(1)

Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition and for the grounds and procedures for granting such authorisation.

(2)

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/898 of 8 June 2016 (2) authorised a preparation of Bacillus licheniformis (ATCC 53757) and its protease (EC 3.4.21.19) as a feed additive. The holder of the authorisation is Novus Europe SA/NV.

(3)

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/982 of 11 July 2018 (3) authorised a preparation of benzoic acid, calcium formate and fumaric acid as a feed additive.

(4)

Novus Europe NV has submitted an application in accordance with Article 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, proposing to change the name of the holder of the authorisation as regards Implementing Regulations (EU) 2016/898 and (EU) No 2018/982.

(5)

The applicant claims that it changed its name from Novus Europe SA/NV to Novus Europe NV. The application was accompanied by the relevant supporting data.

(6)

The proposed change of the terms of the authorisations is purely administrative in nature and does not entail a fresh assessment of the feed additives concerned. The European Food and Safety Authority was informed of the application.

(7)

To allow the applicant to exploit its marketing rights under its new name, Novus Europe NV, it is necessary to change the terms of the authorisations.

(8)

Implementing Regulations (EU) 2016/898 and (EU) No 2018/982 should therefore be amended accordingly.

(9)

Since safety reasons do not require the immediate application of the amendments made by this Regulation to Implementing Regulations (EU) 2016/898 and (EU) No 2018/982, it is appropriate to provide for a transitional period, during which existing stocks of the feed additives concerned may be used up.

(10)

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

(1)

in the title, the words ‘holder of authorisation Novus Europe SA/NV’ are replaced by the words ‘holder of authorisation Novus Europe NV’;

(2)

in the Annex, second column, ‘Name of the holder of authorisation’, the words ‘Novus Europe SA/NV’ are replaced by the words ‘Novus Europe NV’.

(1)

in the title, the words ‘holder of authorisation Novus Europe N.A/S.V.’ are replaced by the words ‘holder of authorisation Novus Europe NV’;

(2)

in the Annex, second column, ‘Name of the holder of authorisation’, the words ‘Novus Europe N.A./S.V.’ are replaced by the words ‘Novus Europe NV’.

(1)

The use of a preparation of Bacillus licheniformis DSM 28710 as a feed additive was authorised for laying hens, minor poultry species for laying, poultry species for breeding and ornamental birds by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1410 (2) for a 10-year period.

(2)

In the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1410, an incorrect identification of the species, for which the additive is authorised, which excluded turkeys for breeding, was inserted in the column ‘Species or category of animal’.

(3)

Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1410 should therefore be corrected accordingly. For the sake of clarity, it is appropriate to replace the whole Annex to that Implementing Regulation.

(4)

In order to allow feed business operators to adapt the labelling of the additive and feed containing it to the corrected terms of authorisation, a transitional period should be provided for as regards the placing on the market of those products.

(5)

In order to preserve the legitimate expectations of the interested parties in relation to the terms of the authorisation of the additive, this Regulation should enter into force as a matter of urgency.

(6)

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

(1)

The use of Bacillus subtilis DSM 25841 as a feed additive was authorised for all porcine species, including sows, other than lactating sows in order to have a benefit in suckling piglets by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1760 (2) for a 10-year period.

(2)

In the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1760, a wrong identification number was inserted in the column ‘Identification number of the additive’.

(3)

Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1760 should therefore be corrected accordingly. For the sake of clarity, it is appropriate to replace the whole Annex to that Implementing Regulation by the corrected version thereof.

(4)

In order to allow feed business operators to adapt the labelling of the additive and feed containing it to the corrected terms of the authorisation, a transitional period should be provided for as regards the placing on the market of those products.

(5)

In order to preserve the legitimate expectations of the interested parties in relation to the terms of the authorisation of the additive, this Regulation should enter into force as a matter of urgency.

(6)

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

(1)

Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition and for the grounds and procedures for granting such an authorisation.

(2)

In accordance with Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 an application was submitted for the authorisation of a preparation of Saccharomyces cerevisiae MUCL 39885. That application was accompanied by the particulars and documents required under Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.

(3)

The application concerns the authorisation of the preparation of Saccharomyces cerevisiae MUCL 39885 as a feed additive for all suidae other than weaned piglets and sows, and dogs, to be classified in the category ‘zootechnical additives’.

(4)

The European Food Safety Authority (‘the Authority’) concluded in its opinions of 23 June 2021 (2) (3) that, under the proposed conditions of use, the preparation of Saccharomyces cerevisiae MUCL 39885 does not have adverse effects on animal health, consumer safety or the environment. It also concluded that this preparation is considered as a potential skin and eye irritant and a skin and respiratory sensitiser. Therefore, the Commission considers that appropriate protective measures should be taken to prevent adverse effects on human health, in particular as regards the users of the additive. The Authority also concluded that in the case of suidae, the preparation has the potential to be efficacious as a zootechnical additive in feedingstuffs and in the case of dogs, the preparation has the potential to be efficacious in improving the faecal consistency. The Authority does not consider that there is a need for specific requirements of postmarket monitoring. It also verified the report on the methods of analysis of the feed additive in feed submitted by the Reference Laboratory set up by Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.

(5)

The assessment of the preparation of Saccharomyces cerevisiae MUCL 39885 shows that the conditions for authorisation, as provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, are satisfied. Accordingly, the use of that preparation should be authorised as specified in the Annex to this Regulation.

(6)

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

(1)

Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition and for the grounds and procedures for granting such authorisation.

(2)

In accordance with Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, applications were submitted for the authorisation of preparations of Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus IMI 507023, Pediococcus pentosaceus IMI 507024, Pediococcus pentosaceus IMI 507025, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum IMI 507026, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum IMI 507027 and Lactiplantibacillus plantarum IMI 507028. Those applications were accompanied by the particulars and documents required under Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.

(3)

The applications concern the authorisation of preparations of Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus IMI 507023, Pediococcus pentosaceus IMI 507024, Pediococcus pentosaceus IMI 507025, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum IMI 507026, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum IMI 507027 and Lactiplantibacillus plantarum IMI 507028 as feed additives for all animal species, to be classified in the additive category ‘technological additives’.

(4)

The European Food Safety Authority (‘the Authority’) concluded in its opinions of 23 June 2021 (2) , (3) , (4) , (5) , (6) , (7) that, under the proposed conditions of use, the preparations of Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus IMI 507023, Pediococcus pentosaceus IMI 507024, Pediococcus pentosaceus IMI 507025, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum IMI 507026, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum IMI 507027 and Lactiplantibacillus plantarum IMI 507028 do not have an adverse effect on animal health, consumer safety or the environment. It also concluded that the additives should be considered respiratory sensitisers and indicated that no conclusions could be drawn on the eye and skin irritancy or skin sensitisation potential of the additives. Therefore, the Commission considers that appropriate protective measures should be taken to prevent adverse effects on human health, in particular as regards the users of the additives. The Authority also concluded that the preparations concerned have the potential to improve the preservation of nutrients in silage prepared with easy and moderately difficult to ensile material. It also verified the report on the method of analysis of the feed additives in feed submitted by the Reference Laboratory set up by Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.

