014 and the major structural reforms that have been carried out alongside created a sound basis for the economic recovery. Also after the completion of the programme, Spain continued to implement structural reforms, including a reform of the insolvency framework, the completion of the banking sector restructuring, the public administration reform and the creation of an independent fiscal council. Helped by monetary policy and a reinforced euro area governance framework, this paved the way for a return of capital inflows and improved financial conditions. As growth resumed in the second half of 2013, internal and external rebalancing advanced, also supported by reform-induced competitiveness gains. The recovery is accompanied by strong job creation, supported by continued wage moderation and the impact of labour market reforms. Notwithstanding the progress in rebalancing the economy, important challenges remain, as still high private and public debt reflected in the very high level of net external liabilities exposes Spain to risks stemming from shifts in market sentiment, and still high unemployment hampers economic adjustment.

(11)

While Spain did not take effective action to address the excessive deficit in compliance with the Council's recommendation of 21 June 2013, it should be acknowledged that Spain had already delivered sizeable fiscal efforts to correct its excessive deficit in the budgets for 2012 and, to a lesser extent, 2013. The consolidation fatigue highlighted by the Council decision of 12 July 2016 followed this substantial fiscal structural effort and occurred after difficult economic conditions that impinged on social cohesion. Indeed, notwithstanding the strong rebound of the economy since the third quarter of 2013, Spain kept experiencing unfavourable economic conditions during the period covered by the last Council recommendation. The output gap reached – 8,5 % of potential GDP in 2013 and, while improving fast, it was still largely negative, at – 4,0 %, in 2015. The unemployment rate peaked at 26,1 % in 2013 and social exclusion and inequality worsened in the wake of the crisis, bringing the overall share of people at risk of poverty or social exclusion to 29,2 % in 2014, one of the highest rates in the Union.

(12)

In this context, while some of the measures taken in recent years had a negative direct impact on the public finances, they may contribute to growth and employment in the medium to long term, and in turn to the sustainability of public finances. Social security contributions exemptions and rebates contributed to the persistent general government deficit, but to some extent supported social cohesion by targeting lower income earners, less qualified workers and new permanent contracts. The tax reforms adopted in late 2014, while being under-funded, are aimed at making the tax structure more growth-friendly as well as improving tax governance and equity.

(13)

For 2016, the Spanish government, in its caretaker position, has taken deficit-reducing measures following the Commission Recommendation of 9 March 2016 regarding measures to be taken by Spain in order to ensure a timely correction of its excessive deficit, which is welcome. In particular, with a view to implementing provisions in domestic legislation to enforce fiscal discipline on regional governments, on 6 April, the government required 12 regional governments to approve cuts in budget appropriations to ensure compliancewith their deficit targets for 2016. While the expenditure cuts for 2016 adopted to date by those governments are considerably below the expected amount reported in the 2016 Stability Programme, Spain's central government has approved around 0,2 % of GDP cuts to budgetary appropriations. On 13 July, the Spanish caretaker government announced its commitment to put in place further welcome deficit-reducing measures. On the revenue side, amendments to the corporate income tax law, to be adopted as soon as a new government is formed, have been envisaged to make up for the loss in revenues of around 0,5 % of GDP expected for 2016 following the changes made to the regulation of instalment payments (pagos fraccionados) of the corporate income tax, so as to ensure that corporate income tax revenues reach the level expected in the 2016 Stability Programme. On the expenditure side, the advancing of the date of closure of the central government's fiscal year, adopted on 14 July, can help contain expenditure developments in the second half of 2016. Nevertheless, these measures are still subject to considerable implementation risks, in particular with respect to the timely adoption by Parliament of required changes to the corporate income tax law and whether they will be sufficient to offset the expected shortfall in corporate income tax revenues. The government has also committed itself to taking further measures against tax fraud.

