ISSN 1977-0677 |
||
Official Journal of the European Union |
L 195 |
|
English edition |
Legislation |
Volume 63 |
|
|
Corrigenda |
|
|
* |
|
|
|
(1) Text with EEA relevance. |
EN |
Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period. The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
II Non-legislative acts
REGULATIONS
19.6.2020 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
L 195/1 |
COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) 2020/855
of 7 May 2020
amending Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/1675 supplementing Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council, as regards adding the Bahamas, Barbados, Botswana, Cambodia, Ghana, Jamaica, Mauritius, Mongolia, Myanmar/Burma, Nicaragua, Panama and Zimbabwe to the table in point I of the Annex and deleting Bosnia-Herzegovina, Ethiopia, Guyana, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Sri Lanka and Tunisia from this table
(Text with EEA relevance)
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Having regard to Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Directive 2006/70/EC (1), and in particular Article 9(2) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) |
The Union has to ensure an effective protection of the integrity and proper functioning of its financial system and the internal market from money laundering and terrorist financing. Hence, Directive (EU) 2015/849 provides that the Commission should identify countries which present strategic deficiencies in their regimes on anti-money laundering and countering terrorist financing that pose significant threats to the financial system of the Union. |
(2) |
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/1675 (2) identified high-risk third countries with strategic deficiencies. That Regulation should be reviewed at appropriate times in light of the progress made by those high-risk third countries in removing the strategic deficiencies in their regime on anti-money laundering and countering terrorist financing (‘AML/CFT’). The Commission should take into account in its assessments new information from international organisations and standard setters, such as those issued by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF). In light of that information, the Commission should also identify additional countries presenting strategic deficiencies in their AML/CFT regime. |
(3) |
Considering the high level of integration of the international financial system, the close connection of market operators, the high volume of cross-border transactions to/from the Union, as well as the degree of market openness, it is therefore considered that any AML/CFT threat posed to the international financial system also represents a threat to the financial system of the Union. |
(4) |
It is thus essential to take into account relevant work already undertaken at international level for identifying countries, in particular that of the FATF. With a view to ensuring the integrity of the global financial system, it is of the highest importance that the Union duly considers the countries identified as having strategic deficiencies in their AML/CFT regime in the FATF at Union level. In line with the criteria set out in Directive (EU) 2015/849, the Commission took into account the recent available information, in particular recent FATF Public Statements, FATF documents ‘Improving Global AML/CFT Compliance: Ongoing Process Statement’, and FATF reports of the International Cooperation Review Group in relation to the risks posed by individual third countries, in line with Article 9(4) of Directive (EU) 2015/849. |
(5) |
Any third country representing a risk to the international financial system, as identified by the FATF, is presumed to represent a risk to the internal market. That presumption concerns any country publicly identified in the FATF documents ‘Public Statement’ and in the FATF documents ‘Improving Global AML/CFT Compliance: Ongoing Process Statement’. |
(6) |
In order to conduct its autonomous assessment, the Commission assessed available information from the FATF and, where appropriate, other sources of information to reach its conclusion. Following that assessment, the Commission’s analysis has confirmed the respective strategic deficiencies described in recitals 8 to 19. |
(7) |
In October 2018, the FATF identified the Bahamas as a jurisdiction having strategic AML/CFT deficiencies for which the Bahamas has developed an action plan with the FATF. The Commission assessed the latest information received in this context from the FATF relating to these deficiencies and other relevant information. The Bahamas has taken steps towards improving its AML/CFT regime and in February 2020, the FATF has made the initial determination that the Bahamas has substantially completed its action plan and warrants an on-site assessment to verify that the implementation of the Bahamas’ AML/CFT reforms has begun and is being sustained, and that the necessary political commitment remains in place to sustain implementation in the future. The FATF has yet to carry out such assessment to confirm its initial determination. Therefore, the Commission does not have in its possession information which would enable it to confirm at this stage that the strategic deficiencies have been effectively addressed. The future assessment will focus on the following areas: (1) developing of a comprehensive electronic case management system for international cooperation; (2) demonstrating risk-based supervision of non-bank financial institutions; (3) ensuring the timely access to adequate, accurate and current basic and beneficial ownership information; (4) increasing the quality of the Financial Intelligence Unit’s products to assist Law Enforcement Authorities in the pursuance of Money Laundering (ML)/Terrorist Financing (TF) investigations, specifically complex ML/TF and stand-alone ML investigations; (5) demonstrating that authorities are investigating and prosecuting all types of money laundering, including complex ML cases, stand-alone money laundering, and cases involving proceeds of foreign offences; (6) demonstrating that confiscation proceedings are initiated and concluded for all types of ML cases; and (7) addressing gaps in the Terrorist Financing and Proliferation Financing Targeted Financial Sanctions’ frameworks and demonstrating implementation. On this basis, the Bahamas should be considered as a country having strategic deficiencies in its AML/CFT regime under Article 9 of Directive (EU) 2015/849. |
(8) |
In February 2020, the FATF identified Barbados as a jurisdiction having strategic AML/CFT deficiencies for which the Barbados has developed an action plan with the FATF. The Commission assessed the latest information received in this context from the FATF relating to these deficiencies and other relevant information. The deficiencies include: (1) lack of effective risk-based supervision for financial institutions and Designated non-financial businesses and professions (‘DNFBPs’); (2) deficiencies relating to measures for preventing legal persons and arrangements from being misused for criminal purposes, and deficiencies in ensuring that accurate and up-to-date basic and beneficial ownership information is available on a timely basis; (3) deficiencies relating to the capacity of the Financial Intelligence Unit (‘FIU’) in providing financial information to further assist law enforcement authorities in investigating money laundering or terrorism financing; (4) deficiencies relating to money laundering investigations and prosecutions which are not in line with the country’s risk profile and backlog of prosecutions; (5) deficiencies in pursuing confiscation in relation to money laundering cases, including limited assistance requested from foreign counterparts. On this basis, Barbados should be considered as a country having strategic deficiencies in its AML/CFT regime under Article 9 of Directive (EU) 2015/849. |
(9) |
In October 2018, the FATF identified Botswana as a jurisdiction having strategic AML/CFT deficiencies for which Botswana has developed an action plan with the FATF. The Commission assessed the latest information received in this context from the FATF relating to these deficiencies and other relevant information. The deficiencies include: (1) shortcomings in the assessment of risks associated with legal persons, legal arrangements, and non-profit organisations; (2) lack of implementation of risk-based AML/CFT supervisory manuals; (3) the level of analysis and dissemination of financial intelligence by the FIU; (4) shortcomings in the implementation of a CFT strategy, and insufficient capacity of the law enforcement agencies in relation to investigations of terrorist financing; (5) inability to ensure the implementation without delay of targeted financial sanctions measures related to terrorist financing and proliferation financing; and (6) shortcomings in the application of a risk-based approach to monitoring non-profit organisations. On this basis, Botswana should be considered as a country having strategic deficiencies in its AML/CFT regime under Article 9 of Directive (EU) 2015/849. |
(10) |
In February 2019, the FATF identified Cambodia as a jurisdiction having strategic AML/CFT deficiencies for which Cambodia has developed an action plan with the FATF. The Commission assessed the latest information received in this context from the FATF relating to these deficiencies and other relevant information. The deficiencies include: (1) lack of a broad legal basis for Mutual Legal Assistance and of relevant training to law enforcement authorities; (2) lack of implementation of risk-based supervision to the real estate sector and casinos; (3) lack of implementation of risk-based supervision to banks, including through prompt, proportionate and dissuasive enforcement actions, as appropriate; (4) technical compliance deficiencies in the AML/CFT Law; (5) the level of analysis of suspicious transaction reports and related disseminations to law enforcement authorities; (6) insufficient results in terms of Money Laundering investigations and prosecutions; (7) insufficient results in terms of freezing and confiscation of criminal proceeds, instrumentalities, and property of equivalent value; (8) lack of legal framework and implementation of United Nations targeted financial sanctions related to Proliferation Financing, as well as insufficient understanding of sanctions evasion. On this basis, Cambodia should be considered as a country having strategic deficiencies in its AML/CFT regime under Article 9 of Directive (EU) 2015/849. |
(11) |
In October 2018, the FATF identified Ghana as a jurisdiction having strategic AML/CFT deficiencies for which Ghana has developed an action plan with the FATF. The Commission assessed the latest information received in this context from the FATF relating to these deficiencies and other relevant information. The deficiencies include: (1) lack of implementation of a comprehensive national AML/CFT Policy based on the risks identified in the National Risk Assessment, including measures to mitigate Money Laundering/Terrorism Financing risks associated with the legal persons; (2) shortcomings in risk-based supervision, including insufficient capacity of the regulators and insufficient awareness of the private sector; (3) shortcomings in ensuring timely access to adequate, accurate and current basic and beneficial ownership information; (4) deficiencies as regards the need to ensure that the FIU is focusing its activities on the risks identified in the National Risk Assessment, and that adequate resources are allocated to the FIU; and (5) shortcomings in the application of a risk-based approach for monitoring non-profit organisations. On this basis, Ghana should be considered as a country having strategic deficiencies in its AML/CFT regime under Article 9 of Directive (EU) 2015/849. |
(12) |
In February 2020, the FATF identified Jamaica as a jurisdiction having strategic AML/CFT deficiencies for which Jamaica has developed an action plan with the FATF. The Commission assessed the latest information received in this context from the FATF relating to these deficiencies and other relevant information. The deficiencies include: (1) lack of a comprehensive understanding of its money laundering/terrorism financing risk; (2) failure to include all financial institutions and DNFBPs in the AML/CFT regime and to ensure adequate risk-based supervision in all sectors; (3) lack of appropriate measures to prevent legal persons and arrangements from being misused for criminal purposes, and to ensure that accurate and up-to-date basic and beneficial ownership information is available on a timely basis; (4) lack of proper measures to increase the use of financial information and to increase money laundering investigations and prosecutions, in line with the country’s risk profile; (5) failure to demonstrate the implementation of targeted financial sanctions for terrorist financing without delay; and (6) deficiencies in implementing a risk-based approach for supervision of its non-profit organisation sector to prevent abuse for terrorism financing purposes. On this basis, Jamaica should be considered as a country having strategic deficiencies in its AML/CFT regime under Article 9 of Directive (EU) 2015/849. |
(13) |
In February 2020, the FATF identified Mauritius as a jurisdiction having strategic AML/CFT deficiencies for which Mauritius has developed an action plan with the FATF. The Commission assessed the latest information received in this context from the FATF relating to these deficiencies and other relevant information. The deficiencies include: (1) deficiencies in demonstrating that the supervisors of its global business sector and DNFBPs implement risk-based supervision; (2) failure to ensure access to accurate basic and beneficial ownership information by competent authorities in a timely manner; (3) failure to demonstrate that law enforcement authorities have capacity to conduct money laundering investigations, including parallel financial investigations and complex cases; (4) failure in implementing a risk-based approach for supervision of its non-profit organisation sector to prevent abuse for terrorist financing purposes; and (5) failure to demonstrate adequate implementation of targeted financial sanctions through outreach and supervision. On this basis, Mauritius should be considered as a country having strategic deficiencies in its AML/CFT regime under Article 9 of Directive (EU) 2015/849. |
(14) |
In October 2019, the FATF identified Mongolia as a jurisdiction having strategic AML/CFT deficiencies for which Mongolia has developed an action plan with the FATF. The Commission assessed the latest information received in this context from the FATF relating to these deficiencies and other relevant information. While Mongolia has taken steps towards improving its AML/CFT regime outstanding deficiencies include: (1) shortcomings in the sectoral money laundering/terrorism financing risk understanding by DNFBP supervisors, as well as in the application of a risk-based approach to supervision, particularly in relation to dealers in precious metals and stones; (2) need to demonstrate increased investigations and prosecutions of different types of money laundering activity in line with identified risks; and (3) inadequate monitoring of compliance by financial institutions and DNFBPs with their targeted financial sanctions obligations related to proliferation financing, and insufficient application of proportionate and dissuasive sanctions. On this basis, Mongolia should be considered as a country having strategic deficiencies in its AML/CFT regime under Article 9 of Directive (EU) 2015/849. |
(15) |
In February 2020, the FATF identified Myanmar/Burma as a jurisdiction having strategic AML/CFT deficiencies for which Myanmar/Burma has developed an action plan with the FATF. The Commission assessed the latest information received in this context from the FATF relating to these deficiencies and other relevant information. The deficiencies include: (1) failure to demonstrate an improved understanding of money laundering risks in key areas; (2) failure to ensure the supervisory body for DNFBPs is sufficiently resourced, onsite/offsite inspections are risk-based, and hundi operators are registered and supervised; (3) failure to demonstrate enhancements in the use of financial intelligence in investigations by the law enforcement authorities, and insufficient operational analysis and disseminations by the FIU; (4) need to ensure that money laundering is investigated/prosecuted in line with risks; (5) failure to demonstrate investigation of transnational money laundering cases with international cooperation; (6) failure to demonstrate an increase in the freezing/seizing and confiscation of criminal proceeds, instrumentalities, and/or property of equivalent value; (7) deficiencies in managing seized assets to preserve the value of seized goods until confiscation; and (8) deficiencies in demonstrating implementation of targeted financial sanctions related to proliferation financing, including training on sanctions evasion. On this basis, Myanmar/Burma should be considered as a country having strategic deficiencies in its AML/CFT regime under Article 9 of Directive (EU) 2015/849. |
(16) |
In February 2020, the FATF identified Nicaragua as a jurisdiction having strategic AML/CFT deficiencies for which Nicaragua has developed an action plan with the FATF. The Commission assessed the latest information received in this context from the FATF relating to these deficiencies and other relevant information. The deficiencies include: (1) lack of a comprehensive understanding of its money laundering/terrorist financing risk; (2) failure to proactively seek international cooperation to support money laundering investigation, especially with the aim of identifying and tracing assets with confiscation and repatriation purposes; (3) deficiencies with regard to conducting effective risk-based supervision; (4) lack of appropriate measures to prevent legal persons and arrangements from being misused for criminal purposes, and failure to ensure that accurate and up-to-date basic and beneficial ownership information is available on a timely basis. On this basis, Nicaragua should be considered as a country having strategic deficiencies in its AML/CFT regime under Article 9 of Directive (EU) 2015/849. |
(17) |
In June 2019, the FATF identified Panama as a jurisdiction having strategic AML/CFT deficiencies for which Panama has developed an action plan with the FATF. The Commission assessed the latest information received in this context from the FATF relating to these deficiencies and other relevant information. The deficiencies include: (1) a limited understanding of the national and sectoral money laundering/terrorist financing risk and consequent shortcoming in informing the related findings to the country’s national policies in a view to mitigate the identified risks; (2) deficiencies regarding proactive identification of unlicensed money remitters, the application of a risk-based approach to supervision of the DNFBP sector and the application of effective, proportionate, and dissuasive sanctions against AML/CFT violations; (3) lack of adequate verification and update of beneficial ownership information by obliged entities, lack of an effective mechanism to monitor the activities of offshore entities, shortcomings in assessing the existing risks of misuse of legal persons and arrangements to define and implement specific measures to prevent the misuse of nominee shareholders and directors, and shortcomings in ensuring timely access to adequate and accurate beneficial ownership information; and (4) deficiencies with regard to the effective use of FIU products for money laundering investigations, as well as with regard to the ability to investigate and prosecute money laundering involving foreign tax crimes and to provide constructive and timely international cooperation in relation to such offence, and unsatisfactory focus on ML investigations in relation to high-risk areas identified in the National Risk Assessment and Mutual Evaluation Report. On this basis, Panama should be considered as a country having strategic deficiencies in its AML/CFT regime under Article 9 of Directive (EU) 2015/849. |
(18) |