(5)

The assessment of the preparations of Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus IMI 507023, Pediococcus pentosaceus IMI 507024, Pediococcus pentosaceus IMI 507025, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum IMI 507026, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum IMI 507027 and Lactiplantibacillus plantarum IMI 507028 shows that the conditions for authorisation, as provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, are satisfied. Accordingly, the use of those preparations should be authorised as specified in the Annex to this Regulation.

(6)

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

(1)

Directive 2011/65/EU requires Member States to ensure that electrical and electronic equipment placed on the market does not contain the hazardous substances listed in Annex II to that Directive. That restriction does not apply to certain exempted applications listed in Annex III to that Directive.

(2)

The categories of electrical and electronic equipment to which Directive 2011/65/EU applies are listed in Annex I to that Directive.

(3)

Mercury is a restricted substance listed in Annex II to Directive 2011/65/EU.

(4)

By Decision 2010/571/EU (2), the Commission granted, among other things, an exemption for the use of mercury in cold cathode fluorescent lamps and external electrode fluorescent lamps (CCFL and EEFL) for special purposes (‘the exemption’), which is now listed as exemption 3(a), 3(b) and 3(c) in Annex III to Directive 2011/65/EU. The exemption was to expire on 21 July 2016, in accordance with Article 5(2), second subparagraph, point (a), of that Directive.

(5)

The exemption covers a heterogeneous group of lamps of different shapes, technologies, applications, and purposes. Mercury is used in the discharge tube, which is essential to convert electrical energy to light.

(6)

On 15 January 2015, the Commission received an application for renewal of the exemption (‘the renewal application’), that is within the time limit laid down in Article 5(5) of Directive 2011/65/EU, which was followed in January 2020 by an additional renewal application from the same applicants. In accordance with Article 5(5) of Directive 2011/65/EU, the exemption remains valid until a decision on the renewal request has been adopted.

(7)

The evaluation of the renewal application, which took into account the availability of substitutes and the socioeconomic impact of substitution, concluded that the substitution or elimination of mercury in the applications concerned is currently technically impracticable. However, that evaluation highlighted that mercury-free substitutes in the form of light emitting diodes lamps (LED) are available, and that they are used as lighting sources in new equipment coming on the market. The evaluation included stakeholder consultations in accordance with Article 5(7) of Directive 2011/65/EU. The comments received during those consultations were made publicly available on a dedicated website.

(8)

The exemption is consistent with Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) and thus does not weaken the environmental and health protection afforded by it.

(9)

Although CCFL and EEFL in many applications have been replaced by mercury free substitutes, some applications still require such lamps to ensure their functionality and to avoid a premature generation of electrical and electronic waste.

(10)

It is therefore appropriate to grant the renewal of the exemption for a period of three years, in accordance with Article 5(2), first subparagraph, of Directive 2011/65/EU, only for those lamps used in the electrical and electronic equipment that was placed on the market before the adoption of this Directive. In accordance with Article 5(2), first subparagraph, of Directive 2011/65/EU, the duration of the exemption is unlikely to have adverse impacts on innovation.

(11)

Directive 2011/65/EU should therefore be amended accordingly,

(1)

Directive 2011/65/EU requires Member States to ensure that electrical and electronic equipment placed on the market does not contain the hazardous substances listed in Annex II to that Directive. That restriction does not apply to certain exempted applications listed in Annex III to that Directive.

(2)

The categories of electrical and electronic equipment to which Directive 2011/65/EU applies are listed in Annex I to that Directive.

(3)

Mercury is a restricted substance listed in Annex II to Directive 2011/65/EU.

(4)

By Decision 2010/571/EU (2), the Commission granted, among other things, an exemption for the use of mercury in other High Pressure Sodium (vapour) lamps for general lighting purposes (‘the exemption’), which is now listed as exemption 4(c)-I, 4(c)-II and 4(c)-III in Annex III to Directive2011/65/EU. The exemption was to expire on 21 July 2016, in accordance with Article 5(2), second subparagraph, point (a), of that Directive.

(5)

Mercury is used in High Pressure Sodium (vapour) lamps for light colour and colour rendering properties.

(6)

On 15 January 2015, the Commission received an application for renewal of the exemption (‘the renewal application’), that is within the time limit laid down in Article 5(5) of Directive 2011/65/EU, which was updated with additional information on 20 January 2020. In accordance with Article 5(5) of Directive 2011/65/EU, the exemption remains valid until a decision on the renewal application has been taken.

(7)

The evaluation of the renewal application, which took into account the availability of substitutes and the socioeconomic impact of substitution, concluded that the substitution or elimination of mercury in the applications concerned is currently technically impracticable. The evaluation also concluded that the content of mercury allowed in those specific applications should be reduced to correspond to the changes in the market for the specific lamps types. The evaluation included stakeholder consultations in accordance with Article 5(7) of Directive 2011/65/EU. The comments received during those consultations were made publicly available on a dedicated website.

(8)

The exemption is consistent with Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) and thus does not weaken the environmental and health protection afforded by it.

(9)

It is therefore appropriate to grant the renewal of the exemption as concerns entries 4(c)-I, 4(c)-II and 4(c)-III in Annex III to Directive 2011/65/EU for a maximum period of five years, as no reliable substitutes are currently available, in accordance with Article 5(2), first subparagraph, of that Directive. In view of the results of the ongoing efforts to find a reliable substitution, the duration of the exemption is unlikely to have adverse impacts on innovation.

(10)

Directive 2011/65/EU should therefore be amended accordingly,

(1)

Directive 2011/65/EU requires Member States to ensure that electrical and electronic equipment placed on the market does not contain the hazardous substances listed in Annex II to that Directive. That restriction does not apply to certain exempted applications listed in Annex III to the Directive.

(2)

The categories of electrical and electronic equipment to which Directive 2011/65/EU applies are listed in Annex I to that Directive.

(3)

Mercury is a restricted substance listed in Annex II to Directive 2011/65/EU.

(4)

By Decision 2010/571/EU (2), the Commission granted, among other things, an exemption for the use of mercury in single capped (compact) fluorescent lamps for general lighting purposes (‘the exemption’), which is now listed as exemption 1(a), 1(b), 1(c), 1(d) and 1(e) in Annex III to Directive 2011/65/EU. The exemption was to expire on 21 July 2016, in accordance with Article 5(2), second subparagraph, point (a), of that Directive.

(5)

Mercury is used in single capped (compact) fluorescent lamps to produce ultraviolet light, which is then converted into visible light by the fluorescent coating on the lamp bulb.

(6)

On 19 December 2014 and 15 January 2015, the Commission received two applications for renewal of the exemption (‘the renewal applications’), that is within the time limit laid down in Article 5(5) of Directive 2011/65/EU, of which one was updated with a renewed application on 20 January 2020. In accordance with Article 5(5), second subparagraph, of Directive 2011/65/EU, the exemption remains valid until a decision on the renewal application has been taken.

(7)

The evaluation of the renewal applications, which took into account the availability of substitutes and the socioeconomic impact of substitution, concluded that sufficiently reliable mercury-free substitutes for the lamp types covered by the exemption are already widely available and that the substitution of mercury in these lamps is scientifically and technically practicable. Furthermore, that evaluation concluded that the benefits of substitution will clearly outweigh any negative impact.