(14)

Spain's reasoned request to the Commission also highlights the negative impact of low and even negative inflation on the fiscal adjustment process and the economy as a whole. As also argued in the Council Decision of 12 July 2016, over 2013-2015, Spanish inflation (as measured by the GDP deflator) was indeed well below that in the baseline macroeconomic scenario underpinning the recommendation (it was even negative in 2014, at – 0,4 %). However, the negative impact of low or even negative inflation on Spain's fiscal outcomes was largely offset by higher-than-expected real GDP growth.

(15)

Spain also puts forward methodological issues concerning the alleged inability of the current effective action methodology to take account of negative inflation surprises or to accurately measure potential GDP growth in the case of Spain. Concerning the possible underestimation of the structural effort carried out in Spain, it must be borne in mind that, in estimating potential growth, the Commission applies the commonly agreed production function methodology, endorsed by the Council. As regards the impact of negative inflation, the Commission acknowledges in its analytical work that the methodology agreed for fiscal surveillance — and based on the correction of headline balance figures by means of potential output estimates — can, in the presence of a negative inflation shock, lead to the underestimation of the structural effort. However, this approach is complemented by a so-called bottom-up measure of the fiscal effort, which assesses whether expenditure targets have been met and the planned discretionary measures on the revenue side have been implemented. Contrary to the change in the structural balance, this bottom-up measure will likely be over-estimating the fiscal effort following a disinflation shock. In the case of Spain, also the use of such bottom-up methodology shows that no cumulated effort was delivered over 2013-2015, against the recommended cumulative structural effort of 3,0 % of GDP.

(16)

In view of Spain's reasoned request and having regard to the previous points, in particular the deep structural reforms undertaken by the Spanish government since 2012 and still in place, the challenging economic environment during the period covered by the June 2013 Council recommendation, the deficit-reducing commitments announced by the Spanish caretaker government in its reasoned request, along with the consolidation measures put in place following the Commission Recommendation of 9 March 2016 regarding measures to be taken by Spain in order to ensure a timely correction of its excessive deficit, a cancellation of the fine of 0,2 % of GDP is considered warranted,

(1)

The experience gained with the application of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/789 (2), in particular since its last amendment by Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/764 (3), has shown that several further measures need to be taken and that certain provisions of that Decision should be adapted to ensure a more effective approach against the further introduction into, and spread within, the Union of Xylella fastidiosa (Wells et al.) (hereinafter: ‘the specified organism’).

(2)

Notwithstanding the necessity of carrying out surveys based on the level of risk assessed at Member State level, experience has shown that surveys should be carried out in a more thorough and harmonised manner to ensure that all Member States achieve the same level of precaution against the specified organism. For that reason, when carrying out those surveys, Member States should take into account the relevant technical guidelines issued by the Commission.

(3)

As referred to in international standards, the identification of the specified organism has been proven to be most reliable when based on at least two different tests, based on different biological principles or targeting different parts of the genome. The list of those tests should be available in a Commission database that should be public to ensure transparency. As the identification of the specified organism outside the demarcated areas requires a different level of sensitivity of the tests, there should be specific tests for demarcated areas and for areas other than demarcated areas.

(4)

For transparency purposes, Member States should publish their national contingency plans on the internet.

(5)

Scientific evidence referred to by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in the Scientific Opinion of January 2015 (4) indicates the possibility of genetic recombination between different subspecies of the specified organism found in other parts of the world, affecting new plant species which were never found infected before by the subspecies concerned. Therefore, in order to ensure a more precautionary approach, and given the fact that different subspecies have recently been reported within the Union, it is important to clarify that where more than one subspecies of the specified organism have been found in an area, that area should be demarcated with regard to the specified organism and all of its possible subspecies. In addition, where the identification of the presence of a subspecies is pending, the Member State concerned should, on a precautionary basis, also demarcate that area with regard to the specified organism and all of its possible subspecies.