In October 2019, the FATF identified Zimbabwe as a jurisdiction having strategic AML/CFT deficiencies for which Zimbabwe has developed an action plan with the FATF. The Commission assessed the latest information received in this context from the FATF relating to these deficiencies and other relevant information. The deficiencies include: (1) insufficient understanding of the key Money Laundering/Terrorist Financing risks among the relevant stakeholders and lack of implementation of the national AML/CFT policy based on the identified risks; (2) lack of implementation of risk-based supervision for financial institutions and DNFBPs, including inadequate capacity building among the supervisory authority; (3) lack of adequate risk mitigation measures among financial institutions and DNFBPs entailing the application of proportionate and dissuasive sanctions to breaches; (4) shortcomings in the legal framework and mechanism to collect and maintain accurate and updated beneficial ownership information for legal persons and arrangements, and to ensure timely access by the competent authorities; and (5) gaps in the framework and implementation of targeted financial sanctions related to terrorist financing and proliferation financing. On this basis, Zimbabwe should be considered as a country having strategic deficiencies in its AML/CFT regime under Article 9 of Directive (EU) 2015/849. |
(19) |
In accordance with the latest relevant information, the Commission’s assessment concluded that the Bahamas, Barbados, Botswana, Cambodia, Ghana, Jamaica, Mauritius, Mongolia, Myanmar/Burma, Nicaragua, Panama and Zimbabwe should be considered as third-country jurisdictions which have strategic deficiencies in their AML/CFT regime that pose significant threats to the financial system of the Union, in accordance with the criteria set out in Article 9 of Directive (EU) 2015/849. It is noted that these countries have provided written high-level political commitments to address the identified deficiencies and have developed action plans with the FATF. |
(20) |
It is further noted that the FATF identified Uganda as a jurisdiction having strategic AML/CFT deficiencies for which Uganda has developed an action plan with the FATF in February 2020. The Commission assessed the latest information received in this context from the FATF relating to these deficiencies and other relevant information. The deficiencies include: (1) lack of a national AML/CFT strategy; (2) shortcomings in seeking international cooperation in line with the country’s risk profile; (3) lack of development and implementation of risk-based supervision to financial institutions and DNFBPs; (4) gaps in ensuring that competent authorities have timely access to accurate basic and beneficial ownership information for legal entities; (5) deficiencies in demonstrating that law enforcement and judicial authorities apply the money laundering offence consistently with the identified risks; (6) failure to establish and implement policies and procedures for identifying, tracing, seizing and confiscating proceeds and instrumentalities of crime; (7) failure to demonstrate that law enforcmeent authorities conduct terrorist financing investigations and pursue prosecutions commensurate with Uganda’s terrorist financing risk profile; (8) technical deficiencies in the legal framework to implement targeted financial sanctions related to proliferation financing and shortcomings in the implemention a risk-based approach for supervision of its non-profit organisations sector to prevent abuse for terrorist financing purposes. Uganda also provided a written high-level political commitment to address the identified deficiencies and has developed an action plan with the FATF. Uganda is already included in the Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/1675. Therefore, the status and current measures applied with regard to Uganda should remain unchanged. |
(21) |
It is of the utmost importance that the Commission conducts a permanent monitoring of third countries and assesses developments in their legal and institutional framework, the powers and procedures of competent authorities, and the effectiveness of their AML/CFT regime, with a view to updating the Annex of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/1675. |
(22) |
The Commission assessed the progress in addressing strategic deficiencies of countries in the Annex of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/1675 that have been delisted by the FATF since July 2016, based on the requirements of Directive (EU) 2015/849. The Commission concluded the assessment of progress made by Bosnia-Herzegovina, Ethiopia, Guyana, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Sri Lanka and Tunisia. |
(23) |
The FATF welcomed significant progress made by Bosnia-Herzegovina, Ethiopia, Guyana, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Sri Lanka and Tunisia in improving their AML/CFT regime and noted that these countries have established the legal and regulatory framework to meet the commitments in their action plans regarding the strategic deficiencies that the FATF had identified. These countries are therefore no longer subject to the FATF’s monitoring process under its on-going global AML/CFT compliance process. These countries will continue to work with the FATF-Style Regional Bodies to further improve their AML/CFT regime. |
(24) |
The Commission assessed the information relating to the progress in addressing strategic deficiencies of those third countries. |
(25) |
The Commission’s assessment concluded that, at this stage, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Guyana do not have strategic deficiencies in their AML/CFT regime considering the available information. These countries have recently taken a number of measures in order to reinforce their AML/CFT regimes and the Commission will further monitor effective implementation of such measures. The Commission will assess those countries when new information sources become available. Therefore Bosnia and Guyana should not be considered as having strategic deficiencies in their AML/CFT regime. |
(26) |
Similarly, the Commission’s assessment concluded that Tunisia no longer has strategic deficiencies in its AML/CFT regime considering the available information. Tunisia has strengthened the effectiveness of its AML/CFT regime and addressed related technical deficiencies to meet the commitments in its action plan regarding the strategic deficiencies that the FATF had identified. These measures are sufficiently comprehensive and meet the necessary requirements to consider that strategic deficiencies identified under article 9 of the Directive (EU) 2015/849 have been removed. |
(27) |
Furthermore the Commission’s assessment concluded that Ethiopia, Lao People’s Democratic Republic and Sri Lanka implemented measures to address the strategic deficiencies identified by the FATF and no longer present such strategic deficiencies. Following the measures implemented to address the action plan agreed with the FATF, these countries no longer present an AML/CFT threat to the international financial system.Taking into account their relevance for the financial system of the Union, the Commission considers that these countries no longer pose a significant threat to the financial system of the Union. Therefore, Ethiopia, Lao People’s Democratic Republic and Sri Lanka should not be considered as having strategic deficiencies in their AML/CFT regime at this stage. |
(28) |
The Commission is committed to provide technical assistance, where appropriate, to third countries included in the Annex of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/1675 in order to assist them to remedy the identified strategic deficiencies. |
(29) |
Taking into account the very exceptional and unpredictable situation arising from the COVID-19 pandemic which has an impact at global scale and is very likely to lead to disruptions in the proper functioning of economic operators and competent authorities alike, the date of application of Article 2 concerning the addition of third countries should be defined in a way that ensures sufficient time for its effective implementation in these circumstances. Therefore, the date of application of Article 2 of this Regulation should exceptionally be set at a later date than its entry into force. For third countries which should be delisted, no major implementation issues arise. It is therefore reasonable to provide for delisting without undue delay. |
(30) |
Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/1675 should therefore be amended accordingly, |
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
In the Annex to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/1675, in the table under point ‘I. High-risk third countries which have provided a written high-level political commitment to address the identified deficiencies and have developed an action plan with FATF’, the following lines are deleted:
2 |
Bosnia-Herzegovina |
3 |
Guyana |
5 |
Lao PDR |
10 |
Ethiopia |
11 |
Sri Lanka |
13 |
Tunisia |
Article 2
In the Annex to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/1675, the table under point ‘I. High-risk third countries which have provided a written high-level political commitment to address the identified deficiencies and have developed an action plan with FATF’ is replaced by the following:
‘No |
High-risk third country |
1 |
Afghanistan |
2 |
The Bahamas |
3 |
Barbados |
4 |
Botswana |
5 |
Cambodia |
6 |
Ghana |
7 |
Iraq |
8 |
Jamaica |
9 |
Mauritius |
10 |
Mongolia |
11 |
Myanmar/Burma |
12 |
Nicaragua |
13 |
Pakistan |
14 |
Panama |
15 |
Syria |
16 |
Trinidad and Tobago |
17 |
Uganda |
18 |
Vanuatu |
19 |
Yemen |
20 |
Zimbabwe’ |
Article 3
This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
However Article 2 shall apply from 1 October 2020.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 7 May 2020.
For the Commission
The President
Ursula VON DER LEYEN
(1) OJ L 141, 5.6.2015, p. 73.
(2) Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/1675 of 14 July 2016 supplementing Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council by identifying high-risk third countries with strategic deficiencies (OJ L 254, 20.9.2016, p. 1).
19.6.2020 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
L 195/9 |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) 2020/856
of 9 June 2020
amending Annexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for cyantraniliprole, cyazofamid, cyprodinil, fenpyroximate, fludioxonil, fluxapyroxad, imazalil, isofetamid, kresoxim-methyl, lufenuron, mandipropamid, propamocarb, pyraclostrobin, pyriofenone, pyriproxyfen and spinetoram in or on certain products
(Text with EEA relevance)
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 February 2005 on maximum residue levels of pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and animal origin and amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC (1), and in particular Article 14(1)(a) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) |
On 12 July 2019, the Codex Alimentarius Commission adopted new Codex maximum residue limits (CXLs) for abamectin, bentazone, benzovindiflupyr, chlorfenapyr, cyantraniliprole, cyazofamid, cyprodinil, diquat, ethiprole, fenpicoxamid, fenpyroximate, fludioxonil, fluopyram, fluxapyroxad, imazalil, isofetamid, kresoxim-methyl, lufenuron, mandipropamid, norflurazon, oxamyl, oxathiapiprolin, profenofos, propamocarb, propiconazole, pydiflumetofen, pyraclostrobin, pyriofenone, pyriproxyfen, spinetoram and tioxazafen (2). |
(2) |
Maximum residue levels (MRLs) had been set for those substances in Annexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, except for ethiprole, norflurazon, pydiflumetofen and tioxazafen for which no specific MRLs were set nor were those substances included in Annex IV to that Regulation, so the default value of 0,01 mg/kg laid down in Article 18(1)(b) thereof applies. |
(3) |
In accordance with Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3), where international standards exist or their completion is imminent, they are to be taken into consideration in the development or adaptation of food law, except where such standards or relevant parts would be an ineffective or inappropriate means for the fulfilment of the legitimate objectives of food law or where there is a scientific justification, or where they would result in a different level of protection from the one determined as appropriate in the Union. Moreover, in accordance with point (e) of Article 13 of that Regulation, the Union is to promote consistency between international technical standards and food law while ensuring that the high level of protection adopted in the Union is not reduced. |
(4) |
The Union presented a reservation (4) to the Codex Committee on Pesticides Residues on the CXLs proposed for the following pesticide/product combinations: abamectin (cane berries; grapes; green onions; herbs), bentazone (all products), chlorfenapyr (all products), cyazofamid (green onions), diquat (all products), ethiprole (all products), fludioxonil (celery; green onions; leaves of Brassicaceae; pineapple; pomegranate), fluopyram (husked rice) imazalil (lemons; limes; oranges; banana; potato; mammalian edible offal), norflurazon (all products), oxathiapiprolin (all products), propamocarb (products of animal origin), propiconazole (all products), pydiflumetofen (all products), pyraclostrobin (lettuce; pome fruits; products of animal origin; tea) and tioxazafen (all products). |
(5) |
The CXLs for abamectin, benzovindiflupyr, cyantraniliprole, cyazofamid, cyprodinil, fenpicoxamid, fenpyroximate, fludioxonil, fluopyram, fluxapyroxad, imazalil, isofetamid, kresoxim-methyl, lufenuron, mandipropamid, oxamyl, profenofos, propamocarb, pyraclostrobin, pyriofenone, pyriproxyfen and spinetoram, which are not listed in recital 4, should therefore be included in Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 as MRLs except where they relate to products which are not referred to in Annex I to that Regulation or where they are at a lower level than the current MRLs. Thus no MRL change is being made to abamectin, benzovindiflupyr, fenpicoxamid, fluopyram, oxamyl and profenofos. Those CXLs are safe for consumers in the Union (5). |
(6) |
Based on the scientific report of the Authority and taking into account the factors relevant to the matter under consideration, the appropriate modifications to the MRLs fulfil the requirements of Article 14(2) of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005. |
(7) |
Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 should therefore be amended accordingly. |
(8) |
The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed, |
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Annexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 are amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 9 June 2020.
For the Commission
The President
Ursula VON DER LEYEN
(2) http://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/sh-proxy/en/?lnk=1&url=https%253A%252F%252Fworkspace.fao.org%252Fsites%252Fcodex%252FMeetings%252FCX-701-42%252FReport%252FREP19_CACe_Final.pdf
Joint FAO/WHO food standards programme Codex Alimentarius Commission. Appendix II. Forty-second Session. CICG, Geneva, Switzerland, 8–12 July 2019.
(3) Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (OJ L 31, 1.2.2002, p. 1).
(4) European Union comments on Codex Circular Letter CL 2018/97-PR:
http://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/sh-proxy/en/?lnk=1&url=https%253A%252F%252Fworkspace.fao.org%252Fsites%252Fcodex%252FMeetings%252FCX-718-51%252FCRD%252Fpr51_CRD04x.pdf
(5) Scientific support for preparing an EU position in the 51st Session of the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues (CCPR). EFSA Journal 2019;17(7):5797.
ANNEX
Annexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 are amended as follows:
(1) |
in Annex II, the columns for cyantraniliprole, cyazofamid, cyprodinil, fenpyroximate, fludioxonil, imazalil, isofetamid, kresoxim-methyl, lufenuron, mandipropamid, propamocarb and pyraclostrobin are replaced by the following: “Pesticide residues and maximum residue levels (mg/kg)
|
(2) |
in Part A of Annex III, the columns for fluxapyroxad, pyriofenone, pyriproxyfen and spinetoram are replaced by the following: “Pesticide residues and maximum residue levels (mg/kg)
|
19.6.2020 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
L 195/52 |
COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2020/857
of 17 June 2020
laying down the principles to be included in the contract between the European Commission and the .eu top-level domain Registry in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2019/517 of the European Parliament and of the Council
(Text with EEA relevance)
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Having regard to Regulation (EU) 2019/517 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2019 on the implementation and functioning of the .eu top-level domain name and amending and repealing Regulation (EC) No 733/2002 and repealing Commission Regulation (EC) No 874/2004 (1), and in particular Article 8(2) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) |
The purpose of this Regulation is to set out the principles to be included in the contract between the Commission and the Registry for the organisation, administration and management of the .eu top-level domain (‘TLD’). |
(2) |
The Registry should manage the .eu TLD in a manner that enhances the Union identity, promotes Union values online and promotes the use of the .eu domain name. |
(3) |
To increase the accessibility and the usage of the .eu TLD by all who are eligible to register a .eu TLD under Regulation (EU) 2019/517, the Registry, upon request by the Commission, should offer registrar services to specific underserved geographical areas in the Union or specific categories of users identified by the Commission. |
(4) |
To fulfil the obligations set by Regulation (EU) 2019/517, it is essential that the Registry ensures good governance of the .eu TLD, in cooperation with the Commission and taking into account the opinions of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group set up by Regulation (EU) 2019/517 when requested by the Commission. |
(5) |
To ensure the competitiveness and widespread use of the .eu TLD, the Registry should pursue operational excellence and ensure a high quality of service at competitive prices. It should ensure trust, security and consumer protection by deploying state-of-the-art methodologies and technologies and cooperate with competent authorities. |
(6) |
The Registry should manage its budget in accordance with the principle of sound financial management, namely in accordance with the principles of economy, efficiency and effectiveness. Any annual surplus beyond costs and investments should be transferred to the Union budget. |
(7) |
The Registry should ensure the continuity of its services and the functioning of the .eu TLD. To this end, the Registry should have in place and regularly update a business recovery plan. |
(8) |
The Registry should promote the Union objectives in internet governance as developed in the Council Conclusions of 27 November 2014 entitled ‘Internet Governance’ and in the Communication of the Commission on internet Policy and Governance Europe’s role in shaping the future of internet Governance (2). Upon request by the Commission, it may set aside part of the annual surplus to fund internet governance objectives. |
(9) |
To increase public trust in the online space and protect legitimate rights as defined by Union law, the Registry should take all the necessary measures to prevent and tackle speculative and abusive registrations. In doing so, the Registry should cooperate with the European Union Intellectual Property Office and other Union agencies. |
(10) |
With a view to increasing end-users’ trust in the .eu TLD and ensuring a high level of consumer protection, in the provision of their services, the Registry should take measures to ensure the cybersecurity of the systems. |
(11) |
The Registry should provide simple and efficient procedures to solve contractual disputes concerning .eu domain names. |
(12) |
Maintaining accurate databases of domain names and registration data and providing lawful access to such data, in line with Union data protection rules, is essential to ensure the security, stability and resilience of the domain name system. For this purpose, the Registry should collect and guarantee the integrity and availability of WHOIS data for the .eu TLD and enable lawful access to those data in line with Union data protection rules through appropriate means. The Registry should put in place adequate measures to prevent and correct inaccurate registration data. |
(13) |
The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Communications Committee (COCOM) established by Directive (EU) 2018/1972 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3), |
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Subject matter
This Regulation establishes the principles to be included in the contract between the Commission and the Registry for the organisation, administration and management of the .eu TLD, in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2019/517.
