(1)

In order to ensure safe and efficient operations of aircraft, aerodromes, air traffic management, air navigation and of the European air traffic management network, it is necessary to provide for certain improvements to the operating rules related to the use of airspace, aircraft equipment and air traffic management and air navigation services systems and their constituents required for the use of airspace. New and updated safety-related interoperability requirements should therefore be set out in Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1206/2011 (2) and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1207/2011 (3).

(2)

Taking into account the experiences from the ongoing implementation of airborne surveillance capability and the capability of the ground systems to process data, effective and timely installation of aircraft equipment is necessary to enable the full surveillance chain to achieve the expected benefits within the established deadlines. The criteria for exemptions from the requirements to equip aircraft should be amended to provide clarity as to which aircraft are to be equipped and which ones are to benefit of an exemption from those requirements. At the same time, the overall number of aircraft equipped should remain effective and should not impose an undue economic burden.

(3)

A significant number of equipped aircraft is already certified in line with the international standard for airborne parts and appliances for the surveillance systems, corresponding to Annex 10 to the Chicago Convention, Volume IV, Third Edition, including all amendments up to No 77. That standard is fully compatible with the anticipated surveillance systems. Mandating the use of the standard corresponding to Annex 10 to the Chicago Convention, Volume IV, Fourth Edition including all amendments up to No 85 as currently provided in Annex II to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1207/2011 would impose an undue economic burden. Therefore, the standard corresponding to Annex 10 to the Chicago Convention, Volume IV, Third Edition including all amendments up to No 77 should be considered as the minimum requirement. Therefore, the minimum technical standards to which aircraft operators are to comply laid down in Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1207/2011 should be amended.

(4)

State aircraft operating as general air traffic should be equipped with serviceable secondary surveillance radar transponders in line with the requirements applicable to civil aircraft laid out in points (a) and (c) of Article 5(5) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1207/2011. The procedures and conditions related to state aircraft that cannot be equipped with serviceable secondary surveillance radar transponders should remain those laid out in Article 8 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1207/2011.

(5)

The requirements for the formal arrangements on transferring surveillance data between air navigation service providers should be amended to reflect existing data distribution scenarios to facilitate exchange of surveillance data and to avoid excessive onerous constraints on the delivering provider.

(6)

In order to ensure the effectiveness of State aircraft operations, the ability of the European ATM system to ensure that those State aircraft engaged in sensitive operations and training are able to operate with the assignment of discrete SSR codes should be established and therefore Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1206/2011 should be amended accordingly.

(7)

The outbreak of the pandemic of Covid-19 virus and the resulting impact on the aviation sector has led to unforeseeable obstacles for aircraft operators to pursue their activities to bring the aircraft in compliance with certain requirements of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1207/2011. As a result, the deadline for aircraft operators laid out in Article 5(5), Article 8(1) and Article 8(2) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1207/2011 should be postponed to 7 December 2020, and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1207/2011 should be amended accordingly.

(8)

Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1206/2011 and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1207/2011 should therefore be amended accordingly.

(9)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee referred to in Article 127(1) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1139,

(1)

An anti-dumping duty applies on imports into the Union of essential bicycle parts originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘China’) (‘the extended duty’) as a result of the extension of the anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of bicycles originating in China by Regulation (EC) No 71/97.

(2)

Under Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 71/97 the Commission is empowered to adopt the necessary measures to authorise the exemption of imports of essential bicycle parts which do not circumvent the anti-dumping duty.

(3)

Those implementing measures are set forth in Regulation (EC) No 88/97 establishing the specific exemption system.

(4)

On that basis the Commission has exempted a number of bicycle assemblers from the extended duty (‘the exempted parties’).

(5)

As provided for in Article 16(2) of Regulation (EC) No 88/97, the Commission has published in the Official Journal of the European Union subsequent lists of the exempted parties (5).

(6)

The most recent Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/1087 (6) concerning exemptions under Regulation (EC) No 88/97 was adopted on 19 June 2019.

(7)

For the purposes of this Decision, the definitions set out in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 88/97 apply.

(8)

Between 19 December 2016 and 17 October 2019, the Commission received from the parties listed in Tables 1 and 3 requests for exemption with the information required to determine whether these requests were admissible in accordance with Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 88/97.

(9)

The parties requesting exemption were given an opportunity to comment on the Commission’s conclusions concerning the admissibility of their requests.