(6)

Experience has shown that, while carrying out surveys within the buffer zones, the allocation of resources has to be prioritised according to the level of phytosanitary risk. Therefore, in the buffer zones, it would be proportionate to set out that the respective survey is based on a grid split into 100 m × 100 m squares within a zone of a width of at least 1 km surrounding the infected zone, and a grid split into 1 km × 1 km squares within the rest of the buffer zone.

(7)

Based on current experience, and in line with scientific evidence reported by EFSA, the immediate removal of all host plants, irrespective of their health status, located within a radius of 100 m around the infected plants, increases the prospects for successful eradication of the specified organism. Compared to the containment measures, where the removal of plants is limited only to those found infected and only if located in some parts of the demarcated area, the removal of all host plants provides a higher level of guarantee vis-à-vis asymptomatic infections and thus the status of the specified organism in the area. It is therefore proportionate to reduce the width of the buffer zone surrounding the infested zone from 10 km to 5 km in all cases where the demarcated zone is established for the purpose of eradication. However, that width should remain 10 km in the case of demarcated areas established for the purpose of containment, because of the need to adopt a more precautionary approach due to the more extended presence of the specified organism in those demarcated areas.

(8)

It is also proportionate to reduce that buffer zone to 1 km, under certain conditions which would guarantee that no further spread of the specified organism occurred, as well as the immediate removal of the infected plants and appropriate monitoring of the situation. Similarly, it is proportionate to allow the lifting of a demarcated area, after 12 months since its initial establishment, if an intensive sampling scheme is adopted to ensure the absence of the specified organism from that area.

(9)

For the purpose of increasing transparency and public information about the measures taken against the specified organism, Member States should publish and update the list of demarcated areas in their territory, and the Commission should further publish and update its list of those areas as notified by the Member States.

(10)

Experience has shown that it is proportionate to allow that a demarcated area is not established where the specified organism has been found in a site with proven physical protection from the vectors of that organism. That approach is proportionate because of the low risk of spread of the specified organism and the higher possibility to immediately eliminate that organism due to the controlled environment of its appearance.

(11)

Member States should have the option to authorise the planting of some or all host plants within the infected zones under containment outside the 20 km area adjacent to the buffer zone, under relevant conditions, to ensure more flexibility for the respective Member State. In doing so, they should give preference to plants belonging to varieties assessed to be tolerant or resistant to the specified organism, with the aim of reducing the level of bacterial inoculum in the respective areas.

(12)

In order to respect the tradition and history of a particular location, Member States should have the option to decide that host plants officially designated as plants of historic value do not need to be removed if they are not infected with the specified organism, even if they are located within a radius of 100 m around the plants which have been tested and found to be infected by the specified organism. However, and in order to prevent their potential infection and the spread of the specified organism, they should be subject to particular conditions.

(13)

In order to ensure that the monitoring of the presence of the specified organism in the demarcated areas takes place at appropriate times and for purpose of legal certainty, it should be specified that such monitoring and the respective inspections take into account the relevant technical guidelines issued by the Commission.

(14)

For reasons of clarity and legal certainty, it is appropriate to limit the infected zones in which containment measures may be applied to those zones listed in an Annex to Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/789.

(15)

Taking into account the developments of the specified organism in the Union and the recognition of containment areas also in other parts of the Union, the removal of the plants should apply to the whole containment area where the specified organism is found to be present based on official surveys. However, in order to protect the rest of the Union territory, those official surveys should be carried out at least in proximity of sites of production authorised to move specified plants out of the demarcated areas, in proximity of the sites of plants with particular cultural, social and scientific value, and in areas within the infected zone measuring 20 km from the border of that infected zone. However, this requirement should not apply in the case of islands which are entirely containment areas and are situated more than 10 km to the nearest Union land territory, given that these islands are in any event physically isolated.

(16)

Due to the low phytosanitary risk as assessed by EFSA in March 2016 (5), it is appropriate to allow the movement of specified plants which belong to varieties proven to be not susceptible to one or more of the subspecies of the specified organism, out of the demarcated areas without plant passports prepared and issued in accordance with Commission Directive 92/105/EEC (6).

