(1)

In accordance with Council Decision (EU) 2018/385 (2), the Protocol to the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement establishing a partnership between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Kyrgyz Republic, of the other part, to take account of the accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union (‘the Protocol’) was signed on 6 February 2018, subject to its conclusion at a later date.

(2)

As regards matters falling within the competence of the European Atomic Energy Community, the conclusion of the Protocol is subject to a separate procedure.

(3)

The Protocol should be approved on behalf of the Union and of the Member States,

(1)

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

(2)

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

(3)

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

(4)

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

(1)

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2080 (3) has opened the sale of skimmed milk powder by a tendering procedure.

(2)

In the light of the tenders received for the 33rd partial invitation to tender, a minimum selling price should be fixed.

(3)

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 United Kingdom has taken part in Council Regulation (EC) No 377/2004 (1), as amended by Regulation (EU) No 493/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 (2).

(2)

On 1 October 2018, within the required 3-month deadline, the United Kingdom notified the President of the Council of its wish not to take part in the adoption of the recast of Regulation (EC) No 377/2004 proposed by the Commission on 16 May 2018 and received by the Council in all the required languages on 2 July 2018.

(3)

Regulation (EC) No 377/2004 aims to enhance cooperation between immigration liaison officers posted in third countries, notably by setting out an obligation to establish local or regional networks among immigration liaison officers, as well as by promoting the use of a dedicated e-tool for regular exchanges of information within the local networks and establishing a reporting system on the activities of immigration liaison officers' networks through bi-annual Presidency reports, without requiring the use of any operational systems or directly interacting with any legal provisions contained in other legal instruments that are part of the Schengen acquis.

(4)

The 16 May 2018 proposal for the recast of Regulation (EC) No 377/2004, while aiming to increase coordination and optimise utilisation of immigration liaison officers, including the new European liaison officers deployed to third countries, in order to respond more effectively to EU priorities in the field of migration, does not depart from the nature of the current Regulation (EC) No 377/2004, inasmuch as its specific interaction with the other parts of the Schengen acquis is concerned.

(5)

The proposal for the recast of Regulation (EC) No 377/2004, just as the current Regulation (EC) No 377/2004, can therefore be considered as a self-standing measure within the Schengen acquis, which does not interact operationally with other legal instruments that are part of the Schengen acquis.

(6)

In this exceptional case, and in the light of the self-standing nature within the Schengen acquis of the current Regulation (EC) No 377/2004, it may be considered that, if the United Kingdom no longer participates in the current Regulation, or in any further amendments thereto, but continues to participate in the remaining Schengen acquis in which it currently participates pursuant to Council Decision 2000/365/EC (3), this would ensure the widest possible participation of the United Kingdom, without seriously affecting the practical operability of the other parts of the Schengen acquis and while respecting their coherence.

(7)

Article 8(2) of Decision 2000/365/EC should therefore, in accordance with Article 5(3) of the Protocol No 19, cease to apply to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as regards the current Regulation (EC) No 377/2004 and any further amendments thereto, including the proposal for the recast of Regulation (EC) No 377/2004, as from the entry into force of the proposed recast of Regulation (EC) No 377/2004.

(8)

As a consequence, point 6 of Annex I to Council Decision 2004/926/EC (4) as regards Regulation (EC) No 377/2004, in accordance with Article 5(3) of Protocol 19, should equally cease to apply as from the entry into force of the proposed recast,

(1)

The European Union has set as one of its aims the promotion of the protection of the rights of the child, as stated in Article 3 of the Treaty on European Union. Measures for the protection of children against wrongful removal or retention are an essential part of that policy.

(2)

The Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 (2) (‘Brussels IIa Regulation’), which aims to protect children from the harmful effects of wrongful removal or retention and to establish procedures to ensure their prompt return to the state of their habitual residence, as well as to secure the protection of rights of access and rights of custody.

(3)

The Brussels IIa Regulation complements and reinforces the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (‘the 1980 Hague Convention’) which establishes, at international level, a system of obligations and cooperation among contracting states and between central authorities and aims at ensuring the prompt return of wrongfully removed or retained children.

(4)

All Member States of the Union are party to the 1980 Hague Convention.

(5)

The Union encourages third states to accede to the 1980 Hague Convention and supports the correct implementation of the 1980 Hague Convention by participating, along with the Member States, inter alia, in the special commissions organised on a regular basis by the Hague Conference on private international law.