(8)

The evaluation of the renewal applications included stakeholder consultations in accordance with Article 5(7) of Directive 2011/65/EU. The comments received during those consultations were made publicly available on a dedicated website.

(9)

As the conditions set out in Article 5(1), point (a), of Directive 2011/65/EU are no longer fulfilled, the renewal application should be rejected.

(10)

An expiry date for the exemption should be set in accordance with Article 5(6) of that Directive. The earliest possible date of 12 months from the Commission decision to revoke the exemption should be set given that there are no practical circumstances that would justify a longer expiry time, in particular considering that many of the lamps in question are also covered by Commission Regulation (EU) 2019/2020 which sets minimum energy efficiency requirements to be respected in order for the products to be placed on the market, which will imply that those lamps will not de facto be placed on the market from 1 September 2021.

(11)

Directive 2011/65/EU should therefore be amended accordingly,

(1)

Directive 2011/65/EU requires Member States to ensure that electrical and electronic equipment placed on the market does not contain the hazardous substances listed in Annex II to that Directive. That restriction does not apply to certain exempted applications listed in Annex III to the Directive.

(2)

The categories of electrical and electronic equipment to which Directive 2011/65/EU applies are listed in Annex I to that Directive.

(3)

Mercury is a restricted substance listed in Annex II to Directive 2011/65/EU.

(4)

By Delegated Directive 2014/14/EU (2), the Commission granted an exemption for the use of mercury, with a maximum content of 3,5 mg, in single capped (compact) fluorescent lamps for general lighting purposes < 30 W with a lifetime equal or above 20 000 h (‘the exemption’), which is now listed as exemption 1(g) in Annex III to Directive 2011/65/EU. The exemption was to expire on 31 December 2017, in accordance with Annex III to Directive 2014/14/EU.

(5)

Mercury is used in single capped (compact) fluorescent lamps to produce ultraviolet light, which is then converted into visible light by the fluorescent coating on the lamp bulb.

(6)

On 28 June 2016, the Commission received an application for renewal of the exemption (‘the renewal application’), that is within the time laid down in Article 5(5) of Directive 2011/65/EU, that was updated with a renewed application on 17 January 2020. In accordance with Article 5(5) of Directive 2011/65/EU, the exemption remains valid until a decision on the renewal application has been adopted.

(7)

The evaluation of the renewal application, which took into account the availability of substitutes and the socioeconomic impact of substitution, concluded that sufficiently reliable mercury-free substitutes for the lamp types covered by the exemption are available and that the substitution is scientifically and technically practicable. Furthermore, that evaluation concluded that the benefits of substitution will clearly outweigh any negative impact. The evaluation included stakeholder consultations in accordance with Article 5(7) of Directive 2011/65/EU. The comments received during these consultations were made publicly available on a dedicated website.

(8)

As the conditions set out in Article 5(1), point (a), of Directive 2011/65/EU are no longer fulfilled, the exemption should be revoked.

(9)

An expiry date for this exemption should be set in accordance with Article 5(6) of Directive 2011/65/EU. While a small share of the lamp types (3) covered by this exemption are subject to the ecodesign criteria laid down in Annex II of Commission Regulation (EU) 2019/2020 (4), which are applicable as of 1 September 2021, and will hence not be placed on the market any longer, the vast majority of lamps covered by the current exemption are not affected by the criteria under the above-mentioned Ecodesign Regulation. Consequently, the maximum possible expiry date of 18 months following the decision should be set with regard to the entire exemption entry in order to avoid unnecessary high socio-economic costs by market participants directly linked to the substitution of the latter category.

(10)

Directive 2011/65/EU should therefore be amended accordingly,

(1)

Directive 2011/65/EU requires Member States to ensure that electrical and electronic equipment placed on the market does not contain the hazardous substances listed in Annex II to that Directive. That restriction does not apply to certain exempted applications listed in Annex III to that Directive.

(2)

The categories of electrical and electronic equipment to which Directive 2011/65/EU applies are listed in Annex I to that Directive.

(3)

Mercury is a restricted substance listed in Annex II to Directive 2011/65/EU.

(4)

By Decision 2010/571/EU (2), the Commission granted, among other things, an exemption for the use of mercury in metal halide lamps (‘the exemption’), which is now listed as exemption 4(e) in Annex III to Directive 2011/65/EU. The exemption was to expire on 21 July 2016, in accordance with Article 5(2), second subparagraph, point (a), of that Directive.

(5)

Mercury is used in metal halide lamps to improve the colour, efficiency, lifetime, and the stable operation of those specific lamps.

(6)

On 15 January 2015, the Commission received an application for renewal of the exemption (‘the renewal application’) that is within the time limit laid down in Article 5(5) of Directive 2011/65/EU. An updated renewal application was submitted on 20 January 2020. In accordance with Article 5(5) of that Directive, the exemption remains valid until a decision on the renewal application has been adopted.

(7)

The evaluation of the renewal application, which took into account the availability of substitutes and the socioeconomic impact of substitution, concluded that the substitution or elimination of mercury in the applications concerned is currently technically impracticable. The evaluation included stakeholder consultations in accordance with Article 5(7) of Directive 2011/65/EU. The comments received during those consultations were made publicly available on a dedicated website.

(8)

The exemption is consistent with Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) and thus does not weaken the environmental and health protection afforded by it.

(9)

It is therefore appropriate to grant the renewal of the exemption for a maximum period of five years, in accordance with Article 5(2), first subparagraph, of Directive 2011/65/EU. In view of the results of the ongoing efforts to find a reliable substitution, the duration of the exemption is unlikely to have adverse impacts on innovation.

(10)

Directive 2011/65/EU should therefore be amended accordingly,

(1)

Directive 2011/65/EU requires Member States to ensure that electrical and electronic equipment placed on the market does not contain the hazardous substances listed in Annex II to that Directive. That restriction does not apply to certain exempted applications listed in Annex III to that Directive.

(2)

The categories of electrical and electronic equipment to which Directive 2011/65/EU applies are listed in Annex I to that Directive.

(3)

Mercury is a restricted substance listed in Annex II to Directive 2011/65/EU.

(4)

By Decision 2010/571/EU (2), the Commission granted, among other things, an exemption for the use of mercury in other discharge lamps for special purposes not specifically mentioned (‘the exemption’), which is now listed as exemption 4(f) in Annex III to Directive 2011/65/EU. The exemption was to expire on 21 July 2016, in accordance with Article 5(2), second subparagraph, point (a), of that Directive.

(5)

The function of mercury in gas discharge lamps for special purposes is related to the light generating process to convert electricity into light.

(6)

On 15 January 2015, the Commission received several applications for renewal of the exemption (‘the renewal applications’) that is within the time limit laid down in Article 5(5) of Directive 2011/65/EU. In accordance with Article 5(5) of Directive 2011/65/EU, the exemption remains valid until a decision on the renewal application has been taken.