(17)

Based on the flight dispersal capacity of the insect vectors, it is appropriate and more proportionate to authorise the movement of specified plants from production sites surrounded by a zone with a width of 100 meters which has been subject to inspections twice per year and where all of the plants found to have symptoms, or to be infected with the specified organism, have been removed immediately. For reasons of consistency, a similar rule should apply to sites of production in third countries where the specified organism is known to be present.

(18)

Experience has shown that production sites where host plants are grown outside demarcated areas are subject to annual inspections, and, in the case of symptoms, subject to sampling and testing to ensure a higher level of confidence concerning the absence of the specified organism. Therefore, and in order to ensure a harmonised level of protection in the Union, the respective requirements for those sites should be adopted.

(19)

The species of Coffea, Lavandula dentata L., Nerium oleander L., Olea europaea L., Polygala myrtifolia L., and Prunus dulcis (Mill.) D.A. Webb have proven to be recurrently infected by the specified organism and provide an easy pathway for the spread of the disease within the Union. Although trace-back activities are still ongoing to confirm the source of the infected plants detected in the Union based on the precautionary basis, those specified plants should only be grown in sites that are subject to annual official inspection, sampling and testing to confirm the absence of the specified organism. Due to the higher susceptibility of those plants to the specified organism, the presence of that organism should be identified on the basis of at least two positive tests, of which at least one should be a molecular test, listed in the respective Commission database.

(20)

A similar requirement should apply to third countries where the specified organism is not known to occur yet. In addition, when moving those plants within the Union, professional operators should keep records for at least three years in order to ensure traceability and follow-up official inspections as appropriate.

(21)

Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/789 lays down strict provisions for the movement of certain plant species (‘host plants’) within the Union as being found infected by the European isolates of the specified organism. Those host plants are subject to strict conditions even if they are never grown within a demarcated area.

(22)

At the same time, a temporary authorisation has been granted to Belgium, the Czech Republic, France and Spain by Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/167 (7), allowing the certification of pre-basic mother plants and pre-basic material of specific species of fruit plants referred to in Annex I to Council Directive 2008/90/EC (8) and produced in the field under non-insect proof conditions. Several of those species, namely Juglans regia L., Olea europaea L., Prunus amygdalus Batsch, P. amygdalus × P. persica, P. armeniaca L., P. avium (L.) L., P. cerasus L., P. domestica L., P. domestica × P. salicina, P. dulcis (Mill.) D.A. Webb, P. persica (L.) Batsch, and P. salicina Lindley are known to be susceptible to the European and non-European isolates of the specified organism and are listed as ‘specified plants’ in Annex I to Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/789.

(23)

Giving the emerging threat from the specified organism for the Union territory, the authorisation for the certification of those pre-basic mother plants and that pre-basic material, which derogates from the insect-proof growing condition, should be complemented by alternative phytosanitary guarantees, even if the plants are not situated in an area demarcated pursuant to Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/789.

(24)

Therefore, those pre-basic mother plants and that pre-basic material which are subject to Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/167 should only be moved within the Union territory if they are accompanied by a plant passport. The purpose is to guarantee that those pre-basic mother plants and that pre-basic material, as well as all propagating material and fruit plants produced, are free from the specified organism. Furthermore, the pre-basic mother plants and the pre-basic material concerned should be subject to visual inspection, sampling and molecular testing to ensure the absence of the specified organism, while preserving the health status of those plants and that material during the propagation process.

(25)

Finally, all plant species which have been identified as specified plants by the Commission since the last amendment of Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/789 should be included in Annex I to that Decision.

(26)

Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/789 should therefore be amended accordingly.

(27)

In order to allow professional operators and responsible official bodies to adapt to the new requirements concerning the movement of plants for planting, other than seeds, of species of Coffea, Lavandula dentata L., Nerium oleander L., Olea europaea L., Polygala myrtifolia L., and Prunus dulcis (Mill.) D.A. Webb, the respective provision should apply from 1 March 2018.