Article 2
Promotion of the Union values online
1. The Registry shall contribute to enhancing the Union identity and promoting the Union values online. In particular, the Registry, through its policies and its interactions with registrars, registrants and other stakeholders, shall promote openness, innovation, multilingualism and accessibility, freedom of expression and information, respect for human rights and the rule of law and shall take measures to promote users’ security online and to respect users’ privacy.
2. The Registry shall actively promote the use of all the official languages of the Union.
Article 3
Promotion of the .eu TLD
1. The Registry shall raise awareness and promote the use of the .eu TLD across the Union, with a view to supporting the digital single market, building an online European identity and encouraging cross-border online activities.
2. To promote the use of the .eu TLD in specific underserved geographical areas in the Union or towards specific categories of registrants, the Registry shall, upon request by the Commission, act as a registrar by providing domain name registration services directly to registrants. This activity shall be limited to those geographical areas and categories of registrants identified by the Commission.
3. The Registry shall promote the use of the .eu TLD in all its available variants and in all European languages.
Article 4
Good governance
1. The Registry shall ensure good governance of the .eu TLD. The Registry’s internal governance structure shall ensure broad stakeholder representation, efficiency, effectiveness, accountability, transparency and responsiveness.
2. To correct or improve the organisation, administration and management of the .eu TLD, the Registry shall seek advice, cooperate and implement specific instructions from the Commission concerning the .eu TLD and take into account opinions of the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group when requested by the Commission.
Article 5
Good management
1. The Registry shall manage the .eu TLD in the public interest, with a view to enhancing public trust in the online environment.
2. The Registry shall pursue operational excellence and ensure a high quality of service at competitive prices.
3. The Registry shall implement procedures to ensure that the management and administration of the .eu TLD complies with the principles of transparency, security, stability, predictability, reliability, accessibility, efficiency, non-discrimination and that it ensures fair conditions of competition and consumer protection, in accordance with Union law.
4. The Registry shall adopt procedures to ensure that it provides the registrars with services and information under the same conditions and with the same quality as it uses for its own equivalent services, in particular, when it acts as a registrar in accordance with Article 3(2).
5. The Registry shall manage the .eu TLD in accordance with the principles of sound financial management. The Registry shall provide evidence of compliance with those principles at the request of the Commission, in particular for its allocation of financial and human resources in implementing the contract. The Registry shall submit themselves to an external audit at least every two years.
6. The Registry shall offer its services in all the official languages of the Union.
Article 6
Security and consumer protection
1. The Registry shall ensure a high level of security for the network and information systems that it operates when managing the .eu TLD. In doing so, it shall put in place specific policies and comply with state-of-the-art cybersecurity risk management practices.
2. The Registry shall adopt a business continuity and recovery plan with prior written agreement of the Commission. The Registry shall periodically revise the plan, with the prior written agreement of the Commission.
3. The Registry shall:
(a) |
provide registrars and registrants with state-of-the-art tools and technologies to protect themselves against cybersecurity threats; |
(b) |
employ advanced methodologies to prevent abusive registrations. |
Article 7
Fees and surplus
1. The Registry shall communicate in advance to the Commission the fees that it intends to impose for registering a .eu domain name and information about how they relate to the costs incurred. The fees shall be published by the Registry.
2. At the end of each accounting year, the Registry shall transfer any recorded surplus that is not invested in enhancing the quality of its services or in order to promote the Union objectives in internet governance, to the Union budget.
3. The Registry shall communicate to the Commission the amounts planned for investments that are expected to be deducted from the potential surplus amount to be transferred to the Union budget.
Article 8
Internet governance
1. The Registry shall promote the Union objectives in internet governance. In doing so, it shall cooperate with the Commission and take into account opinions issued by the .eu Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group when requested by the Commission.
2. Upon the Commission’s request, the Registry shall set aside part of the surplus generated by the .eu TLD to promote Union objectives in internet governance.
3. The Registry shall have a detailed plan in place to fund internet governance objectives. It shall adopt the plan with prior written agreement of the Commission.
Article 9
Speculative and abusive registrations
1. The Registry shall have policies and procedures in place to actively mitigate speculative and abusive domain names registrations in the .eu TLD in compliance with paragraphs (b), (c), (e) of Article 11 of Regulation (EU) 2019/517. In doing so, it shall cooperate with the European Union Intellectual Property Office and other Union agencies.
2. The Registry shall take into consideration at least the intellectual property rights covered in Commission Statement 2005/295/EC (4), including copyright, trademarks, and geographical indications provided in Union or national law, and, in as far as they are protected under national law in the Member States where they are held: unregistered trademarks, trade names, business identifiers, company names, family names, and distinctive titles of protected literary and artistic works.
3. To mitigate speculative and abusive domain names registrations, the Registry shall have in place policies and procedures ensuring the accuracy of registration data, in particular data identifying registrants. The Registry shall ensure that the registrars manage the registrations in line with the principles of security and accuracy of the data and in accordance with Union law.
4. The Registry shall have in place policies and procedures for registration requests and for the verification of registration criteria and of registrants’ data, which shall ensure that any verification of the information takes place prior to the registration or subsequently, at the initiative of the Registry or as a result of a dispute related to the registration of the domain name in question.
Article 10
Revocation of domain names
1. The Registry shall implement policies and procedures for the revocation of domain names at its own initiative as described in Article 4(3) of Regulation (EU) 2019/517 or using an appropriate extra-judicial or judicial procedure. In particular, the Registry shall revoke domain names that have been registered without rights or legitimate interests in the name, or that are used in bad faith.
2. The procedure for the revocation of domain names shall include a notice to the domain name holder and shall afford the holder an opportunity to take appropriate measures.
Article 11
Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) procedure
1. The Registry shall provide simple, accessible, efficient and uniform procedures to solve disputes pertaining to the registration of .eu domain names.
2. The rules on alternative dispute resolution procedures adopted by the Registry shall comply with Directive 2013/11/EU of the European Parliament and the Council (5). They shall take into account international best practice in this area, including relevant World Intellectual Property Organization recommendations, and they shall comply with uniform procedural rules that are in line with those set out in ICANN’s uniform domain name dispute resolution policy.
3. The Registry may select reputable alternative dispute resolution providers with appropriate expertise. The selection process shall be objective, transparent and non-discriminatory. The list of these providers shall be published by the Registry.
Article 12
Databases of domain names and registration data
1. The Registry shall have policies and procedures in place to ensure that the WHOIS database includes accurate and up to date information and to ensure that the publication and access to these data is in line with Union data protection rules.
2. The deliberate submission of inaccurate information shall constitute grounds for considering the domain name registration to have been in breach of the terms of registration.
Article 13
Cooperation with competent authorities
1. The Registry shall cooperate with competent authorities involved in the fight against cybercrime. It shall also cooperate with competent authorities and public and private bodies involved in the fight against speculative and abusive registrations, in cybersecurity and information security, in consumer protection, and in the protection of fundamental rights. It shall provide access to data to competent authorities and public bodies in line with Union or national law that complies with Union law, including with orders by courts or competent authorities vested with relevant powers.
2. The Registry shall establish procedures to facilitate the cooperation with competent authorities and public and private bodies.
Article 14
Entry into force
This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 17 June 2020.
For the Commission
The President
Ursula VON DER LEYEN
(1) OJ L 91, 29.3.2019, p. 25.
(2) COM/2014/072.
(3) Directive (EU) 2018/1972 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 establishing the European Electronic Communications Code (OJ L 321, 17.12.2018, p. 36).
(4) Statement by the Commission concerning Article 2 of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (OJ L 94, 13.4.2005, p. 37).
(5) Directive 2013/11/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on alternative dispute resolution for consumer disputes and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2009/22/EC (OJ L 165, 18.6.2013, p. 63).
19.6.2020 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
L 195/57 |
COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2020/858
of 18 June 2020
amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/732 as regards postponing its date of application
(Text with EEA relevance)
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Having regard to Directive 2014/94/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 on the deployment of alternative fuels infrastructure (1), and in particular Article 7(3) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) |
In accordance with Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/732 (2) the display of the comparison of the fuel prices in fuel stations should rely on samples of passenger cars that are comparable, at least in view of their weight and their power. Member States have the possibility to make use of the opportunities offered by digitalisation such as online tools, to provide information on vehicle models existing in the market, and to add other information. Therefore, the display of a link to a website with more complete or additional information may be used as a complementary means to the display of fuels unit price comparison at fuel stations. It should not replace the display at the fuel station. |
(2) |
Member States should determine which filling stations are to display the results of the alternative fuels unit price comparison following the common methodology set out in Annex I of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/732. Information display should happen in a way to ensure adequate consumer information such as through posters, panels or monitors. Their installation requires specific works at fuel stations. Solutions should not burden small and medium-sized enterprises. |
(3) |
The Union set up a Programme Support Action (PSA) under Connecting Europe Facility to assist Member States with the implementation of Article 7(3) of Directive 2014/94/EU, including recommendations for a harmonised roll out of information displays. Those recommendations are not yet available as the implementation of the required face-to-face tests had to be postponed because access to filling stations for testing is severely constrained since the start of confinement measures relating to the COVID-19 pandemic. In this respect, the Commission, at the request of the Member States participating in the PSA, has extended its duration through an amendment of the relevant Grant Agreement until 30 September 2020. This will imply a delay in the final delivery of the recommendations to be issued from the PSA to Member States for a harmonised implementation of Article 7(3) of Directive 2014/94/EU. |
(4) |
Member States in the Committee on Alternative Fuels Infrastructure at the meeting of 3 April 2020 noted that the measures to confine the spread of COVID-19 constrain the possibility to access filling stations. Consequently, it is not possible to carry out all necessary works to equip filling stations with displays in line with the recommendations from the PSA. In addition, the implementation of posters, panels or monitors requires physical work at filling stations, which could entail safety risks to customers and working staff due to the obligation to maintain social distancing. For those reasons, Member States requested the postponement of the date of application of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/732. |
(5) |
Those constraints make it impossible to set up the necessary infrastructure to enable filling stations to accommodate the methodology set out the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/732 on the date of application laid down in Article 2. In addition, Member States also face challenges with collecting the relevant data. For those reasons, the date of application of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/732 should be postponed for 6 months to allow the Member States to offset the negative impact of the delay caused by the COVID-19 crisis in putting the measures provided for in that Regulation into practice. |
(6) |
To provide an immediate relief in the ongoing COVID-19 crisis and to allow Member States and all stakeholders to adapt their planning in accordance with the proposed amendment, this Regulation should enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. |
(7) |
The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the committee established by Article 9(1) of Directive 2014/94/EU, |
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
In Article 2 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/732, the second subparagraph is replaced by the following:
‘It shall apply from 7 December 2020’
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 18 June 2020.
For the Commission
The President
Ursula VON DER LEYEN
(1) OJ L 307, 28.10.2014, p. 1.
(2) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/732 of 17 May 2018 on a common methodology for alternative fuels unit price comparison in accordance with Directive 2014/94/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 123, 18.5.2018, p. 85).
DECISIONS
19.6.2020 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
L 195/59 |
COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION (EU) 2020/859
of 16 June 2020
excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD)
(notified under document C(2020) 3609)
(Only the Bulgarian, Croatian, Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, French, German, Greek, Italian, Lithuanian, Polish, Romanian, Slovak, Slovenian and Spanish texts are authentic)
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008 (1), and in particular Article 52 thereof, in conjunction with Article 131 of the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community,
After consulting the Committee on the Agricultural Funds,
Whereas:
(1) |
In accordance with Article 52 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 the Commission is to carry out the necessary verifications, communicate to the Member States the results of those verifications, take note of the comments of the Member States, initiate a bilateral discussion so that an agreement may be reached with the Member States in question, and formally communicate its conclusions to them. |
(2) |
The Member States have had an opportunity to request the launch of a conciliation procedure. That opportunity has been used in some cases and the reports issued on the outcome have been examined by the Commission. |
(3) |
In accordance with Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013, only agricultural expenditure which has been incurred in a way that has not infringed Union law may be financed. |
(4) |
In the light of the verifications carried out, the outcome of the bilateral discussions and the conciliation procedures, part of the expenditure declared by the Member States does not fulfil this requirement and cannot, therefore, be financed under the EAGF and the EAFRD. |
(5) |
The amounts that are not recognised as being chargeable to the EAGF and the EAFRD should be indicated. Those amounts do not relate to expenditure incurred more than 24 months before the Commission’s written notification of the results of the verifications to the Member States. |
(6) |
The amounts excluded from Union financing by the present Decision should also take into account any reductions or suspensions in accordance with Article 41 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 due to the fact that such reductions or suspensions are of a provisional nature and without prejudice to decisions taken pursuant to Articles 51 or 52 of that Regulation. |
(7) |
As regards the cases covered by this decision, the assessment of the amounts to be excluded on grounds of non-compliance with Union law was notified by the Commission to the Member States in a summary report on the subject (2). |
(8) |
This Decision is without prejudice to any financial conclusions that the Commission may draw from the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union in cases pending on 31 March 2020, |
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
The amounts set out in the Annex and related to expenditure incurred by the Member States’ accredited paying agencies and declared under the EAGF or the EAFRD shall be excluded from Union financing.
Article 2
This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, Ireland, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Republic of Croatia, the Italian Republic, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Lithuania, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Poland, Romania, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Done at Brussels, 16 June 2020.
For the Commission
Janusz WOJCIECHOWSKI
Member of the Commission
(1) OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 549.
(2) Ares(2020)2639588.