(7)

The evaluation of the renewal applications, which took into account the availability of substitutes and the socioeconomic impact of substitution, concluded that the substitution or elimination of mercury in the applications concerned by the exemption is currently technically impracticable. Given the prospects of substitution limiting the exemption in future, it is however appropriate to grant the renewal of the exemption for a period of 3 years only. The evaluation also concluded that it is possible to further define the applications that qualify for a renewal of the exemption in accordance with the criteria set out in Article 5(1), point (a), of Directive 2011/65/EU because of their specific functionality and application area, namely high pressure mercury vapour lamps used in projectors, used for horticulture lighting and emitting light in the ultraviolet spectrum. For those specific applications, the exemption should be renewed for a maximum period of 5 years. The evaluation included stakeholder consultations in accordance with Article 5(7) of Directive 2011/65/EU. The comments received during those consultations were made publicly available on a dedicated website.

(8)

The exemption is consistent with Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) and thus does not weaken the environmental and health protection afforded by it.

(9)

In view of the results of the ongoing efforts to find a reliable substitution, the duration of the exemption is unlikely to have adverse impacts on innovation.

(10)

Directive 2011/65/EU should therefore be amended accordingly,

(1)

Directive 2011/65/EU requires Member States to ensure that electrical and electronic equipment placed on the market does not contain the hazardous substances listed in Annex II to that Directive. That restriction does not apply to certain exempted applications listed in Annex III to that Directive.

(2)

The categories of electrical and electronic equipment to which Directive 2011/65/EU applies are listed in Annex I to that Directive.

(3)

Mercury is a restricted substance listed in Annex II to Directive 2011/65/EU.

(4)

By Decision 2010/571/EU (2), the Commission granted, among other things, an exemption for the use of mercury in other low pressure discharge lamps (‘the exemption’), which is now listed as exemption 4(a) in Annex III to Directive 2011/65/EU. The exemption was to expire on 21 July 2016, in accordance with Article 5(2), second subparagraph, point (a), of that Directive.

(5)

Mercury is used in low pressure discharge lamps to produce ultraviolet light used for ultraviolet germicidal or bacterial disinfection and/or purification of air, water and surfaces.

(6)

On 19 December 2014 and 15 January 2015, the Commission received two applications for renewal of the exemption (‘the renewal application’), that is within the time laid down in Article 5(5) of Directive 2011/65/EU, of which one was updated with a renewed application on 20 January 2020. In accordance with Article 5(5) of Directive 2011/65/EU, the exemption remains valid until a decision on the renewal application has been taken.

(7)

The evaluation of the renewal application, which took into account the availability of substitutes and the socioeconomic impact of substitution, concluded that the elimination of mercury in the applications concerned or its substitution by a substance of comparable performance is currently technically impracticable. That evaluation further concluded that the current scope of the exemption can be limited to low pressure discharge lamps that are not phosphor-coated and emit light in the ultraviolet range. The evaluation included stakeholder consultations in accordance with Article 5(7) of Directive 2011/65/EU. The comments received during these consultations were made publicly available on a dedicated website.

(8)

The exemption is consistent with Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) and thus does not weaken the environmental and health protection afforded by it.

(9)

It is therefore appropriate to grant the renewal of the exemption, with a revised wording, setting out the limited scope of the exemption, for a maximum period of 5 years, in accordance with Article 5(2), first subparagraph, of Directive 2011/65/EU. In accordance with Article 5(6) of Directive 2011/65/EU, an expiry date of 12 months should be set for the current exemption 4(a). In view of the results of the ongoing efforts to find a reliable substitution, the duration of the exemption is unlikely to have adverse impacts on innovation.

(10)

Directive 2011/65/EU should therefore be amended accordingly,

(1)

Directive 2011/65/EU requires Member States to ensure that electrical and electronic equipment (EEE) placed on the market does not contain the hazardous substances listed in Annex II to that Directive. That restriction does not apply to certain exempted applications listed in Annexes III to that Directive.

(2)

The categories of electrical and electronic equipment to which Directive 2011/65/EU applies are listed in Annex I to that Directive.

(3)

Mercury is a restricted substance listed in Annex II to Directive 2011/65/EU.

(4)

By Decision 2010/571/EU (2), the Commission granted, among other things, an exemption for the use of mercury in single capped (compact) fluorescent lamps for special purposes (‘the exemption’), which is now listed as exemption 1(f) in Annex III to Directive 2011/65/EU. The exemption was to expire on 21 July 2016, in accordance with Article 5(2), second subparagraph, point (a), of that Directive.

(5)

Mercury is used in single capped (compact) fluorescent lamps (CFL) for special purposes to produce ultraviolet light, which is then converted into visible light by the fluorescent coating on the lamp bulb.

(6)

On 19 December 2014 and 15 January 2015, the Commission received two applications for renewal of the exemption (‘the renewal applications’), that is within the time limit laid down in Article 5(5) of Directive 2011/65/EU, of which one was updated with a renewed application on 20 January 2020. In accordance with Article 5(5), second subparagraph, of Directive 2011/65/EU, an exemption remains valid until a decision on the renewal request has been taken.

(7)

The evaluation of the renewal applications, which took into account the availability of substitutes and the socioeconomic impact of substitution, concluded that the elimination of mercury in the applications concerned or its substitution by a substance of comparable performance is currently technically impracticable. The evaluation included stakeholder consultations in accordance with Article 5(7) of Directive 2011/65/EU. The comments received during those consultations were made publicly available on a dedicated website.

(8)

Exemptions from the restriction for certain specific materials or components should be limited in their scope and duration, in order to achieve a gradual phase-out of hazardous substances in EEE, the assessment also concluded that, on one hand, the scope of the exemption should be narrowed to further specified applications and, on the other hand, the duration of the current broad exemption can be shortened.

(9)

The exemption is consistent with Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) and thus does not weaken the environmental and health protection afforded by it.

(10)

It is therefore appropriate to grant the renewal of the exemption for a maximum period of 5 years, in accordance with Article 5(2), first subparagraph, of Directive 2011/65/EU, for CFL lamps for special purposes designed to emit light in the ultraviolet spectrum, as no reliable alternatives are currently available. For all other types of CFL lamps falling into the category of CFL lamps for special purposes, the exemption should be renewed for 3 years, to allow the industry to prepare detailed information to justify the continuation of this exemption for specified special lamp categories, in line with the Directive’s aim that exemptions should be limited in their scope and duration. In view of the results of the ongoing efforts to find a reliable substitution, the duration of the exemption is unlikely to have adverse impacts on innovation.

(11)

Directive 2011/65/EU should therefore be amended accordingly,

(1)

Directive 2011/65/EU requires Member States to ensure that electrical and electronic equipment placed on the market does not contain the hazardous substances listed in Annex II to that Directive. That restriction does not apply to certain exempted applications listed in Annex III to that Directive.

(2)

The categories of electrical and electronic equipment to which Directive 2011/65/EU applies are listed in Annex I to that Directive.

(3)

Mercury is a restricted substance listed in Annex II to Directive 2011/65/EU.