(10)

In accordance with Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 88/97, pending a decision on the merits of requests from the parties requesting exemption, the payment of the extended duty in respect of any imports of essential bicycle parts declared for free circulation by these parties listed in Tables 1 and 3 below was suspended as from the day on which the Commission received their respective requests.

(11)

The examination of the merits of the requests from the parties listed in Table 1 has been concluded.

Table 1

(12)

The Commission established during its examination that the value of the parts originating in China constituted less than 60 % of the total value of the parts of all the bicycles assembled by both parties. This was also the case for the majority of the assembled bicycles by both parties.

(13)

Consequently, the Commission concluded that the respective assembly operations of Merida Polska Sp. Z o.o. and of Juan Luna Cabrera fall outside the scope of Article 13(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036.

(14)

For that reason, and in accordance with Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 88/97, the parties listed in Table 1 fulfil the conditions for exemption from the extended duty.

(15)

In accordance with Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 88/97, the exemptions should take effect as from the date of receipt of the requests. The customs debts in respect of the extended duty from the parties requesting exemption should therefore be considered void from the same date.

(16)

The parties were informed of the Commission’s conclusions on the merits of their requests and were given an opportunity to comment thereon.

(17)

Since the exemptions apply only to the parties specifically referred to in Table 1, the exempted parties should notify the Commission (7) without delay of any changes to these (for instance, following a change in the name, legal form or address or following the setting up of new assembly entities).

(18)

In case of change in reference, the exempted parties should provide all relevant information, in particular on any modification in its activities linked to assembly operations. Where appropriate, the Commission will update the references accordingly.

(19)

The exempted or suspended parties listed in Table 2 notified the Commission, between 2 May 2019 and 20 February 2020, of changes in their references (names, legal forms and addresses). The Commission, after having examined the information submitted, concluded that those changes do not affect the assembly operations with regard to the conditions of exemption or suspension set forth in Regulation (EC) No 88/97.

(20)

While the exemption or the suspension of these parties from the extended duty authorised in accordance with Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 88/97 remains unaffected, the references to these parties should be updated.

Table 2

(21)

The examination of the merits of the requests from the parties listed in Table 3 is ongoing. Pending a decision on the merits of their requests, the payment of the extended duty by these parties is suspended.

(22)

Since the suspensions apply only to the parties specifically referred to in Table 3, these parties should notify the Commission (8) without delay of any changes to these (for instance following a change in the name, legal form or address or following the setting up of new assembly entities).

(23)

In case of change in reference, the party should provide all relevant information, in particular on any modification in its activities linked to assembly operations. Where appropriate, the Commission will update the references to such party.

Table 3

(24)

The suspension of payment of the duties for the parties under examination should be lifted for the party listed in Table 4.

Table 4

(25)

On 3 July 2019 the Commission received from that party a request to withdraw the application for an exemption while the examination of its merits was ongoing and the payment of the extended duty was suspended.

(26)

The Commission accepted the withdrawal and consequently the suspension of the payment of the extended duty should be lifted. The extended duty should be collected as from the date of receipt of the request for exemption submitted by that party, namely the date on which the suspension took effect, that is 25 October 2018.

(27)

The party was informed of the Commission’s conclusions and was given an opportunity to comment thereon. No comments were submitted.

(28)

The exempted parties listed in Table 5 notified the Commission, between 30 June 2019 and 3 February 2020, of the following: closing down of its activities (Bicicletas Monty S.A.), and the renunciation of the exemption from the payment of extended duty (Gor Kolesa, proizvodnja koles, d.o.o).

(29)

Consequently, in accordance with the principle of good administration, the authorisation of exemption from the payment of the extended duty for both exempted parties listed in Table 5 should be revoked,

Table 5

(1)

Under Article 47(1) of Directive 2006/43/EC, Member States may allow the transfer of audit working papers or other documents held by statutory auditors or audit firms approved by them, and of inspection or investigation reports relating to the audits in question, to the competent authorities of a third country only if those authorities meet requirements that have been declared adequate by the Commission and there are working arrangements on the basis of reciprocity between them and the competent authorities of the Member States concerned.

(2)

A decision on adequacy under Article 47(3) of Directive 2006/43/EC does not address other specific requirements for the transfer of audit working papers and other documents held by statutory auditors or audit firms and of inspection or investigation reports, such as the agreement on working arrangements on the basis of reciprocity between the competent authorities set out in Article 47(1)(d) of Directive 2006/43/EC, or the requirements for the transfer of personal data set out in Article 47(1)(e) of that Directive.