(6)

A common legal framework applicable between Member States of the Union and third states could be the best solution for sensitive cases of international child abduction.

(7)

The 1980 Hague Convention stipulates that it applies between the acceding state and contracting states that have declared their acceptance of the accession.

(8)

The 1980 Hague Convention does not allow regional economic integration organisations, such as the Union, to become party to it. Therefore, the Union cannot accede to that Convention, nor can it deposit a declaration of acceptance of an acceding state.

(9)

Pursuant to Opinion 1/13 of the Court of Justice of the European Union (3), declarations of acceptance under the 1980 Hague Convention fall within the exclusive external competence of the Union.

(10)

The Dominican Republic deposited its instrument of accession to the 1980 Hague Convention on 11 August 2004. The 1980 Hague Convention entered into force for the Dominican Republic on 1 November 2004.

(11)

All Member States, with the exception of Austria, Cyprus, Croatia, Denmark, Luxembourg, Portugal, Romania and the United Kingdom, have already accepted the accession of the Dominican Republic to the 1980 Hague Convention. An assessment of the situation in the Dominican Republic has led to the conclusion that Austria, Cyprus, Croatia, Luxembourg, Portugal, Romania and the United Kingdom are in a position to accept, in the interest of the Union, the accession of the Dominican Republic under the terms of the 1980 Hague Convention.

(12)

Austria, Cyprus, Croatia, Luxembourg, Portugal, Romania and the United Kingdom should therefore be authorised to deposit their declarations of acceptance of the accession of the Dominican Republic to the 1980 Hague Convention in the interest of the Union in accordance with the terms set out in this Decision. The other Member States of the Union which have already accepted the accession of the Dominican Republic to the 1980 Hague Convention should not deposit new declarations of acceptance as the existing declarations remain valid under public international law.

(13)

The United Kingdom and Ireland are bound by the Brussels IIa Regulation and are taking part in the adoption and application of this Decision.

(14)

In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No 22 on the position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Decision and is not bound by it or subject to its application,

(1)

The European Union has set as one of its aims the promotion of the protection of the rights of the child, as stated in Article 3 of the Treaty on European Union. Measures for the protection of children against wrongful removal or retention are an essential part of that policy.

(2)

The Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 (2) (‘Brussels IIa Regulation’), which aims to protect children from the harmful effects of wrongful removal or retention and to establish procedures to ensure their prompt return to the state of their habitual residence, as well as to secure the protection of rights of access and rights of custody.

(3)

The Brussels IIa Regulation complements and reinforces the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (‘the 1980 Hague Convention’) which establishes, at international level, a system of obligations and cooperation among contracting states and between central authorities and aims at ensuring the prompt return of wrongfully removed or retained children.

(4)

All Member States of the Union are party to the 1980 Hague Convention.

(5)

The Union encourages third states to accede to the 1980 Hague Convention and supports the correct implementation of the 1980 Hague Convention by participating, along with the Member States, inter alia, in the special commissions organised on a regular basis by the Hague Conference on private international law.

(6)

A common legal framework applicable between Member States of the Union and third states could be the best solution for sensitive cases of international child abduction.

(7)

The 1980 Hague Convention stipulates that it applies between the acceding state and contracting states that have declared their acceptance of the accession.

(8)

The 1980 Hague Convention does not allow regional economic integration organisations, such as the Union, to become party to it. Therefore, the Union cannot accede to that Convention, nor can it deposit a declaration of acceptance of an acceding state.

(9)

Pursuant to Opinion 1/13 of the Court of Justice of the European Union (3), declarations of acceptance under the 1980 Hague Convention fall within the exclusive external competence of the Union.

(10)

Ecuador deposited its instrument of accession to the 1980 Hague Convention on 22 January 1992. The 1980 Hague Convention entered into force for Ecuador on 1 April 1992.

(11)

All Member States concerned, with the exception of Austria and Denmark, have already accepted the accession of Ecuador to the 1980 Hague Convention. Ecuador has accepted the accession of Bulgaria, Cyprus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Romania to the 1980 Hague Convention. An assessment of the situation in Ecuador has led to the conclusion that Austria is in a position to accept, in the interest of the Union, the accession of Ecuador under the terms of the 1980 Hague Convention.

(12)

Ukraine deposited its instrument of accession to the 1980 Hague Convention on 2 June 2006. The 1980 Hague Convention entered into force for Ukraine on 1 September 2006.