(4)

By Decision 2010/571/EU (2), the Commission granted, among other things, an exemption for the use of mercury in non-linear tri-band phosphor lamps with tube diameter > 17 mm (e.g. T9) (‘the exemption’), which is now listed as exemption 2(b)(3) in Annex III to Directive 2011/65/EU. The exemption was to expire on 21 July 2016, in accordance with Article 5(2), second subparagraph, point (a), of that Directive.

(5)

Mercury is used in non-linear tri-band phosphor lamps to produce ultraviolet light, which is then converted into visible light by the fluorescent coating on the lamp. The composition of the coating, which contains the mercury, determines light colour and colour rendering.

(6)

On 19 December 2014 and 15 January 2015, the Commission received two applications for renewal of the exemption (‘the renewal application’), that is within the time limit laid down in Article 5(5) of Directive 2011/65/EU, one of which was updated with additional information in January 2020. In accordance with Article 5(5) of Directive 2011/65/EU, an exemption remains valid until a decision on the renewal request has been taken.

(7)

The evaluation of the renewal application, which took into account the availability of substitutes and the socioeconomic impact of substitution, concluded that the substitution or elimination of mercury in the applications concerned is currently technically impracticable. That evaluation further concluded that the mercury concentration limit in the lamp categories covered by that exemption can be lowered from 15 mg to 10 mg per lamp. The evaluation included stakeholder consultations in accordance with Article 5(7) of Directive 2011/65/EU. The comments received during those consultations were made publicly available on a dedicated website.

(8)

The exemption is consistent with Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) and thus does not weaken the environmental and health protection afforded by it.

(9)

It is therefore appropriate to grant the renewal of the exemption, with a revised wording, setting out the limited scope of the exemption, for a period of 3 years, in accordance with Article 5(2), first subparagraph, of Directive 2011/65/EU, to collect further data related to the availability of substitutes for the specific lamp types covered by that exemption. In accordance with Article 5(6) of Directive 2011/65/EU, an expiry date of 12 months should be set for the current exemption 2(b)(3). In view of the results of the ongoing efforts to find a reliable substitution, the duration of the exemption is unlikely to have adverse impacts on innovation.

(10)

Directive 2011/65/EU should therefore be amended accordingly,

(1)

Directive 2011/65/EU requires Member States to ensure that electrical and electronic equipment placed on the market does not contain the hazardous substances listed in Annex II to that Directive. That restriction does not apply to certain exempted applications listed in Annex III to that Directive.

(2)

The categories of electrical and electronic equipment to which Directive 2011/65/EU applies are listed in Annex I to that Directive.

(3)

Mercury is a restricted substance listed in Annex II to Directive 2011/65/EU.

(4)

By Decision 2010/571/EU (2), the Commission granted, among other things, an exemption for the use of mercury in High Pressure Sodium (vapour) lamps for general lighting purposes not exceeding (per burner) in lamps with improved colour rendering index Ra > 60 (‘the exemption’), which is now listed as exemption 4(b)-I, 4(b)-II and 4(b)-III in Annex III to Directive 2011/65/EU. The exemption was to expire on 21 July 2016, in accordance with Article 5(2), second subparagraph, point (a), of that Directive.

(5)

Mercury is used in High Pressure Sodium (vapour) lamps for light colour and colour rendering properties.

(6)

In January 2015, the Commission received an application for renewal of the exemption for applications in entries 4(b)-I, 4(b)-II and 4(b)-III (‘the renewal application’), that is within the time limit laid down in Article 5(5) of Directive 2011/65/EU. In January 2020, the same applicant submitted an updated renewal application concerning entry 4(b)-I only. In accordance with Article 5(5) of Directive 2011/65/EU, the exemption remains valid until a decision on the renewal application has been taken.

(7)

The evaluation of the renewal application, which took into account the availability of substitutes and the socioeconomic impact of substitution, concluded that the substitution or elimination of mercury in the applications concerned was scientifically and technically practicable as concerns a part of entry 4(b)-I, as well as entries 4(b)-II and 4(b)-III of Annex III to Directive 2011/65/EU. The evaluation concluded nevertheless that the exemption should be renewed for the part of entry 4(b)-I which concerns lamps with a high colour rendering higher than 80, equal to or lower than 105W and that, whilst the use of mercury is still necessary, that can be further lowered. The evaluation included stakeholder consultations in accordance with Article 5(7) of Directive 2011/65/EU. The comments received during those consultations were made publicly available on a dedicated website.

(8)

It is therefore appropriate to renew part of exemption 4(b)-I, and renumber it as exemption entry 4(b), for a maximum period of 5 years in accordance with Article 5(2), first subparagraph, of Directive 2011/65/EU. This renewed exemption shall have a revised wording setting out the further limited scope of the exemption. In view of the results of the ongoing efforts to find a reliable substitution, the duration of the exemption is unlikely to have adverse impacts on innovation.

(9)

The renewed exemption is consistent with Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) and thus does not weaken the environmental and health protection afforded by it.

(10)

As the conditions for the renewal of the exemption, set out in Article 5(1), point (a), of Directive 2011/65/EU, are no longer fulfilled for the applications listed in the remainder of entry 4(b)-I as well as in entries 4(b)-II and 4(b)-III of Annex III to that Directive, the exemption for those applications should be revoked. Expiry dates for those exemptions should be set in accordance with Article 5(6) of Directive 2011/65/EU.

(11)

Directive 2011/65/EU should therefore be amended accordingly,

(1)

Directive 2011/65/EU requires Member States to ensure that electrical and electronic equipment placed on the market does not contain the hazardous substances listed in Annex II to that Directive. That restriction does not apply to certain exempted applications, which are listed in Annex III to the Directive.

(2)

The categories of electrical and electronic equipment to which Directive 2011/65/EU applies are listed in Annex I to that Directive.

(3)

Mercury is a restricted substance listed in Annex II to Directive 2011/65/EU.

(4)

By Decision 2010/571/EU (2), the Commission granted, among other things, an exemption for the use of mercury in double-capped linear fluorescent lamps for general lighting purposes (‘the exemption’), which is now listed as exemption 2(a)(1), 2(a)(2), 2(a)(3), 2(a)(4) and 2(a)(5) in Annex III to Directive 2011/65/EU. The exemption was to expire on 21 July 2016, in accordance with Article 5(2), second subparagraph, point (a), of that Directive.

(5)

Mercury is used in double-capped linear fluorescent lamps for general lighting purposes to produce ultraviolet light, which is then converted into visible light by the fluorescent coating on the lamp.

(6)

On 19 December 2014 and 15 January 2015, the Commission received two applications for renewal of the exemption (‘the renewal applications’), that is within the time limit laid down in Article 5(5) of Directive 2011/65/EU, of which one was updated with a renewed application on 20 January 2020. In accordance with Article 5(5), second subparagraph, of Directive 2011/65/EU, the exemption remains valid until a decision on the renewal application has been taken.

(7)

The evaluation of the renewal applications, which took into account the availability of substitutes and the socioeconomic impact of substitution, concluded that sufficiently reliable mercury-free substitutes for the lamp types covered by the exemption have become available and that the substitution of mercury in these lamps is scientifically and technically practicable. Furthermore, that evaluation concluded that the benefits of substitution would clearly outweigh any negative impact.