(28)

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

(1)

Article 3 is replaced by the following:

(*1)   ‘Guidelines for the survey of Xylella fastidiosa (Wells et al.) in the Union territory’ http://ec.europa.eu/food/sites/food/files/plant/docs/ph_biosec_legis_guidelines_xylella-survey.pdf’ "

(2)

In Article 3a, paragraph 4 is replaced by the following:

(3)

Article 4 is amended as follows:

(4)

In Article 5, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:

(5)

Article 6 is amended as follows:

(6)

Article 7 is amended as follows:

(7)

Article 9 is amended as follows:

(8)

Article 10 is amended as follows:

(9)

In Article 16, the following second subparagraph is added:

‘Plants for planting, other than seeds, of Coffea, Lavandula dentata L., Nerium oleander L., Olea europaea L., Polygala myrtifolia L., and Prunus dulcis (Mill.) D.A. Webb shall only be introduced into the Union if they have been grown in a site that is subject to annual official inspection, with sampling and testing carried out at the appropriate times on those plants for the presence of the specified organism and in accordance with international standards, confirming the absence of the specified organism, using a sampling scheme able to identify with 99 % reliability the level of presence of infected plants of 5 %, and targeting symptomatic plants, as well as asymptomatic plants in the proximity of the symptomatic ones.’

(10)

In Article 17(4), points (c), (d) and (e) are replaced by the following:

(11)

Annex I is amended in accordance with Annex I to this Decision.

(12)

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

(13)

Annex III is added, the text of which is set out in Annex III to this Decision.

(1)

On 31 January 2011, the Norwegian company Calanus AS made a request to the competent authority of the United Kingdom to place oil from the crustacean (marine zooplankton) Calanus finmarchicus harvested in the Norwegian Economic Zone and the Jan Mayen zone on the Union market as a novel food ingredient within the meaning of point (e) of Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 258/97.

(2)

On 21 October 2016, the competent authority of the United Kingdom issued its initial assessment report. In that report, it came to the conclusion that oil from Calanus finmarchicus meets the criteria for novel food set out in Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 258/97.

(3)

On 8 November 2016, the Commission forwarded the initial assessment report to the other Member States.

(4)

Reasoned objections were raised by other Member States within the 60-day period laid down in the first subparagraph of Article 6(4) of Regulation (EC) No 258/97, in particular concerning the insufficient information on productions process, storage stability and toxicological data. The additional explanations provided by the applicant alleviated those concerns to the satisfaction of Member States and of the Commission.

(5)

Directive 2002/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) lays down requirements for food supplements. The use of oil from Calanus finmarchicus should be authorised without prejudice to the provisions of that Directive.

(6)

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

(1)

Commission Decision 2009/827/EC (2) authorised, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 258/97, the placing on the market of Chia seeds (Salvia hispanica) as a novel food ingredient to be used in bread products.

(2)

Commission Implementing Decision 2013/50/EU (3) authorised, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 258/97, an extension of use of Chia seeds (Salvia hispanica) as a novel food ingredient to be used in additional food categories as follows: baked products; breakfast cereals; fruit, nut and seed mixes, and pre-packed Chia seeds as such.

(3)

On 18 September 2015, an authorisation letter was issued by the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 258/97, for an extension of use of Chia seeds (Salvia hispanica) as a novel food ingredient to be used in additional food categories, namely, in fruit juice and fruit juice blends.

(4)

On 5 September 2016, the company MEGGLE Hrvatska d.o.o. made a request to the competent authority of Croatia for an extension of use of Chia seeds (Salvia hispanica) as a novel food ingredient to be used in additional food categories, namely, in yoghurt.

(5)

On 11 January 2017, the competent authority of Croatia issued its initial assessment report. In that report, it came to the conclusion that the extension of use and proposed maximum use levels of Chia seeds (Salvia hispanica) meet the criteria for novel food set out in Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 258/97.