(13)

All Member States, with the exception of Austria and Denmark, have already accepted the accession of Ukraine to the 1980 Hague Convention. An assessment of the situation in Ukraine has led to the conclusion that Austria is in a position to accept, in the interest of the Union, the accession of Ukraine under the terms of the 1980 Hague Convention.

(14)

Austria should therefore be authorised to deposit its declarations of acceptance of the accession of Ecuador and Ukraine to the 1980 Hague Convention in the interest of the Union in accordance with the terms set out in this Decision. The other Member States of the Union which have already accepted the accession of Ecuador and Ukraine to the 1980 Hague Convention should not deposit new declarations of acceptance as the existing declarations remain valid under public international law.

(15)

The United Kingdom and Ireland are bound by the Brussels IIa Regulation and are taking part in the adoption and application of this Decision.

(16)

In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No 22 on the position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Decision and is not bound by it or subject to its application,

(1)

The European Union has set as one of its aims the promotion of the protection of the rights of the child, as stated in Article 3 of the Treaty on European Union. Measures for the protection of children against wrongful removal or retention are an essential part of that policy.

(2)

The Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 (2) (‘Brussels IIa Regulation’), which aims to protect children from the harmful effects of wrongful removal or retention and to establish procedures to ensure their prompt return to the state of their habitual residence, as well as to secure the protection of rights of access and rights of custody.

(3)

The Brussels IIa Regulation complements and reinforces the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (‘the 1980 Hague Convention’) which establishes, at international level, a system of obligations and cooperation among contracting states and between central authorities and aims at ensuring the prompt return of wrongfully removed or retained children.

(4)

All Member States of the Union are party to the 1980 Hague Convention.

(5)

The Union encourages third states to accede to the 1980 Hague Convention and supports the correct implementation of the 1980 Hague Convention by participating, along with the Member States, inter alia, in the special commissions organised on a regular basis by the Hague Conference on private international law.

(6)

A common legal framework applicable between Member States of the Union and third states could be the best solution for sensitive cases of international child abduction.

(7)

The 1980 Hague Convention stipulates that it applies between the acceding state and contracting states that have declared their acceptance of the accession.

(8)

The 1980 Hague Convention does not allow regional economic integration organisations, such as the Union, to become party to it. Therefore, the Union cannot accede to that Convention, nor can it deposit a declaration of acceptance of an acceding state.

(9)

Pursuant to Opinion 1/13 of the Court of Justice of the European Union (3), declarations of acceptance under the 1980 Hague Convention fall within the exclusive external competence of the Union.

(10)

Honduras deposited its instrument of accession to the 1980 Hague Convention on 20 December 1993. The 1980 Hague Convention entered into force for Honduras on 1 March 1994.

(11)

All Member States concerned, with the exception of Austria, Denmark and Romania, have already accepted the accession of Honduras to the 1980 Hague Convention. Honduras has accepted the accession of Bulgaria, Cyprus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta and Slovenia to the 1980 Hague Convention. An assessment of the situation in Honduras has led to the conclusion that Austria and Romania are in a position to accept, in the interest of the Union, the accession of Honduras under the terms of the 1980 Hague Convention.

(12)

Austria and Romania should therefore be authorised to deposit their declarations of acceptance of the accession of Honduras to the 1980 Hague Convention in the interest of the Union in accordance with the terms set out in this Decision. The other Member States of the Union which have already accepted the accession of Honduras to the 1980 Hague Convention should not deposit new declarations of acceptance as the existing declarations remain valid under public international law.

(13)

The United Kingdom and Ireland are bound by the Brussels IIa Regulation and are taking part in the adoption and application of this Decision.

(14)

In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No 22 on the position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Decision and is not bound by it or subject to its application,

(1)

The European Union has set as one of its aims the promotion of the protection of the rights of the child, as stated in Article 3 of the Treaty on European Union. Measures for the protection of children against wrongful removal or retention are an essential part of that policy.

(2)

The Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 (2) (‘Brussels IIa Regulation’), which aims to protect children from the harmful effects of wrongful removal or retention and to establish procedures to ensure their prompt return to the state of their habitual residence, as well as to secure the protection of rights of access and rights of custody.

(3)

The Brussels IIa Regulation complements and reinforces the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (‘the 1980 Hague Convention’) which establishes, at international level, a system of obligations and cooperation among contracting states and between central authorities and aims at ensuring the prompt return of wrongfully removed or retained children.

(4)

All Member States of the Union are party to the 1980 Hague Convention.