(3)

Cooperation over the transfer of audit working papers or other documents held by statutory auditors or audit firms and of inspection or investigation reports to the competent authority of a third country reflects the substantial public interest in carrying out independent public oversight. Accordingly, the competent authorities of the Member States should, in the framework of the working arrangements referred to in Article 47(2) of Directive 2006/43/EC, ensure that the competent authority of South Africa uses any documents transferred to it in accordance with Article 47(1) of that Directive only to exercise its functions of public oversight, external quality assurance and investigations of auditors and audit firms.

(4)

When inspections or investigations are carried out, statutory auditors and audit firms are not allowed to grant access to or to transmit their audit working papers or other documents to the competent authority of South Africa under any other conditions than those set out in Article 47 of Directive 2006/43/EC and in this Decision.

(5)

Without prejudice to Article 47(4) of Directive 2006/43/EC, Member States should ensure that, for the purposes of public oversight, quality assurance and investigations of statutory auditors and audit firms, contacts between the statutory auditors or audit firms approved by them and the competent authority of South Africa take place via the competent authorities of the Member States concerned.

(6)

In accordance with Article 47(1)(d) of Directive 2006/43/EC, the possibility for Member States to allow the transfer to the competent authority of South Africa of audit working papers or other documents held by statutory auditors or audit firms approved by them and of inspection or investigation reports is subject to the condition that working arrangements are agreed between the competent authorities concerned.

(7)

Member States should ensure that such working arrangements between their competent authorities and the competent authority of South Africa are agreed on the basis of reciprocity and subject to the conditions of Article 47(1) and (2) of Directive 2006/43/EC, including the protection of any professional secrets and commercial interests, including industrial and intellectual property, contained in such papers relating to the entities audited or to the statutory auditors and audit firms that audited those entities.

(8)

Where a transfer of audit working papers or other documents held by statutory auditors or audit firms and of inspection or investigation reports to the competent authority of South Africa involves the transfer of personal data, such a transfer is lawful only if it also complies with the requirements for international data transfers laid down in Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2). Article 47(1)(e) of Directive 2006/43/EC therefore requires Member States to ensure that the transfer of personal data between their competent authorities and the competent authority of South Africa complies with any applicable data protection principles and rules and, in particular, with the provisions of Chapter V of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. Member States should ensure that appropriate safeguards for the transfer of personal data are provided for, in accordance with Article 46 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. In addition, Member States should ensure that the competent authority of South Africa will not further disclose personal data contained in the documents transferred without the prior agreement of the competent authorities of the Member States concerned.

(9)

The Independent Regulatory Board for Auditors (IRBA) is the competent authority of South Africa responsible for the public oversight, external quality assurance and investigations of auditors and audit firms. It implements adequate safeguards prohibiting and sanctioning disclosure by its current or former employees of confidential information to any third person or authority. Under the South African Audit Profession Act 2005 and the IRBA Code of Conduct, the IRBA may transfer to the competent authorities of the Member States documents equivalent to those referred to in Article 47(1) of Directive 2006/43/EC.

(10)

Documents obtained by the IRBA in the performance of inspections and inspection reports may only be shared with the consent of the auditor or audit firm registered with the IRBA. That requirement may present difficulties in implementing the regulatory cooperation requirements contemplated under Article 47 of Directive 2006/43/EC. Therefore, the regulatory cooperation between the IRBA and the competent authorities of the Member States should be subject to close monitoring and review by the Commission to assess whether the consent requirement presents an obstacle to information exchange in practice.

(11)

The IRBA is the competent authority responsible to cooperate and enter into bilateral agreements with the Member States’ competent authorities for the transfer of audit working papers. Confidentiality of audit working papers is ensured by the South African ‘common law’ on professional secrecy, which sets out a general professional duty and obligation to observe confidentiality of client material by the auditor.

(12)

Under the laws and regulations of South Africa, the IRBA may be subject to the requirement to share the information referred to in Article 47(1) of Directive 2006/43/EC with an ‘appropriate regulator’ but has discretionary powers to decide whether such onward sharing would be in the protection of the public and the public interest. When signing bilateral working agreements with the IRBA, the competent authorities of Member States could demand the IRBA to request their prior consent if the IRBA is compelled to transfer to an ‘appropriate regulator’ any non-public information received in the course of the cooperation. Furthermore, they should consider a requirement that the IRBA may share such information only with those entities identified in the agreements, stating that these entities should maintain such information as confidential and privileged. Moreover, the processing of personal data may only be performed for the specified purpose mentioned in this Decision, as stated in recital 3 and Article 1, and in accordance with the conditions mentioned in particular under recital 8 of this Decision.