(8)

The evaluation of the renewal applications included stakeholder consultations in accordance with Article 5(7) of Directive 2011/65/EU. The comments received during those consultations were made publicly available on a dedicated website.

(9)

As the conditions set out in Article 5(1), point (a), of Directive 2011/65/EU are no longer fulfilled, the renewal application should be rejected. Expiry dates for the exemption should be set in accordance with Article 5(6) of that Directive.

(10)

Directive 2011/65/EU should therefore be amended accordingly,

(1)

Pursuant to Article 300(3) of the Treaty, the Committee of the Regions is to consist of representatives of regional and local bodies who either hold a regional or local authority electoral mandate or are politically accountable to an elected assembly.

(2)

On 10 December 2019, the Council adopted Decision (EU) 2019/2157 (2), appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2020 to 25 January 2025.

(3)

Two members’ seats on the Committee of the Regions have become vacant following the end of the national mandates on the basis of which Mr Joseph CORDINA and Mr Paul FARRUGIA were proposed for appointment.

(4)

An alternate member’s seat on the Committee of the Regions had been vacant since 26 January 2020.

(5)

The Maltese Government has proposed the following representatives of regional or local bodies who hold a regional or local electoral mandate as members of the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2025: Mr Paul FARRUGIA, Reġjun Port – President (Port Region – President), and Mr Mark GRECH, Kunsill Lokali Ħaż-Żabbar – Kunsillier Lokali (Żabbar Local Council – Local Councillor).

(6)

The Maltese Government has also proposed Mr Stephen SULTANA, representative of a local body who holds a local authority electoral mandate, Kunsill Lokali Santa Venera – Sindku (Santa Venera Local Council – Mayor), as an alternate member of the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2025, in relation to the vacant seat referred to above,

(a)

as members:

and

(b)

as an alternate member:

(1)

Pursuant to Article 300(3) of the Treaty, the Committee of the Regions is to consist of representatives of regional and local bodies who either hold a regional or local authority electoral mandate or are politically accountable to an elected assembly.

(2)

On 10 December 2019, the Council adopted Decision (EU) 2019/2157 (2), appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2020 to 25 January 2025.

(3)

A member’s seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the resignation of Mr Michael SCHNEIDER.

(4)

The German Government has proposed Mr Sven SCHULZE, representative of a regional or local body who is politically accountable to an elected assembly, Minister für Wirtschaft, Tourismus, Landwirtschaft und Forsten des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt (Minister for Economic Affairs, Tourism, Agriculture and Forestry of the Federal State of Saxony-Anhalt), as a member of the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2025,

(1)

Directive 2011/65/EU requires Member States to ensure that electrical and electronic equipment placed on the market does not contain the hazardous substances listed in Annex II to that Directive. That restriction does not apply to certain exempted applications listed in Annex III to that Directive.

(2)

The categories of electrical and electronic equipment to which Directive 2011/65/EU applies are listed in Annex I to that Directive.

(3)

Mercury is a restricted substance listed in Annex II to Directive 2011/65/EU.

(4)

By Decision 2010/571/EU (2), the Commission granted, among other things, an exemption for the use of mercury in other linear fluorescent lamps for other general lighting and special purposes (e.g. induction lamps)(‘the exemption’), which is now listed as exemption 2(b)(4) in Annex III to Directive 2011/65/EU .The exemption was to expire on 21 July 2016, in accordance with Article 5(2), second subparagraph, point (a), of that Directive.

(5)

The exemption covers an inhomogeneous group of lamps of different shapes, technologies, applications, and purposes. Mercury is used in the discharge tube, which is essential to convert electrical energy to light.

(6)

On 15 January 2015, the Commission received an application for renewal of the exemption (‘the renewal application’), that is within the time limit laid down in Article 5(5) of Directive 2011/65/EU, which was updated on 20 January 2020 by an additional renewal application. In accordance with Article 5(5) of that Directive, the exemption remains valid until a decision on the renewal application has been taken.

(7)

The evaluation of the renewal application, which took into account the availability of substitutes and the socioeconomic impact of substitution, concluded that the substitution or elimination of mercury in the applications concerned is currently technically impracticable. That evaluation included stakeholder consultations in accordance with Article 5(7) of Directive 2011/65/EU. The comments received during those consultations were made publicly available on a dedicated website.

(8)

The exemption is consistent with Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) and thus does not weaken the environmental and health protection afforded by it.

(9)

It is therefore appropriate to grant the renewal of the exemption taking into account the general aim that exemptions from the restriction for certain specific materials or components should be limited in their scope and duration, in order to achieve a gradual phase-out of hazardous substances in EEE.

(10)

In order to allow for a timely reassessment of the availability of mercury-free replacement lamps for the wide variety of lamp types covered by this exemption, it is appropriate to grant the renewal of the exemption for a limited period of three years. However, for specific lamp categories, namely lamps emitting light in the non-visible spectrum (new sub-entry 2(b)(4)-II of Annex III) and emergency lamps (new sub-entry 2(b)(4)-III of Annex III), there is sufficient information that substitution is technically impracticable in the next years and for those categories of lamps, a validity period of five years should be justified, in accordance with Article 5(2), first subparagraph, of Directive 2011/65/EU. In view of the results of the ongoing efforts to find a reliable substitution, the duration of the exemption is unlikely to have adverse impacts on innovation.

(11)

Directive 2011/65/EU should therefore be amended accordingly,

(1)

Decision No 1313/2013/EU sets out the legal framework of rescEU. rescEU is a reserve of capacities at Union level aiming to provide assistance in overwhelming situations where overall existing capacities at national level and those committed by Member States to the European Civil Protection Pool are not able to ensure an effective response to natural and man-made disasters.

(2)

In accordance with Article 12(2) of Decision No 1313/2013/EU, rescEU’s capacities are to be determined by taking into account identified and emerging risks, overall capacities and gaps at Union level. There are four areas on which rescEU should particularly focus, namely aerial forest firefighting, chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (‘CBRN’) incidents, emergency medical response, as well as transport and logistics.

(3)

Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/570 (2) sets out the initial composition of rescEU in terms of capacities and quality requirements. The rescEU reserve so far consists of aerial forest firefighting capacities, medical aerial evacuation capacities, emergency medical teams, stockpiling of medical equipment or personal protective equipment (‘medical stockpiling capacities’), or both, CBRN decontamination capacities and CBRN stockpiling capacities.

(4)

An analysis of identified and emerging risks as well as of capacities and gaps at Union level reveals a need for temporary shelter capacities.

(5)

The need to address qualitative and quantitative gaps in shelter capacities was identified in various operations of the Union Civil Protection Mechanism (‘Union Mechanism’) during the last years, and was reflected in the ‘Evaluation Study of Definitions, Gaps and Cost of Response Capacities for the Union Civil Protection Mechanism’ (3)from 2019. In addition, the operational experience from the earthquakes hitting Croatia in March 2020 and in December 2020 confirmed the gap for shelter capacities despite prompt response operations under the Union Mechanism in which several Member States took part.