(5)

The Union encourages third states to accede to the 1980 Hague Convention and supports the correct implementation of the 1980 Hague Convention by participating, along with the Member States, inter alia, in the special commissions organised on a regular basis by the Hague Conference on private international law.

(6)

A common legal framework applicable between Member States of the Union and third states could be the best solution for sensitive cases of international child abduction.

(7)

The 1980 Hague Convention stipulates that it applies between the acceding state and contracting states that have declared their acceptance of the accession.

(8)

The 1980 Hague Convention does not allow regional economic integration organisations, such as the Union, to become party to it. Therefore, the Union cannot accede to that Convention, nor can it deposit a declaration of acceptance of an acceding state.

(9)

Pursuant to Opinion 1/13 of the Court of Justice of the European Union (3), declarations of acceptance under the 1980 Hague Convention fall within the exclusive external competence of the Union.

(10)

Belarus deposited its instrument of accession to the 1980 Hague Convention on 12 January 1998. The 1980 Hague Convention entered into force for Belarus on 1 April 1998.

(11)

All Member States concerned, with the exception of Austria, Denmark, Luxembourg and Romania, have already accepted the accession of Belarus to the 1980 Hague Convention. Belarus has accepted the accession of Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Malta to the 1980 Hague Convention. An assessment of the situation in Belarus has led to the conclusion that Austria, Luxembourg and Romania are in a position to accept, in the interest of the Union, the accession of Belarus under the terms of the 1980 Hague Convention.

(12)

Uzbekistan deposited its instrument of accession to the 1980 Hague Convention on 31 May 1999. The 1980 Hague Convention entered into force for Uzbekistan on 1 August 1999.

(13)

All Member States, with the exception of Austria, Denmark, Luxembourg and Romania, have already accepted the accession of Uzbekistan to the 1980 Hague Convention. Uzbekistan has accepted the accession of Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Malta to the 1980 Hague Convention. An assessment of the situation in Uzbekistan has led to the conclusion that Austria, Luxembourg and Romania are in a position to accept, in the interest of the Union, the accession of Uzbekistan under the terms of the 1980 Hague Convention.

(14)

Austria, Luxembourg and Romania should therefore be authorised to deposit their declarations of acceptance of the accession of Belarus and Uzbekistan to the 1980 Hague Convention in the interest of the Union in accordance with the terms set out in this Decision. The other Member States of the Union which have already accepted the accession of Belarus and Uzbekistan to the 1980 Hague Convention should not deposit new declarations of acceptance as the existing declarations remain valid under public international law.

(15)

The United Kingdom and Ireland are bound by the Brussels IIa Regulation and are taking part in the adoption and application of this Decision.

(16)

In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No 22 on the position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Decision and is not bound by it or subject to its application,

(1)

Article 193 of Directive 2006/112/EC provides that the taxable person supplying the goods or services is, as a general rule, liable for the payment of value added tax (VAT) to the tax authorities.

(2)

By letter registered with the Commission on 16 October 2018, Lithuania requested an authorisation to introduce a special measure derogating from Article 193 of Directive 2006/112/EC in order to apply the reverse charge mechanism to supplies of hard drives (‘the special measure’).

(3)

In accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 395(2) of Directive 2006/112/EC, the Commission informed the other Member States of the request made by Lithuania by letters dated 19 November 2018. By letter dated 20 November 2018, the Commission notified Lithuania that it had all the information necessary to consider the request.

(4)

Lithuania discovered missing trader fraud in intra-Community trade with respect to supplies of electronic goods such as laptops, mobile phones, tablets and hard drives. The scale and scope of this practice has a direct, very negative impact on the State budget.

(5)

Lithuania has undertaken a number of measures to tackle and prevent this type of VAT fraud. According to Lithuania, those measures are not sufficient to prevent VAT fraud in the supply of electronic goods.

(6)

Lithuania intends to introduce the reverse charge mechanism to electronic products based on Article 199a of Directive 2006/112/EC. However, hard drives fall outside the scope of that Article.

(7)

In order to provide for a more comprehensive form of the reverse charge mechanism that would apply not only to the electronic products already covered by Article 199a of Directive 2006/112/EC but also to hard drives, Lithuania requests to be authorised to introduce the special measure.

(8)

Given the possible positive impact of the special measure on the fight against VAT fraud identified by Lithuania, the derogation should be granted for a limited period, from 1 March 2019 until 28 February 2022.