(6)

On 16 January 2017, the Commission forwarded the initial assessment report to the other Member States.

(7)

Reasoned objections were raised by the other Member States within the 60-day period laid down in the first subparagraph of Article 6(4) of Regulation (EC) No 258/97, in particular due to insufficient information. Additional explanations by the applicant alleviated the concerns to the satisfaction of the Member States and the Commission.

(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)

On 10 June 2016, the company Ekoidé AB made a request to the competent authority of Sweden to place UV-treated mushrooms (Agaricus bisporus) with increased levels of vitamin D2 on the Union market as a novel food within the meaning of point (f) of Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 258/97.

(2)

On 27 February 2017, the competent authority of Sweden issued its initial assessment report. In that report, it came to the conclusion that the UV-treated mushrooms (Agaricus bisporus) with increased levels of vitamin D2 meet the criteria for novel food set out in Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 258/97.

(3)

On 2 March 2017, the Commission forwarded the initial assessment report to the other Member States.

(4)

Reasoned objections were raised by other Member States within the 60-day period laid down in the first subparagraph of Article 6(4) of Regulation (EC) No 258/97. Additional explanations by the applicant alleviated those concerns to the satisfaction of the Member States and of the Commission.

(5)

Point 1 of Part A of Annex VI to Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) requires that the name of the food shall include or be accompanied by particulars as to the specific treatment that a food has undergone in all cases where omission of such information could mislead the consumers. As consumers do not normally expect mushrooms to be subject to UV-treatments, the name of the food shall include or be accompanied by such information in order to avoid consumers to be misled.

(6)

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

(1)

On 22 August 2016, Australia submitted a report presenting the results of calculations of greenhouse gas emissions from the cultivation of canola oilseed in Australia. In Australia the closest statistical regions to the description of NUTS2 regions are states. Estimates of greenhouse gas emissions were therefore undertaken at the level of the Australian states.

(2)

After examination of the report submitted by Australia, the Commission considers that it complies with the conditions set out in Directive 2009/28/EC to allow a third country to use typical values for a smaller geographical area (Australian states) than that used in the calculation of the default values: the data of this report refer to emissions from cultivation of agricultural raw materials (canola oilseed); the typical greenhouse gas emissions from the cultivation of canola oilseed can be expected to be lower than or equal to the emissions that were assumed in the calculation of the relevant default values; and these typical greenhouse gas emissions have been reported to the Commission;

(3)

The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on the Sustainability of Biofuels and Bioliquids,

(1)

Article 68 of the Partnership Agreement between the members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States (‘ACP’) of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part (‘the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement’) stipulates that a system of additional support mechanism is to be put in place in order to mitigate the short-term adverse effects resulting from exogenous shocks affecting the economy of ACP States. Paragraph 4 of that Article sets out that the modalities of the support mechanism are laid down in Annex II to the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement.

(2)

The mechanism as currently defined in Annex II to the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement needs to be adapted to reflect the needs of the Parties and to ensure a flexible and rapid delivery of assistance.

(3)

Article 100 of the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement stipulates that Annexes Ia, II, III, IV, and VI to the Agreement in question may be revised, reviewed and/or amended by the ACP-EU Council of Ministers on the basis of a recommendation from the ACP–EU Development Finance Cooperation Committee.

(4)

Article 15(4) of the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement stipulates that the ACP-EU Council of Ministers may delegate powers to the ACP-EU Committee of Ambassadors.

(5)

Article 16(2) of the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement stipulates that the ACP-EU Committee of Ambassadors shall carry out any mandate entrusted to it by the Council.

(6)

The ACP-EU Council of Ministers meeting of 5 May 2017 mandated that the ACP-EU Committee of Ambassadors adopt a decision on the implementation of Article 68 of the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement regarding exogenous shocks and amending Annex II, Chapter 3.

(7)

A decision on the implementation of Article 68 of the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement should be adopted,