ANNEX
Decision: 63
Budget Item:
Member State |
Measure |
FY |
Reason |
Type |
Correction % |
Currency |
Amount |
Deductions |
Financial Impact |
DE |
Rural Development EAFRD Risk management |
2016 |
Reimbursement linked to FC published in ad hoc decision 62 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
150 000,00 |
0,00 |
150 000,00 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total DE: |
EUR |
150 000,00 |
0,00 |
150 000,00 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Currency |
Amount |
Deductions |
Financial Impact |
EUR |
150 000,00 |
0,00 |
150 000,00 |
Budget Item:
Member State |
Measure |
FY |
Reason |
Type |
Correction % |
Currency |
Amount |
Deductions |
Financial Impact |
CZ |
Rural Development EAFRD measures subject to IACS |
2017 |
Reimbursement following judgment in case T-509/18 |
FLAT RATE |
5,00% |
EUR |
144 617,10 |
0,00 |
144 617,10 |
|
Rural Development EAFRD measures subject to IACS |
2018 |
Reimbursement following judgment in case T-509/18 |
FLAT RATE |
5,00% |
EUR |
6 499,55 |
0,00 |
6 499,55 |
|
Rural Development EAFRD measures subject to IACS |
2017 |
Reimbursement following judgment in case T-8/20 |
FLAT RATE |
5,00% |
EUR |
14 191,54 |
0,00 |
14 191,54 |
|
Rural Development EAFRD measures subject to IACS |
2018 |
Reimbursement following judgment in case T-8/20 |
FLAT RATE |
5,00% |
EUR |
15 511,62 |
0,00 |
15 511,62 |
|
Rural Development EAFRD measures subject to IACS |
2019 |
Reimbursement following judgment in case T-8/20 |
FLAT RATE |
5,00% |
EUR |
5 405,86 |
0,00 |
5 405,86 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total CZ: |
EUR |
186 225,67 |
0,00 |
186 225,67 |
DE |
Rural Development EAFRD Risk management |
2017 |
Reimbursement linked to FC published in ad hoc decision 62 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
53 750,00 |
0,00 |
53 750,00 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total DE: |
EUR |
53 750,00 |
0,00 |
53 750,00 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Currency |
Amount |
Deductions |
Financial Impact |
EUR |
239 975,67 |
0,00 |
239 975,67 |
Budget Item:
Member State |
Measure |
FY |
Reason |
Type |
Correction % |
Currency |
Amount |
Deductions |
Financial Impact |
BE |
Irregularities |
2012 |
Reimbursement following judgment in case T-287/16RENV |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
9 601 619,00 |
0,00 |
9 601 619,00 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total BE: |
EUR |
9 601 619,00 |
0,00 |
9 601 619,00 |
BG |
Clearance of Accounts - Financial Clearance |
2018 |
Errors in EAGF and reimbursement due to double recovery |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
238 474,09 |
0,00 |
238 474,09 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total BG: |
EUR |
238 474,09 |
0,00 |
238 474,09 |
GR |
Decoupled Direct Aids |
2010 |
Reimbursement following judgment in case C-252/18P |
FLAT RATE |
25,00% |
EUR |
85 534 291,54 |
10 905 970,63 |
74 628 320,91 |
|
Decoupled Direct Aids |
2011 |
Reimbursement following judgment in case C-252/18P |
FLAT RATE |
25,00% |
EUR |
96 766 888,08 |
0,00 |
96 766 888,08 |
|
Decoupled Direct Aids |
2012 |
Reimbursement following judgment in case C-252/18P |
FLAT RATE |
25,00% |
EUR |
97 222 743,23 |
0,00 |
97 222 743,23 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total GR: |
EUR |
279 523 922,85 |
10 905 970,63 |
268 617 952,22 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Currency |
Amount |
Deductions |
Financial Impact |
EUR |
289 364 015,94 |
10 905 970,63 |
278 458 045,31 |
Budget Item:
Member State |
Measure |
FY |
Reason |
Type |
Correction % |
Currency |
Amount |
Deductions |
Financial Impact |
BG |
Certification |
2017 |
Non-respect of the payment deadlines for the School Fruit Scheme- EAGF NIACS |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
- 101 055,76 |
0,00 |
- 101 055,76 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total BG: |
EUR |
- 101 055,76 |
0,00 |
- 101 055,76 |
CY |
Decoupled Direct Aids |
2019 |
Greening payment CY 2018 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
-1 589,93 |
0,00 |
-1 589,93 |
|
Decoupled Direct Aids |
2017 |
Greening payment/ Performance of on-the-spot checks of sufficient quality, Correct calculation of the aid including administrative reductions and penalties CY 2016/ Performance of on-the-spot checks of sufficient quantity CY 2015 -2016 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
-78 945,58 |
0,00 |
-78 945,58 |
|
Decoupled Direct Aids |
2018 |
Greening payment/ Performance of on-the-spot checks of sufficient quality, Correct calculation of the aid including administrative reductions and penalties CY 2017/ Performance of on-the-spot checks to the sufficient number |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
-39 360,36 |
0,00 |
-39 360,36 |
|
Decoupled Direct Aids |
2019 |
SAPS 2018 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
-1 529,16 |
0,00 |
-1 529,16 |
|
Decoupled Direct Aids |
2017 |
SAPS/ Performance of on-the-spot checks of sufficient quality, Correct calculation of the aid including administrative reductions and penalties CY 2016 - recoveries covering CY 2012 -2016 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
- 163 717,35 |
0,00 |
- 163 717,35 |
|
Decoupled Direct Aids |
2018 |
SAPS/ Correct calculation of the aid including administrative reductions and penalties CY 2017 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
-8 895,31 |
0,00 |
-8 895,31 |
|
Voluntary Coupled Support Area Based |
2017 |
VCS/ Performance of on-the-spot checks of sufficient quality-Targeting risky farmers in the risk analysis CY 2016 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
-53 690,80 |
0,00 |
-53 690,80 |
|
Decoupled Direct Aids |
2019 |
YFS CY2018 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
-67,36 |
0,00 |
-67,36 |
|
Decoupled Direct Aids |
2017 |
YFS/ Performance of on-the-spot checks of sufficient quality, Correct calculation of the aid including administrative reductions and penalties CY 2015- 2016 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
-5 957,20 |
0,00 |
-5 957,20 |
|
Decoupled Direct Aids |
2018 |
YFS/ Performance of on-the-spot checks of sufficient quality, Correct calculation of the aid including administrative reductions and penalties CY 2017 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
-3 254,37 |
0,00 |
-3 254,37 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total CY: |
EUR |
- 357 007,42 |
0,00 |
- 357 007,42 |
DE |
Clearance of Accounts - Financial Clearance |
2018 |
Differences in debts' reconciliation EAGF |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
-4 146,65 |
0,00 |
-4 146,65 |
|
Clearance of Accounts - Financial Clearance |
2018 |
individual errors EAGF |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
-11 417,87 |
0,00 |
-11 417,87 |
|
Clearance of Accounts - Financial Clearance |
2018 |
Individual errors EAGF |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
-37 171,51 |
0,00 |
-37 171,51 |
|
Decoupled Direct Aids |
2016 |
non-correct determination of permanent grassland - arable land with green cover - DE03 - claim year 2015 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
- 237 834,00 |
0,00 |
- 237 834,00 |
|
Decoupled Direct Aids |
2017 |
non-correct determination of permanent grassland - arable land with green cover - DE03 - claim year 2016 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
- 199 169,67 |
0,00 |
- 199 169,67 |
|
Decoupled Direct Aids |
2018 |
non-correct determination of permanent grassland - arable land with green cover - DE03 - claim year 2017 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
- 230 772,68 |
0,00 |
- 230 772,68 |
|
Decoupled Direct Aids |
2016 |
non-correct determination of permanent grassland - arable land with green cover - DE04 - claim year 2015 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
-1 922 065,48 |
0,00 |
-1 922 065,48 |
|
Decoupled Direct Aids |
2017 |
non-correct determination of permanent grassland - arable land with green cover - DE04 - claim year 2016 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
-1 875 440,40 |
0,00 |
-1 875 440,40 |
|
Decoupled Direct Aids |
2018 |
non-correct determination of permanent grassland - arable land with green cover - DE04 - claim year 2017 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
-2 062 847,13 |
0,00 |
-2 062 847,13 |
|
Decoupled Direct Aids |
2016 |
non-correct determination of permanent grassland - arable land with green cover - DE07 - claim year 2015 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
- 623 115,28 |
0,00 |
- 623 115,28 |
|
Decoupled Direct Aids |
2017 |
non-correct determination of permanent grassland - arable land with green cover - DE07 - claim year 2016 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
- 307 953,88 |
0,00 |
- 307 953,88 |
|
Decoupled Direct Aids |
2018 |
non-correct determination of permanent grassland - arable land with green cover - DE07 - claim year 2017 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
- 265 285,50 |
0,00 |
- 265 285,50 |
|
Decoupled Direct Aids |
2016 |
non-correct determination of permanent grassland - arable land with green cover - DE11 - claim year 2015 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
- 265 671,21 |
0,00 |
- 265 671,21 |
|
Decoupled Direct Aids |
2017 |
non-correct determination of permanent grassland - arable land with green cover - DE11 - claim year 2016 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
- 191 654,52 |
0,00 |
- 191 654,52 |
|
Decoupled Direct Aids |
2018 |
non-correct determination of permanent grassland - arable land with green cover - DE11 - claim year 2017 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
- 145 382,85 |
0,00 |
- 145 382,85 |
|
Decoupled Direct Aids |
2016 |
non-correct determination of permanent grassland - arable land with green cover - DE12 - claim year 2015 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
- 169 907,04 |
0,00 |
- 169 907,04 |
|
Decoupled Direct Aids |
2017 |
non-correct determination of permanent grassland - arable land with green cover - DE12 - claim year 2016 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
- 145 885,59 |
0,00 |
- 145 885,59 |
|
Decoupled Direct Aids |
2018 |
non-correct determination of permanent grassland - arable land with green cover - DE12 - claim year 2017 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
- 210 445,12 |
0,00 |
- 210 445,12 |
|
Decoupled Direct Aids |
2016 |
non-correct determination of permanent grassland - arable land with green cover - DE15 - claim year 2015 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
- 698 756,67 |
0,00 |
- 698 756,67 |
|
Decoupled Direct Aids |
2017 |
non-correct determination of permanent grassland - arable land with green cover - DE15 - claim year 2016 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
- 594 052,90 |
0,00 |
- 594 052,90 |
|
Decoupled Direct Aids |
2018 |
non-correct determination of permanent grassland - arable land with green cover - DE15 - claim year 2017 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
- 772 251,64 |
0,00 |
- 772 251,64 |
|
Decoupled Direct Aids |
2016 |
non-correct determination of permanent grassland - arable land with green cover - DE17 - claim year 2015 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
-78 901,22 |
0,00 |
-78 901,22 |
|
Decoupled Direct Aids |
2017 |
non-correct determination of permanent grassland - arable land with green cover - DE17 - claim year 2016 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
-80 472,43 |
0,00 |
-80 472,43 |
|
Decoupled Direct Aids |
2018 |
non-correct determination of permanent grassland - arable land with green cover - DE17 - claim year 2017 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
- 123 593,45 |
0,00 |
- 123 593,45 |
|
Decoupled Direct Aids |
2016 |
non-correct determination of permanent grassland - arable land with green cover - DE18 - claim year 2015 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
-38 315,22 |
0,00 |
-38 315,22 |
|
Decoupled Direct Aids |
2017 |
non-correct determination of permanent grassland - arable land with green cover - DE18 - claim year 2016 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
-32 740,70 |
0,00 |
-32 740,70 |
|
Decoupled Direct Aids |
2018 |
non-correct determination of permanent grassland - arable land with green cover - DE18 - claim year 2017 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
-91 094,37 |
0,00 |
-91 094,37 |
|
Decoupled Direct Aids |
2016 |
non-correct determination of permanent grassland - arable land with green cover - DE19 - claim year 2015 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
- 476 321,83 |
0,00 |
- 476 321,83 |
|
Decoupled Direct Aids |
2017 |
non-correct determination of permanent grassland - arable land with green cover - DE19 - claim year 2016 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
- 419 481,87 |
0,00 |
- 419 481,87 |
|
Decoupled Direct Aids |
2018 |
non-correct determination of permanent grassland - arable land with green cover - DE19 - claim year 2017 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
- 625 786,66 |
0,00 |
- 625 786,66 |
|
Decoupled Direct Aids |
2016 |
non-correct determination of permanent grassland - arable land with green cover - DE20 - claim year 2015 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
-51 576,26 |
0,00 |
-51 576,26 |
|
Decoupled Direct Aids |
2017 |
non-correct determination of permanent grassland - arable land with green cover - DE20 - claim year 2016 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
-68 342,32 |
0,00 |
-68 342,32 |
|
Decoupled Direct Aids |
2018 |
non-correct determination of permanent grassland - arable land with green cover - DE20 - claim year 2017 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
-21 311,13 |
0,00 |
-21 311,13 |
|
Decoupled Direct Aids |
2016 |
non-correct determination of permanent grassland - arable land with green cover - DE21 - claim year 2015 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
- 175 037,41 |
0,00 |
- 175 037,41 |
|
Decoupled Direct Aids |
2017 |
non-correct determination of permanent grassland - arable land with green cover - DE21 - claim year 2016 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
-81 608,02 |
0,00 |
-81 608,02 |
|
Decoupled Direct Aids |
2018 |
non-correct determination of permanent grassland - arable land with green cover - DE21 - claim year 2017 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
-70 608,02 |
0,00 |
-70 608,02 |
|
Decoupled Direct Aids |
2016 |
non-correct determination of permanent grassland - arable land with green cover - DE23 - claim year 2015 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
- 298 783,54 |
0,00 |
- 298 783,54 |
|
Decoupled Direct Aids |
2017 |
non-correct determination of permanent grassland - arable land with green cover - DE23 - claim year 2016 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
- 263 146,73 |
0,00 |
- 263 146,73 |
|
Decoupled Direct Aids |
2018 |
non-correct determination of permanent grassland - arable land with green cover - DE23 - claim year 2017 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
- 340 159,42 |
0,00 |
- 340 159,42 |
|
Decoupled Direct Aids |
2016 |
non-correct determination of permanent grassland - arable land with green cover - DE26 - claim year 2015 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
- 986 326,13 |
0,00 |
- 986 326,13 |
|
Decoupled Direct Aids |
2017 |
non-correct determination of permanent grassland - arable land with green cover - DE26 - claim year 2016 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
-1 007 155,07 |
0,00 |
-1 007 155,07 |
|
Decoupled Direct Aids |
2018 |
non-correct determination of permanent grassland - arable land with green cover - DE26 - claim year 2017 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
-1 390 814,84 |
0,00 |
-1 390 814,84 |
|
Decoupled Direct Aids |
2016 |
non-correct determination of permanent grassland - year of sowing - DE03 - claim year 2015 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
-2 010,17 |
0,00 |
-2 010,17 |
|
Decoupled Direct Aids |
2017 |
non-correct determination of permanent grassland - year of sowing - DE03 - claim year 2016 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
-36 900,10 |
0,00 |
-36 900,10 |
|
Decoupled Direct Aids |
2018 |
non-correct determination of permanent grassland - year of sowing - DE03 - claim year 2017 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
-70 969,46 |
0,00 |
-70 969,46 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total DE: |
EUR |
-17 802 683,96 |
0,00 |
-17 802 683,96 |
DK |
Clearance of Accounts - Financial Clearance |
2018 |
Errors in EAGF |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
-15 710,15 |
0,00 |
-15 710,15 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total DK: |
EUR |
-15 710,15 |
0,00 |
-15 710,15 |
ES |
Wine - Investment |
2016 |
absence of control over the reasonability of costs for investments 2016 |
FLAT RATE |
5,00% |
EUR |
-60 287,43 |
0,00 |
-60 287,43 |
|
Wine - Investment |
2017 |
absence of control over the reasonability of costs for investments 2017 |
FLAT RATE |
5,00% |
EUR |
-46 018,71 |
-14 713,79 |
-31 304,92 |
|
Wine - Investment |
2018 |
absence of control over the reasonability of costs for investments 2018 |
FLAT RATE |
5,00% |
EUR |
-14 789,48 |
0,00 |
-14 789,48 |
|
Wine - Investment |
2016 |
actions paid but not approved |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
-94 864,95 |
0,00 |
-94 864,95 |
|
Wine - Investment |
2017 |
actions paid but not approved |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
-51 221,90 |
- 818,87 |
-50 403,03 |
|
Clearance of Accounts - Financial Clearance |