(9)

Derogations are in general authorised for a limited period, to allow an assessment of whether special measures are appropriate and effective. Derogations grant Member States time to introduce other conventional measures to tackle the specific problem until the expiry of special measures, thereby making an extension of the derogation redundant. Derogations that allow making use of the reverse charge mechanism are only granted exceptionally for specific areas where fraud occurs and constitute a means of last resort. Lithuania should therefore implement other conventional measures to fight and prevent the VAT fraud with respect to trade in hard drives until the expiry of the special measure and consequently should no longer need to derogate from Article 193 of Directive 2006/112/EC with regard to such supplies.

(10)

The special measure will have no adverse impact on the Union's own resources accruing from VAT,

(1)

By letter registered with the Commission on 15 May 2018 Poland requested an authorisation to introduce a special measure derogating from Article 226 of Directive 2006/112/EC in order to apply a split payment mechanism (‘the special measure’). The special measure should require the inclusion of a special statement that value added tax (VAT) has to be paid to the blocked VAT account of the supplier on invoices issued in relation to the supplies of goods and services susceptible to fraud and generally covered by the reverse charge mechanism and by the joint and several liability in Poland. Poland requested the special measure for period of three years, from 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2021.

(2)

In accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 395(2) of Directive 2006/112/EC, the Commission transmitted the request of Poland to other Member States by letters dated 3 September 2018. By letter dated 4 September 2018, the Commission notified Poland that it had all the information necessary to consider the request.

(3)

Poland has already taken numerous measures to fight fraud. It has introduced, the reverse charge mechanism and joint and several liability of the supplier and the customer, the Standard Audit File, tighter rules for the VAT registration and de-registration of taxable persons, increased number of audits among others. However, Poland nonetheless considers that those measures are insufficient to prevent VAT fraud.

(4)

Poland is of the view that the application of the special measure will eliminate VAT fraud. Since under the split payment mechanism the amount of VAT deposited on a separate VAT account of a supplier (taxable person) can be used for restricted purposes only, namely for the payment of the VAT liability to the tax authority or for the payment of VAT on invoices received from suppliers, it is better guaranteed that the tax authorities will receive the whole VAT amount which should be transferred by the taxable person to the Polish State Treasury.

(5)

Poland introduced the voluntary split payment mechanism on 1 July 2018. Poland considers that in areas particularly exposed to VAT fraud, the special measure should be introduced. Those areas are sectors of economy such as steel, scrap, electronics, gold, non-ferrous metals, fuels, and plastics. Those areas are generally covered by the reverse charge mechanism and by joint and several liability of the supplier and the customer in Poland.

(6)

The special measure will apply to supplies between taxable persons, of goods and services listed in the Annex in business-to-business (B2B) supplies, and will cover only electronic bank transfers.

(7)

Where a surplus of input tax in excess of the output tax that is recognised by the supplier in the VAT return as a refundable amount, the payment of such refund is normally carried out within 60 days to supplier's regular account. However, Poland has informed the Commission that, for the transactions covered by the special measure, at the request of a supplier who holds a blocked VAT account, the refund is to take place within 25 days.

(8)

Suppliers are not to incur costs on opening and operating the VAT bank account, as the VAT account is to be free from any commissions and fees by the bank.

(9)

The special measure is to apply to all suppliers, including those suppliers who are not established in Poland, as they have to hold a bank account operated pursuant to Polish Banking Law. In this respect, Poland confirmed that the suppliers will not incur any additional costs relating to the obligation of opening a bank account in Poland, since those suppliers will be able to open and hold the bank account for VAT payments in Poland free of charge.

(10)

The special measure as envisaged by Poland will impose significant changes on suppliers. The system has already been operating since 1 July 2018 on a voluntary basis, and taxable persons have had the opportunity to become acquainted with it.

(11)

The Commission is of the view that the special measure for supplies of goods and services susceptible to fraud is likely to bring effective results in the fight against VAT fraud. The derogations are usually granted for a limited period of time. The special measure should therefore be authorised from 1 March 2019 until 28 February 2022.

(12)

Given the novelty and the broad scope of the special measure, it is important to ensure necessary follow-up. In particular, such follow-up needs to focus on the impact of the special measure on the level of VAT fraud and on the taxable persons regarding the refunds of VAT, the administrative burden, costs for taxable persons among others. Poland should therefore provide a report on the impact of the special measure 18 months after the entry into force of the special measure in Poland.