(6)

The main purpose of the rescEU temporary shelter capacity, when deployed during a response operation under the Union Mechanism, is to provide temporary shelter to affected population which includes space for housing, hygiene and sanitation, basic medical service and social-gathering.

(7)

The temporary shelter capacity under rescEU should consist of a physical reserve of high-quality assets for rapid response or of a virtual reserve of customisable assets that could be deployed in a subsequent phase when required for response operations under the Union Mechanism, or both.

(8)

Pursuant to Article 12(4) of Decision No 1313/2013/EU, quality requirements for the response capacities forming part of rescEU are to be defined in consultation with Member States. Minimum standards for temporary shelter capacities should be based on the shelter standards under the Sphere Handbook chapter ‘Shelter and Settlement’ (4).

(9)

Temporary shelter capacities should be established to respond to low probability risks with a high impact, in accordance with the categories referred to in Article 3d of Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/570 and after consultation with the Member States.

(10)

In order to provide Union financial assistance for developing such temporary shelter capacities, in accordance with Article 21(3) of Decision No 1313/2013/EU, the eligible costs should be established by taking into account the categories laid down in Annex Ia to that Decision.

(11)

The World Health Organization (WHO) Global Emergency Medical Team initiative has recently revised the standards (5) for the Emergency medical team type 3 capacities (Inpatient Referral Care). Therefore, the quality requirements for this Emergency Medical Team type under rescEU should be modified accordingly.

(12)

Reflections on lessons learnt from the COVID-19 crisis have further shown the need for additional flexibility and modularity of rescEU emergency medical team capacities. Therefore, rescEU should include Emergency Medical Team type 2 capacities (Inpatient Surgical Emergency Care) complemented by specialised care services, in line with the standards of the WHO Global Emergency Medical Team initiative.

(13)

Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/570 should therefore be amended accordingly.

(14)

The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the committee referred to in Article 33(1) of Decision No 1313/2013/EU,

(1)

Article 1a is amended as follows:

(2)

Article 2 is amended as follows:

(3)

Article 3a is replaced by the following:

(4)

in Article 3e, paragraphs 3 and 4 are replaced by the following:

(5)

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

(1)

Bulgaria, Czechia, Denmark, France, Italy, Finland and the International Center for Advanced Mediterranean Agronomic Studies submitted to the Commission an application to set up the Analysis and Experimentation on Ecosystems ERIC (AnaEE-ERIC) (‘the application’). Belgium has made known its decision to participate in AnaEE-ERIC initially as an observer.

(2)

The applicants have agreed that France would be the host Member State of AnaEE- ERIC.

(3)

Regulation (EC) No 723/2009 has been incorporated in the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA) by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 72/2015 (2).

(4)

The Commission has, pursuant to Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 723/2009, assessed the application and concluded that it meets the requirements set out in that Regulation. In the course of the assessment the Commission obtained the views of independent experts in the field of Analysis and Experimentation on Ecosystems.

(5)

The measures set out in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established under Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 723/2009.

(1)

On 30 June 2020, the Council adopted Recommendation (EU) 2020/912 on the temporary restriction on non-essential travel into the EU and the possible lifting of such restriction (1).

(2)

On 2 February 2021, the Council amended Recommendation (EU) 2020/912 on the temporary restriction on non-essential travel into the EU and the possible lifting of such restriction (2) to update the criteria used to assess whether non-essential travel from third countries is safe and should be allowed.

(3)

The same amendment introduced mechanisms to contain the spread of variants of concern of the virus SARS-COV-2 in the EU (3).

(4)

On 20 May 2021, the Council amended Recommendation (EU) 2020/912 (4) to take into account the roll-out and the positive effects of the vaccination campaigns in containing the spread of the virus, as well as in order to further contain the importation and spread into the EU of the emerging variants of interest and of concern.

(5)

On 14 June 2021, the Parliament and the Council adopted Regulations (EU) 2021/953 (5) and (EU) 2021/954 (6) on EU Digital COVID Certificate. The EU Digital COVID Certificate has proved to be a fundamental tool to help restore travel within the EU.

(6)

Since the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2021/953, the Commission has adopted several implementing acts establishing that COVID-19 certificates issued by a certain third country are to be considered as equivalent to certificates issued by Member States in accordance with that Regulation. Vaccination, recovery and test certificates covered by such implementing acts can thus be securely and reliable authenticated. Therefore, the EU Digital COVID Certificate, and in particular the implementing decisions adopted on this basis, have also facilitated the safe reopening of travel from third countries to the EU (7).

(7)

The current approach set out in Recommendation (EU) 2020/912 should be updated to take account of the establishment of the EU Digital COVID certificate as well as considering the evolution of the pandemic, including the emergence of the omicron variant of concern, the increasing vaccination uptake and the progressive lifting of travel restrictions worldwide.

(8)

On 22 October 2021, the European Council in its conclusions, in light of the development of the epidemiological situation, called for further coordination to facilitate free movement within, and travel into, the EU, and for a revision of the two Recommendations, including Council Recommendation (EU) 2020/912.

(9)

The standard acceptance period for vaccination certificates issued by third countries following the completion of a primary vaccination series should be set at 270 days. To ensure a coordinated approach, Member States should not accept vaccination certificates issued following the completion of the primary vaccination series if more than 270 days have passed since the administration of the dose indicated therein. In this case, Member States should accept vaccination certificates indicating that an additional dose has been received following the completion of the primary vaccination series.

(10)

To further facilitate safe travel into the EU, the threshold for the 14-days cumulative COVID-19 case notification rate should be increased from 75 to 100 per 100 000 inhabitants. At the same time and to take account of the enhanced testing capabilities almost 2 years after the first appearance of the virus, the required minimum weekly testing rate should also be increased from 300 to 600 tests per 100 000 inhabitants. This should further increase the reliability of the data used to determine to what extent non-essential travel should be possible from a given third country.

(11)

To better allow for non-essential travel into the Union and to increase predictability for third-country travellers, Member States should not only accept COVID-19 vaccines that have been granted a marketing authorisation pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (8) but also those having completed the emergency listing procedure of the World Health Organisation (WHO).

(12)

Furthermore, as alternative to vaccination, Member States should allow non-essential travel to persons having recovered from COVID-19 within 180 days prior to travelling to the EU and who hold an EU Digital COVID certificate or one having been recognised as equivalent to it.

(13)

At the same time, to further reduce the risk of transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, Member States could also require a valid proof of a negative real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test before departure when the traveller has either (i) received a COVID-19 vaccine having completed the WHO Emergency Use Listing process but that does not appear on the list of vaccines authorised in the EU pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 or (ii) recovered from COVID-19 within 180 days prior to travelling to the EU.

(13a)

Due to the fact that it may not be possible to verify the authenticity, integrity and validity of the vaccination certificates issued by third countries not using the trust framework of the EU Digital COVID Certificate or a vaccination certificate having been recognised as equivalent to it, Member States could also require a valid proof of a negative RT-PCR test before departure where the traveller is fully vaccinated with a COVID-19 vaccine that has been granted a marketing authorisation pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 but is not in possession of an EU Digital COVID Certificate or one having been recognised as equivalent to it.