2017 |
Errors in EAGF and EAFRD |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
- 417,16 |
0,00 |
- 417,16 |
|
Clearance of Accounts - Financial Clearance |
2018 |
Errors in EAGF and EAFRD |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
- 785 899,42 |
0,00 |
- 785 899,42 |
|
Certification |
2017 |
material errors found by the CB, EAGF IACs |
ESTIMATED BY AMOUNT |
|
EUR |
-50 588,85 |
- 202,07 |
-50 386,78 |
|
Certification |
2017 |
Material errors found by the CB, EAGF non-IACs |
ESTIMATED BY AMOUNT |
|
EUR |
-1 186 869,74 |
-40,46 |
-1 186 829,28 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total ES: |
EUR |
-2 290 957,64 |
-15 775,19 |
-2 275 182,45 |
FR |
Clearance of Accounts - Financial Clearance |
2017 |
Erreurs 'Structurations de l’élevage' Erreurs 'Aides aux réseaux de référence' Créances Aide à la production de bananes |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
-99 395,58 |
0,00 |
-99 395,58 |
|
Certification |
2017 |
Known error in Payment Delays (except for School Milk & fruit and generic promotion) |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
-12 816 419,70 |
-47 234,63 |
-12 769 185,07 |
|
Certification |
2016 |
Known error in Payment Delays for Fruit School |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
- 825 143,89 |
-15 376,27 |
- 809 767,62 |
|
Clearance of Accounts - Financial Clearance |
2018 |
Known errors in EAGF |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
-91 787,23 |
- 675,88 |
-91 111,35 |
|
Certification |
2017 |
Known errors in EAGF Non-IACS |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
- 695 695,49 |
-5 159,98 |
- 690 535,51 |
|
Certification |
2017 |
Known errors in Payment Delays (only for school Milk and generic promotion) |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
-1 736 528,82 |
0,00 |
-1 736 528,82 |
|
Certification |
2017 |
Known errors in receivables |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
-83 825,14 |
0,00 |
-83 825,14 |
|
Certification |
2017 |
MLE in EAGF Non-IACS |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
-7 947 694,73 |
-31 464,66 |
-7 916 230,07 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total FR: |
EUR |
-24 296 490,58 |
-99 911,42 |
-24 196 579,16 |
GB |
Clearance of Accounts - Financial Clearance |
2018 |
CEB/2019/050/GB - Errors detected by the CB in EAGF and EAFRD |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
- 160 580,94 |
-7,11 |
- 160 573,83 |
|
Certification |
2016 |
CEB/2019/050/GB - Non-respect of payment deadlines CY2015 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
-7 340 707,35 |
-7 340 707,35 |
0,00 |
|
Certification |
2017 |
Financial errors in substantive testing for EAGF |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
-8 366,25 |
0,00 |
-8 366,25 |
|
Clearance of Accounts - Financial Clearance |
2017 |
Reductions due to non-respect of payment deadlines |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
-27 947 326,00 |
-27 947 326,00 |
0,00 |
|
Certification |
2017 |
Reductions due to non-respect of payment deadlines(2) |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
-1 474 766,26 |
-1 474 766,26 |
0,00 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total GB: |
EUR |
-36 931 746,80 |
-36 762 806,72 |
- 168 940,08 |
HR |
Clearance of Accounts - Financial Clearance |
2018 |
Financial errors EAGF IACS |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
- 286,82 |
0,00 |
- 286,82 |
|
Clearance of Accounts - Financial Clearance |
2018 |
Financial errors identified by the Certification Body EAGF NIACS |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
-1 342,65 |
0,00 |
-1 342,65 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total HR: |
EUR |
-1 629,47 |
0,00 |
-1 629,47 |
IE |
Clearance of Accounts - Financial Clearance |
2018 |
Debts EAGF |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
- 370 634,10 |
0,00 |
- 370 634,10 |
|
Clearance of Accounts - Financial Clearance |
2018 |
P-STO reimbursement |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
38,20 |
0,00 |
38,20 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total IE: |
EUR |
- 370 595,90 |
0,00 |
- 370 595,90 |
NL |
Clearance of Accounts - Financial Clearance |
2018 |
Known and random errors in EAGF and EAFRD |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
-24 654,23 |
0,00 |
-24 654,23 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total NL: |
EUR |
-24 654,23 |
0,00 |
-24 654,23 |
PL |
Decoupled Direct Aids |
2018 |
Greening payment/Land classification, Difference in land cover , Distinction of winter and summer cereals CY 2017 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
- 336 496,14 |
0,00 |
- 336 496,14 |
|
Decoupled Direct Aids |
2019 |
Greening payment/Land classification, Difference in land cover , Distinction of winter and summer cereals CY 2018 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
- 282 691,64 |
0,00 |
- 282 691,64 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total PL: |
EUR |
- 619 187,78 |
0,00 |
- 619 187,78 |
RO |
Voluntary Coupled Support |
2018 |
CY 2016 VCS all Area measures incorrect calculation of payment/ sanctions |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
-2 259 429,31 |
0,00 |
-2 259 429,31 |
|
Voluntary Coupled Support |
2018 |
CY 2017 VCS all Area measures incorrect calculation of payment/ sanctions |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
- 469 759,19 |
0,00 |
- 469 759,19 |
|
Reimbursement of direct aids in relation to financial discipline |
2018 |
Financial discipline CY 2015-2016 |
FLAT RATE |
2,00% |
EUR |
- 325 847,93 |
0,00 |
- 325 847,93 |
|
Decoupled Direct Aids |
2017 |
Increase OTSC Greening , |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
-35 284,55 |
0,00 |
-35 284,55 |
|
Decoupled Direct Aids |
2017 |
Increase OTSC SAPS 2016 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
-1 395 906,41 |
0,00 |
-1 395 906,41 |
|
Decoupled Direct Aids |
2016 |
Increase OTSC SFS 2015 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
-87 863,60 |
0,00 |
-87 863,60 |
|
Decoupled Direct Aids |
2017 |
Increase OTSC SFS 2016 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
-1 470 037,99 |
0,00 |
-1 470 037,99 |
|
Voluntary Coupled Support |
2016 |
Increase OTSC VCS 2015 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
-24 183,58 |
0,00 |
-24 183,58 |
|
Decoupled Direct Aids |
2016 |
Increase OTSC YFS 2015 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
-13 817,99 |
0,00 |
-13 817,99 |
|
Voluntary Coupled Support |
2016 |
Known error CB - VCS M12 CY2015 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
- 263 877,30 |
0,00 |
- 263 877,30 |
|
Voluntary Coupled Support |
2017 |
Known error CB - VCS M12 CY2016 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
- 222 049,28 |
0,00 |
- 222 049,28 |
|
Voluntary Coupled Support |
2018 |
Known error CB - VCS M12 CY2017 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
-77 146,10 |
0,00 |
-77 146,10 |
|
Voluntary Coupled Support |
2017 |
Known errors IACS excl. VCS M12 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
-16 250,94 |
0,00 |
-16 250,94 |
|
School fruit scheme (control statistics) |
2017 |
Known errors NON-IACS |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
-8,86 |
0,00 |
-8,86 |
|
Voluntary Coupled Support |
2016 |
Late update LPIS 2015 - VCS area |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
-61 035,03 |
0,00 |
-61 035,03 |
|
Voluntary Coupled Support Area Based |
2017 |
Late update LPIS 2016 - VCS area |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
-21 577,04 |
0,00 |
-21 577,04 |
|
Decoupled Direct Aids |
2016 |
LLF versus Grassland not properly identified 2015 |
FLAT RATE |
2,00% |
EUR |
-5 523 352,04 |
0,00 |
-5 523 352,04 |
|
Decoupled Direct Aids |
2017 |
LLF versus Grassland not properly identified 2016 |
FLAT RATE |
2,00% |
EUR |
-6 134 457,64 |
0,00 |
-6 134 457,64 |
|
Decoupled Direct Aids |
2016 |
LPIS update late 2015 incl. non recovery for previous years |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
-16 623 278,26 |
0,00 |
-16 623 278,26 |
|
Decoupled Direct Aids |
2017 |
LPIS update late 2016 incl. non recovery for previous years |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
-17 040 111,37 |
0,00 |
-17 040 111,37 |
|
Decoupled Direct Aids |
2016 |
Quality of OTSC 2015 control of greening |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
-72 476,29 |
0,00 |
-72 476,29 |
|
Decoupled Direct Aids |
2016 |
Quality of OTSC 2015 eligibility of parcels & no geospatial cut-off |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
-6 536 442,75 |
0,00 |
-6 536 442,75 |
|
Voluntary Coupled Support |
2016 |
Quality of OTSC 2015 eligibility of parcels & no geospatial cut-off - VCS area |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
- 101 260,35 |
0,00 |
- 101 260,35 |
|
Decoupled Direct Aids |
2017 |
Quality of OTSC 2016 control of greening |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
-40 058,24 |
0,00 |
-40 058,24 |
|
Decoupled Direct Aids |
2017 |
Quality of OTSC 2016 eligibility of parcels & no geospatial cut-off |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
-11 725 707,01 |
0,00 |
-11 725 707,01 |
|
Voluntary Coupled Support Area Based |
2017 |
Quality of OTSC 2016 eligibility of parcels & no geospatial cut-off - VCS area |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
- 773 248,39 |
0,00 |
- 773 248,39 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total RO: |
EUR |
-71 314 467,44 |
0,00 |
-71 314 467,44 |
SI |
Cross-compliance |
2017 |
Cross-compliance: limited scope of SMR 2 CY 2016 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
-1 109,54 |
0,00 |
-1 109,54 |
|
Cross-compliance |
2018 |
Cross-compliance: limited scope of SMR 2 CY 2017 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
- 419,96 |
0,00 |
- 419,96 |
|
Cross-compliance |
2019 |
Cross-compliance: limited scope of SMR 2 CY 2018 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
- 193,78 |
0,00 |
- 193,78 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total SI: |
EUR |
-1 723,28 |
0,00 |
-1 723,28 |
SK |
Certification |
2017 |
error in EAGF |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
-15 850,61 |
0,00 |
-15 850,61 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total SK: |
EUR |
-15 850,61 |
0,00 |
-15 850,61 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Currency |
Amount |
Deductions |
Financial Impact |
EUR |
-154 143 761,02 |
-36 878 493,33 |
-117 265 267,69 |
Budget Item:
Member State |
Measure |
FY |
Reason |
Type |
Correction % |
Currency |
Amount |
Deductions |
Financial Impact |
BG |
Certification |
2017 |
EAFRD IACS financial correction for MLE FY2017 |
ESTIMATED BY AMOUNT |
|
EUR |
- 826 962,26 |
- 141 780,04 |
- 685 182,22 |
|
Clearance of Accounts - Financial Clearance |
2016 |
Errors in EAGF and EAFRD |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
-4 750,20 |
-75,67 |
-4 674,53 |
|
Clearance of Accounts - Financial Clearance |
2018 |
Errors in EAGF and EAFRD |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
-3 326,42 |
-10,04 |
-3 316,38 |
|
Certification |
2017 |
Financial correction for MLE EAFRD NIACS FY2017 |
ESTIMATED BY AMOUNT |
|
EUR |
-1 288 760,47 |
0,00 |
-1 288 760,47 |
|
Rural Development EAFRD investment - private beneficiaries |
2016 |
M121 - reasonableness of costs (10% evaluation committee) |
FLAT RATE |
10,00% |
EUR |
-49 000,39 |
0,00 |
-49 000,39 |
|
Rural Development EAFRD investment - private beneficiaries |
2016 |
M121 - reasonableness of costs (5% direct purchase) |
FLAT RATE |
10,00% |
EUR |
-87,74 |
0,00 |
-87,74 |
|
Rural Development EAFRD investment - private beneficiaries |
2016 |
M123 - reasonableness of costs (15% evaluation committee) |
FLAT RATE |
15,00% |
EUR |
-77 487,59 |
0,00 |
-77 487,59 |
|
Rural Development EAFRD investment - private beneficiaries |
2016 |
M123 - reasonableness of costs (5% direct purchase) |
FLAT RATE |
5,00% |
EUR |
- 405,20 |
0,00 |
- 405,20 |
|
Rural Development EAFRD Measures with flat-rate support |
2016 |
M311 - reasonableness of costs (5% direct purchase) |
FLAT RATE |
5,00% |
EUR |
- 130,50 |
0,00 |
- 130,50 |
|
Rural Development EAFRD Measures with flat-rate support |
2016 |
M312 - reasonableness of costs (10% evaluation committee) |
FLAT RATE |
10,00% |
EUR |
-13 347,56 |
0,00 |
-13 347,56 |
|
Rural Development EAFRD Measures with flat-rate support |
2016 |
M312 - reasonableness of costs (5% direct purchase) |
FLAT RATE |
5,00% |
EUR |
-1 679,09 |
0,00 |
-1 679,09 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total BG: |
EUR |
-2 265 937,42 |
- 141 865,75 |
-2 124 071,67 |
CY |
Rural Development EAFRD measures subject to IACS |
2017 |
EAFRD/ Correct proceedings to ensure instigation of recovery of undue payments incl. administrative penalties following LPIS updates CY 2012-2017 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
- 862,71 |
0,00 |
- 862,71 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total CY: |
EUR |
- 862,71 |
0,00 |
- 862,71 |
DE |
Clearance of Accounts - Financial Clearance |
2018 |
Differences in debts' reconciliation EAFRD |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
-5 609,48 |
0,00 |
-5 609,48 |
|
Rural Development EAFRD investment - public beneficiaries |
2018 |
financial clearance 2018 - Errors in samples |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
-2 068,95 |
0,00 |
-2 068,95 |
|
Rural Development EAFRD Risk management |
2018 |
financial clearance 2018 - Errors in samples |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
-36 675,19 |
0,00 |
-36 675,19 |
|
Clearance of Accounts - Financial Clearance |
2018 |
individual errors EAFRD |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
-41 861,90 |
0,00 |
-41 861,90 |
|
Clearance of Accounts - Financial Clearance |
2018 |
Individual errors EAFRD |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
-43 440,35 |
0,00 |
-43 440,35 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total DE: |
EUR |
- 129 655,87 |
0,00 |
- 129 655,87 |
DK |
Clearance of Accounts - Financial Clearance |
2018 |
MLE for EAFRD above materiality |
ESTIMATED BY AMOUNT |
|
EUR |
- 104 531,21 |
-1 466,19 |
- 103 065,02 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total DK: |
EUR |
- 104 531,21 |
-1 466,19 |
- 103 065,02 |
ES |
Rural Development EAFRD investment - private beneficiaries |
2016 |
5% correction on M4.2 - deficiency in the Key Control “Appropriate evaluation of the reasonableness of costs“. |
FLAT RATE |
5,00% |
EUR |
- 114 165,67 |
- 664,42 |
- 113 501,25 |
|
Rural Development EAFRD investment - private beneficiaries |
2017 |
5% correction on M4.2 - deficiency in the Key Control “Appropriate evaluation of the reasonableness of costs“. |
FLAT RATE |
5,00% |
EUR |
- 131 669,04 |
- 448,30 |
- 131 220,74 |
|
Rural Development EAFRD investment - private beneficiaries |
2018 |
5% correction on M4.2 - deficiency in the Key Control “Appropriate evaluation of the reasonableness of costs“. |
FLAT RATE |
5,00% |
EUR |
- 311 351,53 |
0,00 |
- 311 351,53 |
|
Clearance of Accounts - Financial Clearance |
2018 |
Errors in EAGF and EAFRD |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
- 455,90 |
0,00 |
- 455,90 |
|
Rural Development EAFRD Leader |
2016 |
Irregular amounts - individual beneficiary audited in DAS PF/7915/2016) |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
- 210 283,49 |
0,00 |
- 210 283,49 |
|
Rural Development EAFRD forestry measures |
2017 |
Lack of Key Control "Verification that public procurement procedures are in compliance with national and Union Regulation" in ES07 (Castilla La Mancha) |
FLAT RATE |
10,00% |
EUR |
- 311 018,95 |
-5 552,12 |
- 305 466,83 |
|
Rural Development EAFRD forestry measures |
2018 |
Lack of Key Control "Verification that public procurement procedures are in compliance with national and Union Regulation" in ES07 (Castilla La Mancha) |
FLAT RATE |
10,00% |
EUR |
- 153 806,87 |
-11,66 |
- 153 795,21 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total ES: |
EUR |
-1 232 751,45 |
-6 676,50 |
-1 226 074,95 |
FR |
Rural Development EAFRD investment - private beneficiaries |
2015 |
Ineligible expenditure - Measure 121 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
- 146 174,07 |
-14 617,41 |
- 131 556,66 |
|
Rural Development EAFRD investment - private beneficiaries |
2015 |
Ineligible expenditure - Measure 123 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
-23 282,54 |
-2 328,25 |
-20 954,29 |
|
Rural Development EAFRD investment - public beneficiaries |
2016 |
Ineligible expenditure - Measure 321 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
- 110 534,88 |
-3 583,62 |
- 106 951,26 |
|
Rural Development EAFRD Leader |
2015 |
Ineligible expenditure - Measure 413 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
-2 942,49 |
0,00 |
-2 942,49 |
|
Rural Development EAFRD Measures with flat-rate support |
2016 |
Ineligible expenditure - Measure 6.1 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
- 163 632,00 |
0,00 |
- 163 632,00 |
|
Rural Development EAFRD Measures with flat-rate support |
2017 |
Ineligible expenditure - Measure 6.1 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
- 607 432,00 |
0,00 |
- 607 432,00 |
|
Rural Development EAFRD Measures with flat-rate support |
2018 |
Ineligible expenditure - Measure 6.1 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
-98 152,00 |
0,00 |
-98 152,00 |
|
Rural Development EAFRD measures subject to IACS |
2018 |
Measure 10: late on-the-spot checks carried out for claim years 2015, 2016 and 2017 |
FLAT RATE |
5,00% |
EUR |
- 299 473,78 |
0,00 |
- 299 473,78 |
|
Rural Development EAFRD measures subject to IACS |