(13)

The special measure will not negatively affect the overall amount of tax revenue collected at the stage of final consumption and will have no adverse impact on the Union's own resources accruing from VAT,

(1)

On 18 September 2015 and 1 October 2015, the Council adopted Decisions (EU, Euratom) 2015/1600 (1) and (EU, Euratom) 2015/1790 (2) appointing the members of the European Economic and Social Committee for the period from 21 September 2015 to 20 September 2020. On 16 February 2016, by Council Decision (EU) 2016/229 (3), Ms Marie-Louise KNUPPERT was replaced by Mr Arne GREVSEN as a member.

(2)

A member's seat on the European Economic and Social Committee has become vacant following the end of the mandate of Mr Bernt FALLENKAMP.

(3)

A member's seat on the European Economic and Social Committee has become vacant following the end of the mandate of Mr Arne GREVSEN,

—

Ms Dorthe ANDERSEN, Head of Danish Trade Union EU Office,

—

Ms Bente SORGENFREY, 1. vice president FH - Danish Trade Union Confederation.

(1)

On 15 April 2014, the Council adopted Decision 2014/219/CFSP (1) on the European Union CSDP Mission in Mali (EUCAP Sahel Mali).

(2)

On 11 January 2017, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2017/50 (2), extending EUCAP Sahel Mali until 14 January 2019. On 7 December 2017, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2017/2264 (3), providing for a financial reference amount for EUCAP Sahel Mali until 14 January 2019.

(3)

On 25 June 2018, in its conclusions on Sahel/Mali, the Council underlined the importance of the regionalisation of CSDP in the Sahel with the aim of strengthening, as appropriate, the civilian and military support to cross-border cooperation, the regional cooperation structures — in particular those of the G5 Sahel — and the capacity and ownership of the G5 countries to address the security challenges in the region.

(4)

On 25 October 2018, following the Strategic Review of EUCAP Sahel Mali, the Political and Security Committee recommended that EUCAP Sahel Mali be extended until 14 January 2021.

(5)

On 17 December 2018, pending approval by the Council of the planning documents on the Sahel regionalisation, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2018/2008 (4), extending EUCAP Sahel Mali and providing it with a financial reference amount until 28 February 2019.

(6)

Decision 2014/219/CFSP should therefore be extended until 14 January 2021.

(7)

EUCAP Sahel Mali will be conducted 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 on European Union,

(1)

in Article 14(1), the following subparagraph is added:

‘The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to EUCAP Sahel Mali between 1 March 2019 and 14 January 2021 shall be EUR 66 930 000.’;

(2)

in Article 18, the second sentence is replaced by the following:

‘It shall apply until 14 January 2021.’

(1)

On 14 May 2018, the supplier SEG Automotive Germany GmbH submitted an application for the approval of the High efficient 48V motor generator (BRM) plus 48V/12V DC/DC converter for N1 vehicles as an eco-innovation. The application has been assessed in accordance with Article 12 of Regulation (EU) No 510/2011 and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 427/2014 (2).

(2)

The 48V motor generator is a reversible machine that may operate as either an electric motor converting electrical energy into mechanical energy, or a generator converting mechanical energy into electrical energy as a standard alternator. The application submitted focused on the generation function of the component.

(3)

The applicant proposed two different methodologies to determine the total efficiency of the system, combining the efficiency of the 48V motor generator and the efficiency of the 48V/12V DC/DC converter. The first method aims to calculate the efficiency of the 48V motor generator and its 48V/12V DC/DC converter separately, while the second method aims to calculate the efficiency of the 48V motor generator plus its 48V/12V DC/DC converter (combined method). Both testing procedures are in line with the Technical Guidelines for the preparation of applications for the approval of innovative technologies pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 510/2011.

(4)

The information provided in the application demonstrates that the conditions and the criteria referred to in Article 12 of Regulation (EU) No 510/2011 and in Articles 2 and 4 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 427/2014 have been met in for the two proposed case studies. As a consequence, the SEG Automotive Germany GmbH High efficient 48V motor generator (BRM) plus 48V/12V DC/DC converter applied to N1 vehicles should be approved as an eco-innovation.

(5)

It is appropriate to approve the testing methodologies for determining the CO2 savings from the SEG Automotive Germany GmbH High efficient 48V motor generator (BRM) plus 48V/12V DC/DC converter. Only emission savings certified on the basis of one of the two testing methodologies set out in this Decision can be taken into account for determining a manufacturer's specific emission performance pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 510/2011.