(14)

Children above the age of 6 and under the age of 18 should be able to travel under the condition of having tested negative to a RT-PCR test before departure. In these cases, Member States could require additional testing after arrival, quarantine or self-isolation. Where children above the age of 6 and under the age of 18 are in possession of a valid proof of COVID-19 vaccination issued on the basis of a COVID-19 vaccine authorised in the EU pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 no test should be required. Children under the age of 6 travelling with an adult should not be subject to additional requirements.

(14a)

Member States could allow non-essential travel to persons for whom accepted COVID-19 vaccination is medically contraindicated provided these persons have submitted the necessary documentation and have tested negative to a RT-PCR test before departure.

(15)

In consideration of the increasing vaccination uptake worldwide, it is appropriate to start to consider to gradually move from the current hybrid country/person-based approach to a purely person-based approach and base the lifting of travel restrictions solely on the vaccination status or the function/need fulfilled by travellers. However, at the moment there are still third countries with either a limited access to vaccines or a low vaccination rate. Therefore, to give time to third countries to increase their vaccination rates including the administration of booster doses to ensure the validity of the vaccination certificates and upon a prior general assessment of the vaccination situation in third countries based on data supplied, among others, by the EU Delegations, by 30 April 2022, the Recommendation should be reviewed by the Commission with a view to the deletion of Annex I taking into account the increasing vaccination uptake worldwide. The Commission should report to the Council, and could submit to it, as appropriate, a proposal to delete Annex I.

(16)

In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No 22 on the Position of Denmark annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the TFEU, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Recommendation and is not bound by it or subject to its application. Given that this Recommendation builds upon the Schengen acquis, Denmark should, in accordance with Article 4 of the said Protocol, decide within a period of 6 months after the Council has decided on this Recommendation whether it will implement it.

(17)

This Recommendation constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis in which Ireland does not take part, in accordance with Council Decision 2002/192/EC (9); Ireland is therefore not taking part in its adoption and is not bound by it or subject to its application.

(18)

As regards Iceland and Norway, this Recommendation constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis within the meaning of the Agreement concluded by the Council of the European Union and the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway concerning the latter’s association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis (10) which fall within the area referred to in Article 1, point A, of Council Decision 1999/437/EC (11).

(19)

As regards Switzerland, this Recommendation constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis within the meaning of the Agreement between the European Union, the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on the Swiss Confederation’s association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis (12) which fall within the area referred to in Article 1, point A, of Decision 1999/437/EC read in conjunction with Article 3 of Council Decision 2008/146/EC (13).

(20)

As regards Liechtenstein, this Recommendation constitutes a development of provisions of the Schengen acquis within the meaning of the Protocol between the European Union, the European Community, the Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein on the accession of the Principality of Liechtenstein to the Agreement between the European Union, the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on the Swiss Confederation’s association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis (14) which fall within the area referred to in Article 1 point A, of Decision 1999/437/EC read in conjunction with Article 3 of Decision 2011/350/EU (15).

(21)

The legal status of this Recommendation as recalled in recitals 15 to 19 is without prejudice to the need for all Member States, in the interest of the proper functioning of the Schengen area, to decide on the lifting of the restriction on non-essential travel into the Union in a coordinated manner,

(1)

Article 164(5) point (d) of the Withdrawal Agreement enables the Joint Committee established under Article 164(1) thereof (‘the Joint Committee’) to adopt decisions amending that Agreement, provided that such amendments are necessary to correct errors, to address omissions or other deficiencies, or to address situations unforeseen when the Agreement was signed, and provided that such decisions do not amend the essential elements of that Agreement. Pursuant to Article 166(2) of the Withdrawal Agreement, the decisions adopted by the Joint Committee are binding on the Union and the United Kingdom. The Union and the United Kingdom must implement such decisions, which shall have the same legal effect as the Withdrawal Agreement.

(2)

In the interests of legal certainty, Part I of Annex I to the Withdrawal Agreement should be amended by adding five decisions and two recommendations of the Administrative Commission for the Coordination of Social Security Systems which were not previously listed therein, and by removing and replacing two decisions,

(1)

In Part I of Annex I to the Withdrawal Agreement, Recommendation No A1 of the Administrative Commission for the Coordination of Social Security Systems concerning the issuance of the attestation referred to in Article 19(2) of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) is added under ‘Applicable legislation (A series)’;

(2)

In Part I of Annex I to the Withdrawal Agreement, Decision No. E6 of the Administrative Commission for the Coordination of Social Security Systems concerning the determination of when an electronic message is considered legally delivered in the Electronic Exchange of Social Security Information (EESSI) system (3) is be added under ‘Electronic Data Exchange (E series)’;

(3)

In Part I of Annex I to the Withdrawal Agreement, Decision No. H9 of the Administrative Commission for the Coordination of Social Security Systems regarding the postponement of deadlines mentioned in Articles 67 and 70 of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council as well as in Decision No S9 due to the COVID-19 Pandemic (4), is added under ‘Horizontal issues (H series)’;

(4)

In Part I of Annex I to the Withdrawal Agreement, Decision No. H10 of the Administrative Commission for the Coordination of Social Security Systems concerning the methods of operation and the composition of the Technical Commission for Data Processing of the Administrative Commission for the Coordination of Social Security Systems (5) shall be added under ‘Horizontal issues (H series)’;

(5)

In Part I of Annex I to the Withdrawal Agreement, Decision No. H11 of the Administrative Commission for the Coordination of Social Security Systems regarding the postponement of deadlines mentioned in Articles 67 and 70 of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 as well as in Decision No S9 due to the COVID-19 Pandemic (6) shall be added under ‘Horizontal issues (H series)’;

(6)

In Part I of Annex I to the Withdrawal Agreement, Recommendation No. H2 of the Administrative Commission for the Coordination of Social Security Systems concerning the inclusion of authentication features to Portable Documents issued by the institution of a Member State and showing the position of a person for the purpose of the application of Regulations (EC) No 883/2004 and (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council (7) shall be added under ‘Horizontal issues (H series)’;

(7)

In Part I of Annex I to the Withdrawal Agreement, Decision S11 of the Administrative Commission for the Coordination of Social Security Systems concerning refund procedures for the implementation of Articles 35 and 41 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 (8) shall be added under ‘Sickness (S series)’;

(8)

In Part I of Annex I to the Withdrawal Agreement, the following acts shall be removed and replaced:

(1)

Pursuant to Article 171(1) 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 (‘the Withdrawal Agreement’), the Joint Committee established, by the end of the transition period set under that Agreement, a list of 25 persons who are willing and able to serve as ordinary members of an arbitration panel. The Joint Committee is to ensure that the list complies with the requirements at any moment in time.

(2)

Pursuant to Article 171(2) of the Withdrawal Agreement, the list is not to comprise persons who are members, officials or other servants of the Union institutions, of the government of a Member State, or of the government of the United Kingdom.

(3)

One of the persons on the list proposed by the Union has been appointed as a member of a Union institution and therefore no longer fulfils the requirements for being an arbitrator under the Withdrawal Agreement.

(4)

It is therefore necessary to replace that person on the list of persons set out in Annex I to Decision No 7/2020 of the Joint Committee (2),