(13)

Under Article 1 of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/1010 (3), several competent authorities of third countries or territories, including the IRBA, were declared adequate within the meaning of Article 47(1)(c) of Directive 2006/43/EC for the purpose of transfers of audit working papers or other documents and of inspection and investigation reports. Pursuant to Article 3 of Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/1010, that Implementing Decision ceased to apply with respect to the IRBA on 1 August 2019.

(14)

Although the IRBA did not enter into any bilateral working arrangements with any of the competent authorities of the Member States prior to 31 July 2019, some Member States have shown interest in developing cooperation with the IRBA.

(15)

The Committee of European Auditing Oversight Bodies (CEAOB) has reassessed the legal framework in South Africa, based on the Audit Profession Act of 2005, which has not changed since Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/1010. Taking into account the technical assessment of the CEAOB referred to in Article 30(7)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 537/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council (4), the IRBA meets requirements that should be declared adequate for the purposes of Article 47(1)(c) of Directive 2006/43/EC.

(16)

This Decision does not affect the cooperation arrangements referred to in Article 25(4) of Directive 2004/109/ECof the European Parliament and of the Council (5).

(17)

Any conclusion on the adequacy of the requirements met by the competent authorities of a third country pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 47(3) of Directive 2006/43/EC does not pre-empt any decision that the Commission may adopt on the equivalence of the public oversight, quality assurance, investigation and penalty systems for auditors and audit entities of that third country pursuant to Article 46(2) of that Directive.

(18)

This Decision aims to facilitate effective cooperation between the competent authorities of the Member States and the IRBA. Its purpose is to allow those authorities to exercise their functions of public oversight, external quality assurance and investigations and, at the same time, to protect the rights of the parties concerned. Where a competent authority decides to enter into working arrangements on the basis of reciprocity with the IRBA in order to enable the transfer of audit working papers and other documents held by statutory auditors or audit firms and of inspection or investigation reports, the Member State concerned is under the obligation to communicate to the Commission the reciprocal working arrangements concluded with the IRBA to allow the Commission to assess whether cooperation is in accordance with Article 47of Directive 2006/43/EC.

(19)

The ultimate objective of cooperation on audit oversight between Member States’ competent authorities and the IRBA is to reach mutual reliance on each other’s oversight systems and to enhance convergence in audit quality. Such mutual reliance and enhanced convergence would be based on the equivalence of the audit oversight systems of the Union and of South Africa. As a consequence, transfers of audit working papers or other documents held by statutory auditors or audit firms and of inspection or investigation reports should ultimately become the exception.

(20)

Given that there is a lack of practical experience in supervisory cooperation with the IRBA, and thus an inability to currently assess whether the requirement for the IRBA to procure the prior consent of the auditor or audit firm in order to share the documents obtained in the performance of inspections and inspection reports presents an obstacle to information exchange in practice, this Decision should be applicable for a limited period of time.

(21)

Notwithstanding the time limitation, the Commission will monitor on a regular basis the market developments, evolution of the supervisory and regulatory frameworks and the effectiveness of supervisory cooperation, taking into account experience gained during supervisory cooperation also based on Member States’ input. In particular, the Commission may undertake a specific review of this Decision at any time before the end of its expiration period where relevant developments make it necessary to re-assess the declaration of adequacy granted by this Decision. Such re-assessment could lead to the repeal of this Decision.

(22)

The European Data Protection Supervisor delivered an opinion on 3 December 2019.

(23)

The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established pursuant to Article 48(1) of Directive 2006/43/EC,

(1)

Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/784 (2) harmonises the essential technical conditions for the availability and efficient use of the 24,25-27,5 GHz frequency band in the Union for terrestrial systems capable of providing wireless broadband electronic communications services.

(2)

The 24,25-27,5 GHz (‘26 GHz’) frequency band was harmonised globally for International Mobile Telecommunications (3) (IMT) at the 2019 World Radiocommunication Conference (WRC-19) by amendments to the Radio Regulations of the International Telecommunications Union’s Radiocommunication Sector (ITU-R).