(6)

In order to determine the CO2 savings from the SEG Automotive Germany GmbH High efficient 48V motor generator (BRM) plus 48V/12V DC/DC converter, it is necessary to establish the baseline technology against which the efficiency of the generator function should be assessed. Taking into account expert judgement it is appropriate to consider an alternator with 67 % efficiency as baseline technology to be used for the purpose of determining the CO2 savings under this Decision.

(7)

In the case of hybrid N1 vehicles, the testing methodologies are based on certain conditions that are only valid for vehicles for which it is allowed to use uncorrected measurements like the fuel consumption or the CO2 emissions measured during type 1 test as specified in Annex 8 to UNECE Regulation No 101. This is why the scope of this decision applies to any internal combustion engine powered N1 vehicles, but is limited to certain hybrid N1 vehicles only.

(8)

The savings from the SEG Automotive Germany GmbH High efficient 48V motor generator (BRM) plus 48V/12V DC/DC converter may be partially demonstrated on the test referred to in Annex XII to Commission Regulation (EC) No 692/2008 (3). It is therefore necessary to ensure that this partial coverage is taken into account in the testing methodology for CO2 savings from the motor generator.

(9)

If the type approval authority finds that the SEG Automotive Germany GmbH High efficient 48V motor generator (BRM) plus 48V/12V DC/DC converter does not satisfy the conditions for certification, the application for certification of the savings should be rejected.

(10)

This Decision should apply until 2020 inclusive in relation to the test procedure referred to in Annex XII to Regulation (EC) No 692/2008. With effect from 1 January 2021, innovative technologies are to be assessed in relation to the test procedure laid down in Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1151 (4).

(11)

For the purposes of determining the general eco-innovation code to be used in the relevant type approval documents in accordance with Annexes I, VIII and IX to Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (5), the individual code to be used for the SEG Automotive Germany GmbH High efficient 48V motor generator (BRM) plus 48V/12V DC/DC converter should be specified,

(1)

On 14 May 2018, the supplier SEG Automotive Germany GmbH submitted an application for the approval of the High efficient 48V motor generator (BRM) plus 48V/12V DC/DC converter for M1 vehicles as an eco-innovation. The application has been assessed in accordance with Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011 (2).

(2)

The 48V motor generator is a reversible machine that may operate as either an electric motor converting electrical energy into mechanical energy, or a generator converting mechanical energy into electrical energy as a standard alternator. The application submitted focused on the generation function of the component.

(3)

The applicant proposed two different methodologies to determine the total efficiency of the system, combining the efficiency of the 48V motor generator and the efficiency of the 48V/12V DC/DC converter. The first method aims to calculate the efficiency of the 48V motor generator and its 48V/12V DC/DC converter separately, while the second method aims to calculate the efficiency of the 48V motor generator plus its 48V/12V DC/DC converter (combined method). Both testing procedures are in line with the Technical Guidelines for the preparation of applications for the approval of innovative technologies pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 443/2009. As compared to the testing methodology defined in Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/785 (3) on the approval of efficient 12V motor-generators, the testing methodologies for 48V motor generators include different voltage and test current to take into account the specificities of the 48V motor generator.

(4)

The information provided in the application demonstrates that the conditions and the criteria referred to in Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 and in Articles 2 and 4 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011 have been met for the two proposed case studies. As a consequence, the SEG Automotive Germany GmbH High efficient 48V motor generator (BRM) plus 48V/12V DC/DC converter applied to M1 vehicles should be approved as an eco-innovation.

(5)

It is appropriate to approve the testing methodologies for determining the CO2 savings from the SEG Automotive Germany GmbH High efficient 48V motor generator (BRM) plus 48V/12V DC/DC converter. Only emission savings certified on the basis of one of the two testing methodologies set out in this Decision can be taken into account for determining a manufacturer's specific emission performance pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 443/2009.

(6)

In order to determine the CO2 savings from the SEG Automotive Germany GmbH High efficient 48V motor generator (BRM) plus 48V/12V DC/DC converter, it is necessary to establish the baseline technology against which the efficiency of the generator function should be assessed. Taking into account expert judgement it is appropriate to consider an alternator with 67 % efficiency as baseline technology to be used for the purpose of determining the CO2 savings under this Decision..

(7)

In the case of hybrid M1 vehicles, the testing methodologies are based on certain conditions that are only valid for vehicles for which it is allowed to use uncorrected measurements like the fuel consumption or the CO2 emissions measured during type 1 test as specified in Annex 8 to UNECE Regulation No 101. This is why the scope of this decision applies to any internal combustion engine powered M1 vehicles, but is limited to certain hybrid M1 vehicles only.