2019 |
Measure 10: late on-the-spot checks carried out for claim years 2015, 2016 and 2017 |
FLAT RATE |
5,00% |
EUR |
- 515 633,29 |
0,00 |
- 515 633,29 |
|
Rural Development EAFRD measures subject to IACS |
2018 |
Measure 11: late on-the-spot checks carried out for claim years 2015, 2016 and 2017 |
FLAT RATE |
2,00% |
EUR |
-96 090,11 |
0,00 |
-96 090,11 |
|
Rural Development EAFRD measures subject to IACS |
2019 |
Measure 11: late on-the-spot checks carried out for claim years 2015, 2016 and 2017 |
FLAT RATE |
2,00% |
EUR |
- 198 587,81 |
0,00 |
- 198 587,81 |
|
Rural Development EAFRD measures subject to IACS |
2017 |
Measure 13: late on-the-spot checks carried out for claim years 2015 and 2016 |
FLAT RATE |
5,00% |
EUR |
-3 154 170,92 |
0,00 |
-3 154 170,92 |
|
Rural Development EAFRD measures subject to IACS |
2018 |
Measure 13: late on-the-spot checks carried out for claim years 2015 and 2016 |
FLAT RATE |
5,00% |
EUR |
-89 844,07 |
0,00 |
-89 844,07 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total FR: |
EUR |
-5 505 949,96 |
-20 529,28 |
-5 485 420,68 |
GB |
Rural Development EAFRD investment - private beneficiaries |
2016 |
absence of ancillary control “Adequate audit trail”. |
FLAT RATE |
2,00% |
EUR |
-1 001,86 |
0,00 |
-1 001,86 |
|
Rural Development EAFRD investment - private beneficiaries |
2017 |
absence of ancillary control “Adequate audit trail”. |
FLAT RATE |
2,00% |
EUR |
-88 362,78 |
0,00 |
-88 362,78 |
|
Rural Development EAFRD investment - private beneficiaries |
2018 |
absence of ancillary control “Adequate audit trail”. |
FLAT RATE |
2,00% |
EUR |
-96 261,44 |
0,00 |
-96 261,44 |
|
Clearance of Accounts - Financial Clearance |
2018 |
CEB/2019/050/GB - Errors detected by the CB in EAGF and EAFRD |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
- 101,25 |
0,00 |
- 101,25 |
|
Certification |
2017 |
Financial errors in substantive testing for EAFRD |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
- 246,27 |
0,00 |
- 246,27 |
|
Rural Development EAFRD investment - private beneficiaries |
2017 |
weaknesses in key control "In-situ visits carried out for all investment operations to verify the realisation of the investment" – M4.2 |
FLAT RATE |
5,00% |
EUR |
-11 918,50 |
0,00 |
-11 918,50 |
|
Rural Development EAFRD investment - private beneficiaries |
2018 |
weaknesses in key control "In-situ visits carried out for all investment operations to verify the realisation of the investment" – M4.2 |
FLAT RATE |
5,00% |
EUR |
-15 638,80 |
0,00 |
-15 638,80 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total GB: |
EUR |
- 213 530,90 |
0,00 |
- 213 530,90 |
HR |
Clearance of Accounts - Financial Clearance |
2018 |
Financial errors identified by the Certification Body EAFRD IACS |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
-1 135,66 |
0,00 |
-1 135,66 |
|
Clearance of Accounts - Financial Clearance |
2018 |
Multiannual sanctions EAFRD 14-20 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
- 401 708,13 |
0,00 |
- 401 708,13 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total HR: |
EUR |
- 402 843,79 |
0,00 |
- 402 843,79 |
IE |
Clearance of Accounts - Financial Clearance |
2018 |
Debts EAFRD 2007-2013 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
- 277 576,99 |
0,00 |
- 277 576,99 |
|
Clearance of Accounts - Financial Clearance |
2018 |
Debts EAFRD 2014-2020 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
-8 996,70 |
0,00 |
-8 996,70 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total IE: |
EUR |
- 286 573,69 |
0,00 |
- 286 573,69 |
IT |
Rural Development EAFRD measures subject to IACS |
2017 |
M10: quality of the on-the-spot checks - CY 2016 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
-19 222,47 |
- 208,22 |
-19 014,25 |
|
Rural Development EAFRD investment - private beneficiaries |
2016 |
M125 and M04.3: inadequate verification of public procurement procedure - FY2015, FY2016 and FY2017 |
FLAT RATE |
5,00% |
EUR |
-25 169,29 |
0,00 |
-25 169,29 |
|
Rural Development EAFRD investment - private beneficiaries |
2017 |
M125 and M04.3: inadequate verification of public procurement procedure - FY2015, FY2016 and FY2017 |
FLAT RATE |
5,00% |
EUR |
-5 526,30 |
0,00 |
-5 526,30 |
|
Rural Development EAFRD investment - private beneficiaries |
2015 |
M125 and M04.3: incompliant expenditure in relation to Article 48(3) of Regulation 809/2014 - FY2015 and FY 2016 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
- 153 741,22 |
0,00 |
- 153 741,22 |
|
Rural Development EAFRD investment - private beneficiaries |
2016 |
M125 and M04.3: incompliant expenditure in relation to Article 48(3) of Regulation 809/2014 - FY2015 and FY 2016 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
-3 414 818,82 |
0,00 |
-3 414 818,82 |
|
Rural Development EAFRD forestry measures |
2016 |
M221 and M08.1: appropriate checks on double financing - CY2016 and 2017 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
-1 574,90 |
0,00 |
-1 574,90 |
|
Rural Development EAFRD forestry measures |
2017 |
M221 and M08.1: appropriate checks on double financing - CY2016 and 2017 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
-1 681,47 |
0,00 |
-1 681,47 |
|
Rural Development EAFRD forestry measures |
2015 |
M221, M226, M227 and M08: incompliant expenditure in relation to Article 48(3) of Regulation 809/2014 - FY2015 and FY 2016 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
-3 544,00 |
0,00 |
-3 544,00 |
|
Rural Development EAFRD forestry measures |
2016 |
M221, M226, M227 and M08: incompliant expenditure in relation to Article 48(3) of Regulation 809/2014 - FY2015 and FY 2016 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
- 357 155,54 |
0,00 |
- 357 155,54 |
|
Rural Development EAFRD forestry measures |
2016 |
M226, M227 and M08: inadequate verification of public procurement procedure - FY2015, FY2016 and FY2017 |
FLAT RATE |
5,00% |
EUR |
-19 513,74 |
0,00 |
-19 513,74 |
|
Rural Development EAFRD forestry measures |
2017 |
M226, M227 and M08: inadequate verification of public procurement procedure - FY2015, FY2016 and FY2017 |
FLAT RATE |
5,00% |
EUR |
57,23 |
0,00 |
57,23 |
|
Rural Development EAFRD investment - public beneficiaries |
2015 |
M321 and M07: Ineligible expenditure FY2016 and incompliant expenditure in relation to Article 48(3) of Regulation 809/2014 - FY2015 and FY 2016 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
- 701,64 |
0,00 |
- 701,64 |
|
Rural Development EAFRD investment - public beneficiaries |
2016 |
M321 and M07: Ineligible expenditure FY2016 and incompliant expenditure in relation to Article 48(3) of Regulation 809/2014 - FY2015 and FY 2016 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
- 564 100,95 |
0,00 |
- 564 100,95 |
|
Rural Development EAFRD investment - public beneficiaries |
2015 |
M321, M511, M07 and M20: inadequate verification of public procurement procedure - FY2015, FY2016 and FY2017 |
FLAT RATE |
5,00% |
EUR |
-90,68 |
0,00 |
-90,68 |
|
Rural Development EAFRD investment - public beneficiaries |
2016 |
M321, M511, M07 and M20: inadequate verification of public procurement procedure - FY2015, FY2016 and FY2017 |
FLAT RATE |
5,00% |
EUR |
-85 711,13 |
0,00 |
-85 711,13 |
|
Rural Development EAFRD investment - public beneficiaries |
2017 |
M321, M511, M07 and M20: inadequate verification of public procurement procedure - FY2015, FY2016 and FY2017 |
FLAT RATE |
5,00% |
EUR |
-15 014,50 |
-3 252,70 |
-11 761,80 |
|
Rural Development EAFRD investment - public beneficiaries |
2016 |
M323: incompliant expenditure in relation to Article 48(3) of Regulation 809/2014 - FY 2016 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
- 252 947,07 |
0,00 |
- 252 947,07 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total IT: |
EUR |
-4 920 456,49 |
-3 460,92 |
-4 916 995,57 |
LT |
Rural Development EAFRD Axis 1 - Measures with flat rate support |
2014 |
Weakness of key controls |
FLAT RATE |
5,00% |
EUR |
- 652 972,01 |
0,00 |
- 652 972,01 |
|
Rural Development EAFRD Measures with flat-rate support |
2015 |
Weakness of key controls |
FLAT RATE |
5,00% |
EUR |
- 286 123,01 |
0,00 |
- 286 123,01 |
|
Rural Development EAFRD Measures with flat-rate support |
2016 |
Weakness of key controls |
FLAT RATE |
5,00% |
EUR |
- 555 235,88 |
0,00 |
- 555 235,88 |
|
Rural Development EAFRD Measures with flat-rate support |
2017 |
Weakness of key controls |
FLAT RATE |
5,00% |
EUR |
- 378 398,96 |
0,00 |
- 378 398,96 |
|
Rural Development EAFRD Measures with flat-rate support |
2018 |
Weakness of key controls |
FLAT RATE |
5,00% |
EUR |
- 313 718,11 |
0,00 |
- 313 718,11 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total LT: |
EUR |
-2 186 447,97 |
0,00 |
-2 186 447,97 |
NL |
Clearance of Accounts - Financial Clearance |
2018 |
Known and random errors in EAGF and EAFRD |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
- 221 311,13 |
0,00 |
- 221 311,13 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total NL: |
EUR |
- 221 311,13 |
0,00 |
- 221 311,13 |
PL |
Rural Development EAFRD forestry measures |
2016 |
Double funding between afforestation and greening - FY2016 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
- 233 152,21 |
0,00 |
- 233 152,21 |
|
Rural Development EAFRD forestry measures |
2017 |
Double funding between afforestation and greening - FY2017 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
- 194 053,40 |
0,00 |
- 194 053,40 |
|
Rural Development EAFRD forestry measures |
2018 |
Double funding between afforestation and greening - FY2018 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
- 181 226,84 |
0,00 |
- 181 226,84 |
|
Rural Development EAFRD forestry measures |
2019 |
Double funding between afforestation and greening - FY2019 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
- 175 948,01 |
0,00 |
- 175 948,01 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total PL: |
EUR |
- 784 380,46 |
0,00 |
- 784 380,46 |
SI |
Cross-compliance |
2017 |
Cross-compliance: limited scope of SMR 2 CY 2016 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
- 471,95 |
0,00 |
- 471,95 |
|
Cross-compliance |
2018 |
Cross-compliance: limited scope of SMR 2 CY 2017 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
- 393,82 |
0,00 |
- 393,82 |
|
Cross-compliance |
2019 |
Cross-compliance: limited scope of SMR 2 CY 2018 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
- 101,56 |
0,00 |
- 101,56 |
|
Rural Development EAFRD measures subject to IACS |
2017 |
Rural development IACS measures: Partial on-the-spot checks limited to one operation of animal welfare measure (M14) - CY2016 |
FLAT RATE |
5,00% |
EUR |
- 457,61 |
0,00 |
- 457,61 |
|
Rural Development EAFRD measures subject to IACS |
2018 |
Rural development IACS measures: Partial on-the-spot checks limited to one operation of animal welfare measure (M14) - CY2017 |
FLAT RATE |
5,00% |
EUR |
-54,58 |
0,00 |
-54,58 |
|
Rural Development EAFRD forestry measures |
2017 |
Rural development NIACS measures: Ineligible VAT costs for forestry measure M8 - FY2017 and FY2018 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
-19 284,16 |
0,00 |
-19 284,16 |
|
Rural Development EAFRD forestry measures |
2018 |
Rural development NIACS measures: Ineligible VAT costs for forestry measure M8 - FY2017 and FY2018 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
-8 923,69 |
0,00 |
-8 923,69 |
|
Rural Development EAFRD forestry measures |
2019 |
Rural development NIACS measures: Ineligible VAT costs for forestry measure M8 - FY2019 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
- 875,87 |
0,00 |
- 875,87 |
|
Rural Development EAFRD investment - private beneficiaries |
2017 |
Rural development NIACS measures: Lack of in-situ visits for investment measure M4 - FY2017 and FY2018 |
FLAT RATE |
3,00% |
EUR |
-34 726,75 |
0,00 |
-34 726,75 |
|
Rural Development EAFRD investment - private beneficiaries |
2018 |
Rural development NIACS measures: Lack of in-situ visits for investment measure M4 - FY2017 and FY2018 |
FLAT RATE |
3,00% |
EUR |
- 187 868,37 |
0,00 |
- 187 868,37 |
|
Rural Development EAFRD investment - private beneficiaries |
2019 |
Rural development NIACS measures: Lack of in-situ visits for investment measure M4 - FY2019 |
FLAT RATE |
3,00% |
EUR |
-45 012,90 |
0,00 |
-45 012,90 |
|
Rural Development EAFRD Leader |
2019 |
Rural development NIACS measures: Lack of in-situ visits for Leader measure M19 - FY2019 |
FLAT RATE |
3,00% |
EUR |
- 531,37 |
0,00 |
- 531,37 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total SI: |
EUR |
- 298 702,63 |
0,00 |
- 298 702,63 |
SK |
Certification |
2017 |
MLE in EAFRD IACS |
ESTIMATED BY AMOUNT |
|
EUR |
- 261 153,88 |
-57 650,01 |
- 203 503,87 |
|
Certification |
2017 |
MLE in EAFRD NIACS |
ESTIMATED BY AMOUNT |
|
EUR |
- 733 450,69 |
-2 727,51 |
- 730 723,18 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total SK: |
EUR |
- 994 604,57 |
-60 377,52 |
- 934 227,05 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Currency |
Amount |
Deductions |
Financial Impact |
EUR |
-19 548 540,25 |
- 234 376,16 |
-19 314 164,09 |
19.6.2020 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
L 195/94 |
COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION (EU) 2020/860
of 18 June 2020
amending the Annex to Implementing Decision 2014/709/EU concerning animal health control measures relating to African swine fever in certain Member States
(notified under document C(2020) 4177)
(Text with EEA relevance)
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Having regard to Council Directive 89/662/EEC of 11 December 1989 concerning veterinary checks in intra-Community trade with a view to the completion of the internal market (1), and in particular Article 9(4) thereof,
Having regard to Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990 concerning veterinary checks applicable in intra-Union trade in certain live animals and products with a view to the completion of the internal market (2), and in particular Article 10(4) thereof,
Having regard to Council Directive 2002/99/EC of 16 December 2002 laying down the animal health rules governing the production, processing, distribution and introduction of products of animal origin for human consumption (3), and in particular Article 4(3) thereof,
Whereas:
(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. The Annex to Implementing Decision 2014/709/EU was last amended by Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/773 (5), following changes in the epidemiological situation as regards that disease in Poland. |
(2) |
Since the date of adoption of Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/773, there have been new occurrences of African swine fever in feral pigs in Slovakia and in domestic pigs in Poland. In addition, in May and June 2020, there have been new occurrences of African swine fever in feral pigs in Hungary in close proximity to the border with Slovakia. |
(3) |
In June 2020, one case of African swine fever in a feral pig was observed in the city of Košice in Slovakia in an area 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 Slovakia currently listed in Part I of the Annex to Implementing Decision 2014/709/EU, affected by this recent case of African swine fever, should now be listed in Part II of that Annex instead of in Part I thereof. |
(4) |
In May and June 2020, several cases of African swine fever in feral pigs were observed in the counties of Nógrád and Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén in Hungary in areas currently listed in Part II of the Annex to Implementing Decision 2014/709/EU, located in close proximity to areas in Slovakia not listed in the Annex thereto. These cases of African swine fever in feral pigs constitute an increased level of risk which should be reflected in that Annex. Accordingly, these areas of Slovakia not listed in the Annex to Implementing Decision 2014/709/EU that are in close proximity to areas listed in Part II thereof in Hungary affected by these recent cases of African swine fever should now be listed in Part I of that Annex. |
(5) |
In addition, in June 2020, one outbreak of African swine fever in domestic pigs was observed in the district of leszczyński in Poland in an area currently listed in Part I 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 Poland, affected by this recent outbreak of African swine fever, should now be listed in Part III of the Annex to Implementing Decision 2014/709/EU instead of in Part I thereof. |
(6) |
Following those recent occurrences of African swine fever in feral pigs in Slovakia and in Hungary, in close proximity to the border with Slovakia, and in domestic pigs in Poland, and taking into account the current epidemiological situation in the Union, regionalisation in these two Member States has been reassessed and updated. In addition, the risk management measures in place have also been reassessed and updated. These changes need to be reflected in 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 Slovakia and Poland and duly listed in Parts I, II and III of the Annex to Implementing Decision 2014/709/EU. Parts I, II and III of that Annex should therefore be amended accordingly. |
(8) |
Given the urgency of the epidemiological situation in the Union as regards the spread of African swine fever, it is important that the amendments made to the Annex to Implementing Decision 2014/709/EU by this Decision take effect as soon as possible. |
(9) |
The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed, |
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
The Annex to Implementing Decision 2014/709/EU is replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Decision.