(3)

The ITU-R Radio Regulations, as amended (4), introduced global out-of-band emission limits (‘protection limits’) applicable in two stages to next-generation (5G) terrestrial wireless systems capable of providing wireless broadband electronic communications services in the 26 GHz frequency band for the protection of the passive earth exploration satellite service (EESS (passive)) in the 23,6-24 GHz frequency band (5). Those protection limits are less stringent than the EU-harmonised limits (6). The application of the first-stage limits in the Union should ensure the timely availability of 5G equipment and facilitate faster investments in 5G infrastructure in the single market. The second-stage limits, together with the requirement that no high-density terrestrial systems for the provision of wireless access services shall be deployed in an appropriate frequency range below 23,6 GHz, ensure the adequate protection of the EESS (passive) as well as meteorological satellite services within the 23,6-24 GHz frequency band.

(4)

The first-stage protection limits applicable until 1 September 2027 under the ITU-R Radio Regulations may increase the risk of harmful interference to the globally operating EESS (passive) (e.g. the Copernicus system and certain meteorological satellites) depending on the pace of deployment of next-generation (5G) terrestrial wireless systems in the 26 GHz band. Therefore, it is essential that the second-stage protection limits apply before the start of mass 5G deployment in the Union, which is expected as from 2025 (7).

(5)

The continued application of the current more stringent EU-harmonised protection limits in the single market would provide greater protection of the EESS (passive) across the territory of the Union. However, the application of protection limits in the Union that differed from those applied in the rest of the world, in particular by being more stringent may affect the degree of equipment availability and choice, which in turn may have a negative impact on equipment costs and the scale of investments in high-capacity (5G) networks.

(6)

WRC-19 Resolution 242, which is an integral part of the ITU-R Radio Regulations, recognises that frequency bands immediately below the 23,6-24 GHz frequency band are not intended for use with high-density mobile applications. This recognition at international level contributes to the protection of the EESS (passive) in that band further to the second-stage protection limits applicable to the 26 GHz frequency band under the ITU-R Radio Regulations. Such measures improve the protection of the EESS (passive) and the quality of satellite data necessary for weather forecast. To this end, there should be no new deployment of terrestrial systems capable of providing electronic communication services within the frequency range 22-23,6 GHz in the Union. Furthermore, relevant actions may be considered to ensure the protection of EESS (passive), if such systems may be deployed at high density in that frequency range outside the Union.

(7)

Pursuant to Article 4(2) of the Decision No 676/2002/EC and in view of the urgent need to preserve regulatory certainty in the single market with a view to implementing Article 54 of the Directive (EU) 2018/1972 of the European Parliament and of the Council (8), the Commission asked the European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations (CEPT) (9), under the Commission Mandate to the CEPT to develop harmonised technical conditions for spectrum use in support of the introduction of next-generation (5G) terrestrial wireless systems in the Union (10), to assess and report on any adaptation of the protection limits under the Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/784.

(8)

In response, the CEPT submitted technical input in a letter of 6 March 2020 (11) which provides clarification to a portion of the Commission’s request and also recommends a preferred approach to the protection of the EESS (passive) in the 23,6-24 GHz frequency band taking into consideration the WRC-19 outcome and the need for long-term protection of the EESS (passive). In particular, this approach includes an earlier date for the transition to the second-stage limits, in order to avoid the risk of mass-market development of 5G equipment using the first-stage limits, as well as the requirement to prevent high-density deployment of terrestrial systems capable of providing wireless broadband electronic communication services in the 22-23,6 GHz frequency band.

(9)

Therefore, Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/784 should be amended in order to preserve the balance of Union policies on 5G deployment and the monitoring of the Earth’s atmosphere and surface and to foster the Union’s role as a leader in the global 5G ecosystem of equipment and services.

(10)

Furthermore, CEPT has been developing a technical toolkit (12) to address 5G deployment in the 26 GHz frequency band, based on spectrum use under authorisation regimes other than individual rights of use such as general authorisation or a combined individual/general authorisation. It provides guidance to Member States on some possible solutions to be implemented at national level in line with their obligations in that band and taking into account the continued deployment of satellite earth stations in the EESS, the Space Research Service (SRS) and the Fixed Satellite Service (FSS).

(11)

The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Radio Spectrum Committee established by the Decision No 676/2002/EC,