(8)

The savings from the SEG Automotive Germany GmbH High efficient 48V motor generator (BRM) plus 48V/12V DC/DC converter may be partially demonstrated on the test referred to in Annex XII to Commission Regulation (EC) No 692/2008 (4). It is therefore necessary to ensure that this partial coverage is taken into account in the testing methodology for CO2 savings from the motor generator.

(9)

If the type approval authority finds that the SEG Automotive Germany GmbH High efficient 48V motor generator (BRM) plus 48V/12V DC/DC converter does not satisfy the conditions for certification, the application for certification of the savings should be rejected.

(10)

This Decision should apply until 2020 inclusive in relation to the test procedure referred to in Annex XII to Regulation (EC) No 692/2008. With effect from 1 January 2021, innovative technologies are to be assessed in relation to the test procedure laid down in Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/1151 (5).

(11)

For the purposes of determining the general eco-innovation code to be used in the relevant type approval documents in accordance with Annexes I, VIII and IX to Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (6), the individual code to be used for the innovative technology for the SEG Automotive Germany GmbH High efficient 48V motor generator (BRM) plus 48V/12V DC/DC converter should be specified,

(1)

Commission Implementing Decision 2014/709/EU (4) lays down animal health control measures in relation to African swine fever in certain Member States, where there have been confirmed cases of that disease in domestic or feral pigs (the Member States concerned). The Annex to that Implementing Decision demarcates and lists certain areas of the Member States concerned in Parts I to IV thereof, differentiated by the level of risk based on the epidemiological situation as regards that disease. The Annex to Implementing Decision 2014/709/EU has been amended several times to take account of changes in the epidemiological situation in the Union as regards African swine fever that need to be reflected in that Annex.

(2)

The risk of the spread of African swine fever in wildlife is linked to the natural slow spread of that disease among feral pig populations, and also to human activity, as demonstrated by the recent epidemiological evolution of that disease in the Union, and as documented by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in the Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Animal Health and Welfare, published on 14 July 2015; in the Scientific Report of EFSA on Epidemiological analyses on African swine fever in the Baltic countries and Poland, published on 23 March 2017; in the Scientific Report of EFSA on Epidemiological analyses of African swine fever in the Baltic States and Poland, published on 8 November 2017; and in the Scientific Report of EFSA on Epidemiological analyses of African swine fever in the European Union, published on 29 November 2018 (5).

(3)

Since the date of adoption of the last amendment of the Annex to Implementing Decision 2014/709/EU, there have been new instances of African swine fever in feral pigs in Bulgaria and Belgium and in domestic pigs in Romania that need to be reflected in the Annex to Implementing Decision 2014/709/EU.

(4)

In February 2019, one case of African swine fever in a feral pig was observed in the region of Varna in Bulgaria outside areas listed in the Annex to Implementing Decision 2014/709/EU. This case of African swine fever in a feral pig constitute an increased level of risk which should be reflected in that Annex. Accordingly, this area of Bulgaria affected by African swine fever should be listed in Part II of the Annex to Implementing Decision 2014/709/EU.

(5)

In February 2019, one case of African swine fever in a feral pig was observed in the region of Luxembourg in Belgium in an area currently listed in Part I of the Annex to Implementing Decision 2014/709/EU. This case of African swine fever in a feral pig constitutes an increased level of risk which should be reflected in that Annex. Accordingly, this area of Belgium affected by African swine fever should be listed in Part II of the Annex to Implementing Decision 2014/709/EU.

(6)

In February 2019, an outbreak of African swine fever in domestic pigs was observed in the county of Botoșani in Romania in an area currently listed in Part II of the Annex to Implementing Decision 2014/709/EU. This outbreak of African swine fever in domestic pigs constitutes an increased level of risk which should be reflected in that Annex. Accordingly, this area of Romania affected by African swine fever should now be listed in Part III of the Annex to Implementing Decision 2014/709/EU.

(7)

In order to take account of recent developments in the epidemiological evolution of African swine fever in the Union, and in order to combat the risks associated with the spread of that disease in a proactive manner, new high-risk areas of a sufficient size should be demarcated for Bulgaria, Belgium and Romania and duly listed in Parts I, II and III of the Annex to Implementing Decision 2014/709/EU. The Annex to Implementing Decision 2014/709/EU should therefore be amended accordingly.

(8)

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