Article 2
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 18 June 2020.
For the Commission
Stella KYRIAKIDES
Member of the Commission
(1) OJ L 395, 30.12.1989, p. 13.
(2) OJ L 224, 18.8.1990, p. 29.
(3) OJ L 18, 23.1.2003, p. 11.
(4) Commission Implementing Decision 2014/709/EU of 9 October 2014 concerning animal health control measures relating to African swine fever in certain Member States and repealing Implementing Decision 2014/178/EU (OJ L 295, 11.10.2014, p. 63).
(5) Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/773 of 11 June 2020 amending the Annex to Implementing Decision 2014/709/EU concerning animal health control measures relating to African swine fever in certain Member States (OJ L 184, 12.6.2020, p. 51).
ANNEX
The Annex to Implementing Decision 2014/709/EU is replaced by the following:
‘ANNEX
PART I
1. Belgium
Les zones suivantes en Belgique:
dans la province de Luxembourg:
|
2. Estonia
The following areas in Estonia:
— |
Hiiu maakond. |
3. Hungary
The following areas in Hungary:
— |
Békés megye 950950, 950960, 950970, 951950, 952050, 952750, 952850, 952950, 953050, 953150, 953650, 953660, 953750, 953850, 953960, 954250, 954260, 954350, 954450, 954550, 954650, 954750, 954850, 954860, 954950, 955050, 955150, 955250, 955260, 955270, 955350, 955450, 955510, 955650, 955750, 955760, 955850, 955950, 956050, 956060, 956150 és 956160 kódszámú vadgazdálkodási egységeinek teljes területe, |
— |
Bács-Kiskun megye 600150, 600850, 601550, 601650, 601660, 601750, 601850, 601950, 602050, 603250, 603750 és 603850 kódszámú vadgazdálkodási egységeinek teljes területe, |
— |
Budapest 1 kódszámú, vadgazdálkodási tevékenységre nem alkalmas területe, |
— |
Csongrád megye 800150, 800160, 800250, 802220, 802260, 802310 és 802450 kódszámú vadgazdálkodási egységeinek teljes területe, |
— |
Fejér megye 400150, 400250, 400351, 400352, 400450, 400550, 401150, 401250, 401350, 402050, 402350, 402360, 402850, 402950, 403050, 403250, 403350, 403450, 403550, 403650, 403750, 403950, 403960, 403970, 404570, 404650, 404750, 404850, 404950, 404960, 405050, 405750, 405850, 405950, 406050, 406150, 406550, 406650 és 406750 kódszámú vadgazdálkodási egységeinek teljes területe, |
— |
Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok megye 750150, 750160, 750260, 750350, 750450, 750460, 754450, 754550, 754560, 754570, 754650, 754750, 754950, 755050, 755150, 755250, 755350 és 755450 kódszámú vadgazdálkodási egységeinek teljes területe, |
— |
Komárom-Esztergom megye 250850, 250950, 251050, 251150, 251360, 251450, 251550, 251650, 251750, 251850, 251950, 252050, 252150, 252250, 252550, 252650 és 253550 kódszámú vadgazdálkodási egységeinek teljes területe, |
— |
Nógrád megye 553250, 553260, 553350, 553750, 553850 és 553910 kódszámú vadgazdálkodási egységeinek teljes területe, |
— |
Pest megye 570150, 570250, 570350, 570450, 570550, 570650, 570750, 570850, 571050, 571150, 571250, 571350, 571550, 571610, 571750, 571760, 572150, 572250, 572350, 572550, 572650, 572750, 572850, 572950, 573150, 573250, 573260, 573350, 573360, 573450, 573850, 573950, 573960, 574050, 574150, 574350, 574360, 574550, 574650, 574750, 574850, 574860, 574950, 575050,575150, 575250, 575350, 575550, 575650, 575750, 575850, 575950, 576050, 576150, 576250, 576350, 576450, 576650, 576750, 576850, 576950, 577050, 577150, 577350, 577450, 577650, 577850, 577950, 578050, 578150, 578250, 578350, 578360, 578450, 578550, 578560, 578650, 578850, 578950, 579050, 579150, 579250, 579350, 579450, 579460, 579550, 579650, 579750, 580050, 580250 és 580450 kódszámú vadgazdálkodási egységeinek teljes területe. |
4. Latvia
The following areas in Latvia:
— |
Pāvilostas novads, |
— |
Stopiņu novada daļa, kas atrodas uz rietumiem no autoceļa V36, P4 un P5, Acones ielas, Dauguļupes ielas un Dauguļupītes, |
— |
Ventspils novada Jūrkalnes pagasts, |
— |
Grobiņas novads, |
— |
Rucavas novada Dunikas pagasts. |
5. Lithuania
The following areas in Lithuania:
— |
Klaipėdos rajono savivaldybės: Agluonėnų, Priekulės, Veiviržėnų, Judrėnų, Endriejavo ir Vėžaičių seniūnijos, |
— |
Kretingos rajono savivaldybės: Imbarės, Kartenos ir Kūlupėnų seniūnijos, |
— |
Plungės rajono savivaldybės: Kulių, Nausodžio, Plungės miesto ir Šateikių seniūnijos, |
— |
Skuodo rajono savivaldybės: Lenkimų, Mosėdžio, Skuodo, Skuodo miestoseniūnijos. |
6. Poland
The following areas in Poland:
w województwie warmińsko-mazurskim:
|
w województwie podlaskim:
|
w województwie mazowieckim:
|
w województwie podkarpackim:
|
w województwie świętokrzyskim:
|
w województwie łódzkim:
|
w województwie pomorskim:
|
w województwie lubuskim:
|
w województwie dolnośląskim:
|
w województwie wielkopolskim:
|
7. Slovakia
The following areas in Slovakia:
— |
the whole district of Vranov nad Topľou, |
— |
the whole district of Humenné, |
— |
the whole district of Snina, |
— |
the whole district of Sobrance, |
— |
in the district of Michalovce, the whole municipalities of Tušice, Moravany, Pozdišovce, Michalovce, Zalužice, Lúčky, Závadka, Hnojné, Poruba pod Vihorlatom, Jovsa, Kusín, Klokočov, Kaluža, Vinné, Trnava pri Laborci, Oreské, Staré, Zbudza, Petrovce nad Laborcom, Lesné, Suché, Rakovec nad Ondavou, Nacina Ves, Voľa, Pusté Čemerné and Strážske, |
— |
in the district of Košice – okolie, the whole municipalities not included in Part II, |
— |
in the district of Gelnica, the whole municipalities of Uhorná, Smolník, Smolnícka Huta, Mníšek nad Hnilcom, Prakovce, Helcmanovce, Gelnica, Kojšov, Veľký Folkmár, Jaklovce, Žakarovce and Margecany, |
— |
in the district of Prešov, the whole municipalities of Klenov, Miklušovce, Sedlice, Suchá dolina, Janov, Radatice, Ľubovec, Ličartovce, Drienovská Nová Ves, Kendice, Petrovany, Drienov, Lemešany, Janovík, Bretejovce, Seniakovce, Šarišské Bohdanovce, Varhaňovce, Brestov Mirkovce, Žehňa, Tuhrina, Lúčina and Červenica, |
— |
in the district of Rožňava, the whole municipalities of Ardovo, Bohúňovo, Bôrka, Bretka, Brzotín, Čoltovo, Dlhá Ves, Drnava, Gemerská Hôrka, Gemerská Panica, Hrhov, Hrušov, Jablonov nad Turňou, Jovice, Kečovo, Kováčová, Krásnohorská Dlhá Lúka, Krásnohorské Podhradie, Kružná, Kunová Teplica, Lipovník, Lúčka, Meliata, Pača, Pašková, Plešivec, Rakovnica, Rožňava, Rudná, Silica, Silická Brezová, Silická Jablonica, Slavec and Vidová, |
— |
in the district of Revúca, the whole municipalities of Gemer, Tornaľa and Žiar, |
— |
in the district of Rimavská Sobota, the whole municipalities of Figa, Hubovo, Lenka, Včelince, Neporadza, Kráľ, Riečka, Abovce, Štrkovec, Chanava, Kešovce, Rumince, Barca, Bátka, Dulovo, Žíp, Vieska nad Blhom, Radnovce, Cakov, Ivanice, Zádor, Rimavská Seč, Lenartovce, Vlkyňa, Číž, Sútor, Belín, Rimavské Janovce, Pavlovce, Janice, Chrámec, Drňa, Orávka, Martinová, Bottovo, Dubovec, Šimonovce, Širkovce, Jesenské, Gortva, Hodejovec, Hodejov, Blhovce, Hostice, Jestice, Petrovce, Gemerské Dechtáre, Gemerský Jablonec, Hajnáčka, Dubno, Stará Bašta, Nová Bašta, Studená, Večelkov, Tachty and Stránska, |
— |
in the district of Lučenec, the whole municipalities of Trenč, Veľká nad Ipľom, Jelšovec, Panické Dravce, Lučenec, Kalonda, Rapovce, Trebeľovce, Mučín, Lipovany, Pleš, Fiľakovské Kováče, Ratka, Fiľakovo, Biskupice, Belina, Radzovce, Čakanovce, Šiatorská Bukovinka, Čamovce, Šurice, Halič, Mašková, Ľuboreč, Šíd and Prša, |
— |
in the district of Veľký Krtíš, the whole municipalities of Ipeľské Predmostie, Veľká Ves nad Ipľom, Sečianky, Kleňany, Hrušov, Vinica, Balog nad Ipľom, Dolinka, Kosihy nad Ipľom, Ďurkovce, Širákov, Kamenné Kosihy, Seľany, Veľká Čalomija, Malá Čalomija, Koláre, Trebušovce, Chrastince, Lesenice, Slovenské Ďarmoty, Opatovská Nová Ves, Bátorová, Nenince, Záhorce, Želovce, Sklabiná, Nová Ves, Obeckov, Vrbovka, Kiarov, Kováčovce, Zombor, Olováry, Čeláre, Glabušovce, Veľké Straciny, Malé Straciny, Malý Krtíš, Veľký Krtíš, Pôtor, Veľké Zlievce, Malé Zlievce, Bušince, Muľa, Ľuboriečka, Dolná Strehová, Vieska, Slovenské Kľačany, Horná Strehová, Chrťany and Závada. |
8. Greece
The following areas in Greece:
— |
in the regional unit of Drama:
|
— |
in the regional unit of Xanthi:
|
— |
in the regional unit of Rodopi:
|
— |
in the regional unit of Evros:
|
— |
in the regional unit of Serres:
|
PART II
1. Belgium
Les zones suivantes en Belgique:
dans la province de Luxembourg:
|
2. Bulgaria
The following areas in Bulgaria:
— |
the whole region of Haskovo, |
— |
the whole region of Yambol, |
— |
the whole region of Stara Zagora, |
— |
the whole region of Pernik, |
— |
the whole region of Kyustendil, |
— |
the whole region of Plovdiv, |
— |
the whole region of Pazardzhik, |
— |
the whole region of Smolyan, |
— |
the whole region of Burgas excluding the areas in Part III. |
3. Estonia
The following areas in Estonia:
— |
Eesti Vabariik (välja arvatud Hiiu maakond). |
4. Hungary
The following areas in Hungary:
— |
Békés megye 950150, 950250, 950350, 950450, 950550, 950650, 950660, 950750, 950850, 950860, 951050, 951150, 951250, 951260, 951350, 951450, 951460, 951550, 951650, 951750, 952150, 952250, 952350, 952450, 952550, 952650, 953250, 953260, 953270, 953350, 953450, 953550, 953560, 953950, 954050, 954060, 954150, 956250, 956350, 956450, 956550, 956650 és 956750 kódszámú vadgazdálkodási egységeinek teljes területe, |
— |
Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén megye 650100, 650200, 650300, 650400, 650500, 650600, 650700, 650800, 650900, 651000, 651100, 651200, 651300, 651400, 651500, 651610, 651700, 651801, 651802, 651803, 651900, 652000, 652100, 652200, 652300, 652601, 652602, 652603, 652700, 652900, 653000, 653100,653200, 653300, 653401, 653403, 653500, 653600, 653700, 653800, 653900, 654000, 654201, 654202, 654301, 654302, 654400, 654501, 654502, 654600, 654700, 654800, 654900, 655000, 655100, 655200, 655300, 655400, 655500, 655600, 655700, 655800, 655901, 655902, 656000, 656100, 656200, 656300, 656400, 656600, 656701, 656702, 656800, 656900, 657010, 657100, 657300, 657400, 657500, 657600, 657700, 657800, 657900, 658000, 658100, 658201, 658202, 658310, 658401, 658402, 658403, 658404, 658500, 658600, 658700, 658801, 658802, 658901, 658902, 659000, 659100, 659210, 659220, 659300, 659400, 659500, 659601, 659602, 659701, 659800, 659901, 660000, 660100, 660200, 660400, 660501, 660502, 660600 és 660800, valamint 652400, 652500 és 652800 kódszámú vadgazdálkodási egységeinek teljes területe, |
— |
Fejér megye 403150, 403160, 403260, 404250, 404550, 404560, 405450, 405550, 405650, 406450 és 407050 kódszámú vadgazdálkodási egységeinek teljes területe, |
— |
Hajdú-Bihar megye valamennyi vadgazdálkodási egységének teljes területe, |
— |
Heves megye 700150, 700250, 700260, 700350, 700450, 700460, 700550, 700650, 700750, 700850, 700860, 700950, 701050, 701111, 701150, 701250, 701350, 701550, 701560, 701650, 701750, 701850, 701950, 702050, 702150, 702250, 702260, 702350, 702450, 702550, 702750, 702850, 702950, 703050, 703150, 703250, 703350, 703360, 703370, 703450, 703550, 703610, 703750, 703850, 703950, 704050, 704150, 704250, 704350, 704450, 704550, 704650, 704750, 704850, 704950, 705050, 705150,705250, 705350, 705450, 705510 és 705610 kódszámú vadgazdálkodási egységeinek teljes területe, |
— |
Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok megye 750250, 750550, 750650, 750750, 750850, 750970, 750980, 751050, 751150, 751160, 751250, 751260, 751350, 751360, 751450, 751460, 751470, 751550, 751650, 751750, 7151850, 751950, 752150, 752250, 752350, 752450, 752460, 752550, 752560, 752650, 752750, 752850, 752950, 753060, 753070, 753150, 753250, 753310, 753450, 753550, 753650, 753660, 753750, 753850, 753950, 753960, 754050, 754150, 754250, 754360, 754370, 754850, 755550, 755650 és 755750 kódszámú vadgazdálkodási egységeinek teljes területe, |
— |
Komárom-Esztergom megye: 252350, 252450, 252460, 252750, 252850, 252860, 252950, 252960, 253050, 253150, 253250, 253350 és 253450 kódszámú vadgazdálkodási egységeinek teljes területe, |
— |
Nógrád megye 550110, 550120, 550130, 550210, 550310, 550320, 550450, 550460, 550510, 550610, 550710, 550810, 550950, 551010, 551150, 551160, 551250, 551350, 551360, 551450, 551460, 551550, 551650, 551710, 551810, 551821, 552010, 552150, 552250, 552350, 552360, 552450, 552460, 552520, 552550, 552610, 552620, 552710, 552850, 552860, 552950, 552960, 552970, 553050, 553110, 553650 és 554050 kódszámú vadgazdálkodási egységeinek teljes területe, |
— |
Pest megye 570950, 571850, 571950, 572050, 573550, 573650, 574250, 577250 és 580150 kódszámú vadgazdálkodási egységeinek teljes területe, |
— |
Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg megye valamennyi vadgazdálkodási egységének teljes területe. |
5. Latvia
The following areas in Latvia:
— |
Ādažu novads, |
— |
Aizputes novads, |
— |
Aglonas novads, |
— |
Aizkraukles novads, |
— |
Aknīstes novads, |
— |
Alojas novads, |
— |
Alsungas novads, |
— |
Alūksnes novads, |
— |
Amatas novads, |
— |
Apes novads, |
— |
Auces novads, |
— |
Babītes novads, |
— |
Baldones novads, |
— |
Baltinavas novads, |
— |
Balvu novads, |
— |
Bauskas novads, |
— |
Beverīnas novads, |
— |
Brocēnu novads, |
— |
Burtnieku novads, |
— |
Carnikavas novads, |
— |
Cēsu novads, |
— |
Cesvaines novads, |
— |
Ciblas novads, |
— |
Dagdas novads, |
— |
Daugavpils novads, |
— |
Dobeles novads, |
— |
Dundagas novads, |
— |
Durbes novads, |
— |
Engures novads, |
— |
Ērgļu novads, |
— |
Garkalnes novads, |
— |
Gulbenes novads, |
— |
Iecavas novads, |
— |
Ikšķiles novads, |
— |
Ilūkstes novads, |
— |
Inčukalna novads, |
— |
Jaunjelgavas novads, |
— |
Jaunpiebalgas novads, |
— |
Jaunpils novads, |
— |
Jēkabpils novads, |
— |
Jelgavas novads, |
— |
Kandavas novads, |
— |
Kārsavas novads, |
— |
Ķeguma novads, |
— |
Ķekavas novads, |
— |
Kocēnu novads, |
— |
Kokneses novads, |
— |
Krāslavas novads, |
— |
Krimuldas novads, |
— |
Krustpils novads, |
— |
Kuldīgas novads, |
— |
Lielvārdes novads, |
— |
Līgatnes novads, |
— |
Limbažu novads, |
— |
Līvānu novads, |
— |
Lubānas novads, |
— |
Ludzas novads, |
— |
Madonas novads, |
— |
Mālpils novads, |
— |
Mārupes novads, |
— |
Mazsalacas novads, |
— |
Mērsraga novads, |
— |
Naukšēnu novads, |
— |
Neretas novads, |
— |
Ogres novads, |
— |
Olaines novads, |
— |
Ozolnieku novads, |
— |
Pārgaujas novads, |
— |
Pļaviņu novads, |
— |
Preiļu novads, |
— |
Priekules novads, |
— |
Priekuļu novads, |
— |
Raunas novads, |
— |
republikas pilsēta Daugavpils, |
— |
republikas pilsēta Jelgava, |
— |
republikas pilsēta Jēkabpils, |
— |
republikas pilsēta Jūrmala, |
— |
republikas pilsēta Rēzekne, |
— |
republikas pilsēta Valmiera, |
— |
Rēzeknes novads, |
— |
Riebiņu novads, |
— |
Rojas novads, |
— |
Ropažu novads, |
— |
Rugāju novads, |
— |
Rundāles novads, |
— |
Rūjienas novads, |
— |
Salacgrīvas novads, |
— |
Salas novads, |
— |
Salaspils novads, |
— |
Saldus novads, |
— |
Saulkrastu novads, |
— |
Sējas novads, |
— |
Siguldas novads, |
— |
Skrīveru novads, |
— |
Skrundas novads, |
— |
Smiltenes novads, |
— |
Stopiņu novada daļa, kas atrodas uz austrumiem no autoceļa V36, P4 un P5, Acones ielas, Dauguļupes ielas un Dauguļupītes, |
— |
Strenču novads, |
— |
Talsu novads, |
— |
Tērvetes novads, |
— |
Tukuma novads, |
— |
Vaiņodes novads, |
— |
Valkas novads, |
— |
Varakļānu novads, |
— |
Vārkavas novads, |
— |
Vecpiebalgas novads, |
— |
Vecumnieku novads, |
— |
Ventspils novada Ances, Tārgales, Popes, Vārves, Užavas, Piltenes, Puzes, Ziru, Ugāles, Usmas un Zlēku pagasts, Piltenes pilsēta, |
— |
Viesītes novads, |
— |
Viļakas novads, |
— |
Viļānu novads, |
— |
Zilupes novads. |
6. Lithuania
The following areas in Lithuania:
— |
Alytaus miesto savivaldybė, |
— |
Alytaus rajono savivaldybė: Alytaus, Alovės, Butrimonių, Daugų, Nemunaičio, Pivašiūnų, Punios, Raitininkų seniūnijos, |
— |
Anykščių rajono savivaldybė, |
— |
Akmenės rajono savivaldybė, |
— |
Biržų miesto savivaldybė, |
— |
Biržų rajono savivaldybė, |
— |
Druskininkų savivaldybė, |
— |
Elektrėnų savivaldybė, |
— |
Ignalinos rajono savivaldybė, |
— |
Jonavos rajono savivaldybė, |
— |
Joniškio rajono savivaldybė, |
— |
Jurbarko rajono savivaldybė, |
— |
Kaišiadorių rajono savivaldybė, |
— |
Kalvarijos savivaldybė, |
— |
Kauno miesto savivaldybė, |
— |
Kauno rajono savivaldybė: Domeikavos, Garliavos, Garliavos apylinkių, Karmėlavos, Lapių, Linksmakalnio, Neveronių, Rokų, Samylų, Taurakiemio, Vandžiogalos ir Vilkijos seniūnijos, Babtų seniūnijos dalis į rytus nuo kelio A1, Užliedžių seniūnijos dalis į rytus nuo kelio A1 ir Vilkijos apylinkių seniūnijos dalis į vakarus nuo kelio Nr. 1907, |
— |
Kazlų rūdos savivaldybė: Kazlų rūdos seniūnija į šiaurę nuo kelio Nr. 230, į rytus nuo kelio Kokė-Užbaliai-Čečetai iki kelio Nr. 2610 ir į pietus nuo kelio Nr. 2610, |
— |
Kelmės rajono savivaldybė, |
— |
Kėdainių rajono savivaldybė, |
— |
Kupiškio rajono savivaldybė, |
— |
Lazdijų rajono savivaldybė, |
— |
Marijampolės savivaldybė: Degučių, Marijampolės, Mokolų, Liudvinavo ir Narto seniūnijos, |
— |
Mažeikių rajono savivaldybė, |
— |
Molėtų rajono savivaldybė: Alantos seniūnijos dalis į vakarus nuo kelio 119 ir į šiaurę nuo kelio Nr. 2828, Balninkų, Dubingių, Giedraičių, Joniškio ir Videniškių seniūnijos, |
— |
Pagėgių savivaldybė, |
— |
Pakruojo rajono savivaldybė, |
— |
Panevėžio rajono savivaldybė, |
— |
Panevėžio miesto savivaldybė, |
— |
Pasvalio rajono savivaldybė, |
— |
Radviliškio rajono savivaldybė, |
— |
Rietavo savivaldybė, |
— |
Prienų rajono savivaldybė: Stakliškių ir Veiverių seniūnijos, |
— |
Plungės rajono savivaldybė: Babrungo, Alsėdžių, Žlibinų, Stalgėnų, Paukštakių, Platelių ir Žemaičių Kalvarijos seniūnijos, |
— |
Raseinių rajono savivaldybė, |
— |
Rokiškio rajono savivaldybė, |
— |
Skuodo rajono savivaldybės: Aleksandrijos, Barstyčių, Ylakių, Notėnų ir Šačių seniūnijos, |
— |
Šakių rajono savivaldybė, |
— |
Šalčininkų rajono savivaldybė, |
— |
Šiaulių miesto savivaldybė, |
— |
Šiaulių rajono savivaldybė, |
— |
Šilutės rajono savivaldybė, |
— |
Širvintų rajono savivaldybė, |
— |
Šilalės rajono savivaldybė, |
— |
Švenčionių rajono savivaldybė, |
— |
Tauragės rajono savivaldybė, |
— |
Telšių rajono savivaldybė, |
— |
Trakų rajono savivaldybė, |
— |
Ukmergės rajono savivaldybė, |
— |
Utenos rajono savivaldybė, |
— |
Varėnos rajono savivaldybė, |
— |
Vilniaus miesto savivaldybė, |
— |
Vilniaus rajono savivaldybė, |
— |
Vilkaviškio rajono savivaldybė: Bartninkų, Gražiškių, Keturvalakių, Kybartų, Klausučių, Pajevonio, Šeimenos, Vilkaviškio miesto, Virbalio, Vištyčio seniūnijos, |
— |
Visagino savivaldybė, |
— |
Zarasų rajono savivaldybė. |
7. Poland
The following areas in Poland:
w województwie warmińsko-mazurskim:
|
w województwie podlaskim:
|
w województwie mazowieckim:
|
w województwie lubelskim:
|
w województwie podkarpackim:
|
w województwie pomorskim:
|
w województwie świętokrzyskim:
|
w województwie lubuskim:
|
w województwie dolnośląskim:
|
w województwie wielkopolskim:
|
w województwie łódzkim:
|
8. Slovakia
The following areas in Slovakia:
— |
in the district of Košice – okolie, the whole municipalities of Belza, Bidovce, Blažice, Bohdanovce, Byster, Čaňa, Ďurďošík, Ďurkov, Geča, Gyňov, Haniska, Kalša, Kechnec, Kokšov- Bakša, Košická Polianka, Košický Klečenov, Milhosť, Nižná Hutka, Nižná Mysľa, Nižný Čaj, Nižný Olčvár, Nový Salaš, Olšovany, Rákoš, Ruskov, Seňa, Skároš, Sokoľany, Slančík, Slanec, Slanská Huta, Slanské Nové Mesto, Svinica, Trstené pri Hornáde, Valaliky, Vyšná Hutka, Vyšná Myšľa, Vyšný Čaj, Vyšný Olčvár, Zdoba, Ždaňa, Hrašovík, Beniakovce, Budimír, Družstevná pri Hornáde, Kostoľany nad Hornádom, Sokoľ, Trebejov, Obišovce, Kysak, Veľká Lodina, Košická Belá, Opátka, Vyšný Klátov, Nižný Klátov, Hýľov, Bukovec, Baška,Nováčany, Hodkovce, Šemša and Malá IDA, |
— |
the whole city of Košice, |
— |
the whole district of Trebišov, |
— |
in the district of Michalovce, the whole municipalities of the district not already included in Part I. |
9. Romania
The following areas in Romania:
— |
Judeţul Bistrița-Năsăud, |
— |
Județul Suceava. |
PART III
1. Bulgaria
The following areas in Bulgaria:
— |
the whole region of Blagoevgrad, |
— |
the whole region of Dobrich, |
— |
the whole region of Gabrovo, |
— |
the whole region of Kardzhali, |
— |
the whole region of Lovech, |
— |
the whole region of Montana, |
— |
the whole region of Pleven, |
— |
the whole region of Razgrad, |
— |
the whole region of Ruse, |
— |
the whole region of Shumen, |
— |
the whole region of Silistra, |
— |
the whole region of Sliven, |
— |
the whole region of Sofia city, |
— |
the whole region of Sofia Province, |
— |
the whole region of Targovishte, |
— |
the whole region of Vidin, |
— |
the whole region of Varna, |
— |
the whole region of Veliko Tarnovo, |
— |
the whole region of Vratza, |
— |
in Burgas region:
|
2. Lithuania
The following areas in Lithuania:
— |
Alytaus rajono savivaldybė: Simno, Krokialaukio ir Miroslavo seniūnijos, |
— |
Birštono savivaldybė, |
— |
Kauno rajono savivaldybė: Akademijos, Alšėnų, Batniavos, Čekiškės, Ežerėlio, Kačerginės, Kulautuvos, Raudondvario, Ringaudų ir Zapyškio seniūnijos, Babtų seniūnijos dalis į vakarus nuo kelio A1, Užliedžių seniūnijos dalis į vakarus nuo kelio A1 ir Vilkijos apylinkių seniūnijos dalis į rytus nuo kelio Nr. 1907, |
— |
Kazlų Rūdos savivaldybė: Antanavo, Jankų, Kazlų rūdos seniūnijos dalis Kazlų Rūdos seniūnija į pietus nuo kelio Nr. 230, į vakarus nuo kelio Kokė-Užbaliai-Čečetai iki kelio Nr. 2610 ir į šiaurę nuo kelio Nr. 2610, Plutiškių seniūnijos, |
— |
Marijampolės savivaldybė: Gudelių, Igliaukos, Sasnavos ir Šunskų seniūnijos, |
— |
Molėtų rajono savivaldybė: Alantos seniūnijos dalis į rytus nuo kelio Nr. 119 ir į pietus nuo kelio Nr. 2828, Čiulėnų, Inturkės, Luokesos, Mindūnų ir Suginčių seniūnijos, |
— |
Prienų rajono savivaldybė: Ašmintos, Balbieriškio, Išlaužo, Jiezno, Naujosios Ūtos, Pakuonio, Prienų ir Šilavotos seniūnijos, |
— |
Vilkaviškio rajono savivaldybės: Gižų ir Pilviškių seniūnijos. |
3. Poland
The following areas in Poland:
w województwie warmińsko-mazurskim:
|
w województwie podlaskim:
|
w województwie mazowieckim:
|
w województwie lubelskim:
|
w województwie podkarpackim:
|
w województwie lubuskim:
|
w województwie wielkopolskim:
|
4. Romania
The following areas in Romania:
— |
Zona orașului București, |
— |
Județul Constanța, |
— |
Județul Satu Mare, |
— |
Județul Tulcea, |
— |
Județul Bacău, |
— |
Județul Bihor, |
— |
Județul Brăila, |
— |
Județul Buzău, |
— |
Județul Călărași, |
— |
Județul Dâmbovița, |
— |
Județul Galați, |
— |
Județul Giurgiu, |
— |
Județul Ialomița, |
— |
Județul Ilfov, |
— |
Județul Prahova, |
— |
Județul Sălaj, |
— |
Județul Vaslui, |
— |
Județul Vrancea, |
— |
Județul Teleorman, |
— |
Judeţul Mehedinţi, |
— |
Județul Gorj, |
— |
Județul Argeș, |
— |
Judeţul Olt, |
— |
Judeţul Dolj, |
— |
Județul Arad, |
— |
Județul Timiș, |
— |
Județul Covasna, |
— |
Județul Brașov, |
— |
Județul Botoșani, |
— |
Județul Vâlcea, |
— |
Județul Iași, |
— |
Județul Hunedoara, |
— |
Județul Alba, |
— |
Județul Sibiu, |
— |
Județul Caraș-Severin, |
— |
Județul Neamț, |
— |
Județul Harghita, |
— |
Județul Mureș, |
— |
Județul Cluj, |
— |
Judeţului Maramureş. |
PART IV
Italy
The following areas in Italy:
— |
tutto il territorio della Sardegna. |
Corrigenda
19.6.2020 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
L 195/117 |
Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/706 of 26 May 2020 amending for the 314th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the ISIL (Da'esh) and Al-Qaida organisations
(Official Journal of the European Union OJ L 164, 27 May 2020 )
On page 50, the Annex is replaced as follows:‘ANNEX
In Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 the following entry is added under the heading “Natural persons”:
“Amir Muhammad Sa’id Abdal-Rahman al-Mawla (original script: أمیر محمد سعید عبد الرحم المولى) (good quality alias (a) Abu Ibrahim al-Hashimi al-Qurashi, (b) Hajji Abdallah, (c) Abu ‘Umar al-Turkmani, (d) Abdullah Qardash, (e) Abu ‘Abdullah Qardash, (f) al-Hajj Abdullah Qardash, (g) Hajji Abdullah Al-Afari, (h) `Abdul Amir Muhammad Sa'id Salbi, (i) Muhammad Sa'id `Abd-al-Rahman al-Mawla, (j) Amir Muhammad Sa’id ‘Abd-al-Rahman Muhammad al-Mula; low quality alias (a) Al-Ustadh, (b) Ustadh Ahmad). Date of birth: (a) 5.10.1976, (b) 1.10.1976. Place of birth: (a) Tall’Afar, Iraq, (b) Mosul, Iraq. Nationality: Iraqi. Other information: Leader of Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, listed as Al-Qaida in Iraq. Date of designation referred to in Article 7d(2)(i): 21.5.2020.”