(1)

In accordance with Article 67(3) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2), the revenue of the European Medicines Agency consists of a contribution from the Union and fees paid by undertakings to that Agency. Regulation (EC) No 297/95 lays down the categories and levels of such fees.

(2)

Those fees should be updated by reference to the inflation rate of 2022. The inflation rate in the Union, as published by the Statistical Office of the European Union (3), was 10,4% in 2022.

(3)

For the sake of simplicity, the adjusted levels of the fees should be rounded to the nearest EUR 100.

(4)

Regulation (EC) No 297/95 should therefore be amended accordingly.

(5)

For reasons of legal certainty, this Regulation should not apply to valid applications which are pending on 1 April 2023.

(6)

In accordance with Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 297/95, the update is to be made with effect from 1 April 2023. It is therefore appropriate that this Regulation enters into force as a matter of urgency and applies from that date,

(1)

Article 3 is amended as follows:

(2)

in Article 4, first paragraph, “EUR 77 900” is replaced by “EUR 86 000”;

(3)

Article 5 is amended as follows:

(4)

in Article 6, first paragraph, “EUR 46 900” is replaced by “EUR 51 800”;

(5)

Article 7 is amended as follows:

(6)

Article 8 is amended as follows:

(1)

Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the application from Romania to register the name ‘Plăcintă dobrogeană’ as Protected Geographical Indication was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

(2)

On 27 April 2021 the Commission received from Bulgaria the notice of opposition. The Commission forwarded the notice of opposition to Romania on 29 April 2021. On 23 June 2021 Bulgaria submitted to the Commission a reasoned statement of opposition.

(3)

After examining the reasoned statement of opposition and founding it admissible, in accordance with Article 51(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Commission invited Romania and Bulgaria, by letter of 20 July 2021, to engage in appropriate consultations in view of reaching an agreement.

(4)

The consultations between Romania and Bulgaria ended without an agreement being reached. The Commission should therefore take a decision on the registration in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 52(3)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 taking into account the results of these consultations.

(5)

In accordance with Article 10(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 Bulgaria alleged that the registration of ‘Plăcintă dobrogeană’ as a Protected Geographical Indication would be a threat to the existence of the product named ‘Dobrudzhanska banitsa’, which has been prepared as traditional pastry in Bulgaria for centuries and is a part of the Bulgarian gastronomic and cultural heritage.

In fact, in Bulgarian ‘Dobrudzhanska banitsa’ has the same meaning as ‘Plăcintă dobrogeană’. Moreover, Bulgaria claimed that this name designates products sharing similar ingredients, preparation stages and final product characteristics, and thus the essential elements of both ‘Dobrudzhanska banitsa’ and ‘Plăcintă dobrogeană’ could be considered as identical. Such similarities are historically determined, bearing in mind that Dobrudzha, as a historical and geographic region, is divided between the two countries, e.g. Northern Dobrudzha situated in Romania, and Southern Dobrudzha situated in Bulgaria. Therefore, both regions, even if located in two different countries, share similar traditions and culinary habits.

As a result, Bulgaria questioned the link between the product and the geographical area.

(6)

Finally, Bulgaria drew attention to a negative effect on the economic interests of ‘Dobrudzhanska banitsa’ producers in Bulgaria that the registration of ‘Plăcintă dobrogeană’ as a Protected Geographical Indication would have, and claimed it might mislead consumers about the origin of the product.

(7)

The Commission has assessed the arguments exposed in the reasoned statement of opposition from Bulgaria in the light of the provisions of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, taking into account the results of the appropriate consultations carried out between the applicant and the opponent.

(8)

The product designated as ‘Plăcintă dobrogeană’ in Romania shares similarities with the product being in legal use in Bulgaria and which is designated as ‘Dobrudzhanska banitsa’. However, despite the shared traditions and culinary habits linked to the geographical and historical region of Dobrogea/Dobrudzha, these traditions and habits evolved distinctively in Romania and Bulgaria, resulting in differences in the preparation, reputation and the use of the names designating the products.

Firstly, the product designated as ‘Plăcintă dobrogeană’ has specific characteristics that makes it distinctive, if compared to the product designated as ‘Dobrudzhanska banitsa’. In Romania only cheese, yoghurt and eggs are admitted as filling, while for production of ‘Dobrudzhanska banitsa’ in Bulgaria also meat and/or vegetables can be used, as well as fresh milk. Further differences concern the use of curd – compulsory in Romania, but optional in Bulgaria. Another distinction concerns dough sheets, which are creased and rolled in Romania, while in Bulgaria they are folded like an accordion.

Romania has also demonstrated an established reputation of the name ‘Plăcintă dobrogeană’, which refers to the product produced in the geographical area, defined in the single document as the Tulcea and Constanța Counties, also known as ‘Dobrogea’. In Bulgaria, a parallel reputation of the name ‘Dobrudzhanska banitsa’ was neither claimed, nor sufficiently demonstrated.

Finally, in contrast to ‘Plăcintă dobrogeană’, the product designated as ‘Dobrudzhanska banitsa’ is primarily destined for local and home production.

(9)

The name ‘Plăcintă dobrogeană’ is indisputably associated with the pastry product made out of pastry sheets filled with salted soft cheese (telemea) mixed with curd and eggs produced in the geographical area. The product has, therefore, qualities and reputation that are attributable to its geographical origin. In the light of the above, the link between the product designated as ‘Plăcintă dobrogeană’ and the geographical area may not be questioned.

(10)

The terms ‘Dobrudzhanska banitsa’ is the translation in Bulgarian of the name ‘Plăcintă dobrogeană’. As the names are identical in translation, the protection of the registered name ‘Plăcintă dobrogeană’, as provided for by Article 13 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, would have the result of preventing Bulgarian producers from using the term ‘Dobrudzhanska banitsa’ to market their comparable products.

(11)

The use of the term ‘Dobrudzhanska banitsa’ was not meant to exploit the reputation of the name ‘Plăcintă dobrogeană’. The consumers have not been, nor could have been misled as to the true origin of the products. In fact, the situation on the two markets was different for the two products. ‘Plăcintă dobrogeană’ refers to a product that possesses its distinct market, where it enjoys reputation for its own qualities and characteristics linked to the geographic origin. ‘Dobrudzhanska banitsa’ refers to a product that is consumed mainly as local or even home production.

(12)

The product ‘Dobrudzhanska banitsa’ is usually prepared and consumed directly within the same day. This product has not been marketed in another country, as it is not offered frozen and, therefore, consumers have not been and could not be misled as to the true origin of the product. In particular, ‘Dobrudzhanska banitsa’ has not been and it is not export oriented.

(13)

For these reasons, and as it was shown that the name ‘Dobrudzhanska banitsa’ has been in legal use consistently and fairly for at least 25 years before the application for registration of ‘Plăcintă dobrogeană’ was submitted to the Commission, in the interests of fairness and traditional usage and given the agreement reached between the applicant and the opponent in this regard, the transitional period of 10 years should be granted.

(14)

In the light of the above, the name ‘Plăcintă dobrogeană’ should be entered in the Register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications.

(15)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Agricultural Product Quality Policy Committee,

(1)

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’) was concluded by Council Decision (EU) 2020/135 (1) and entered into force on 1 February 2020. The Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland (‘the Protocol’) forms an integral part of the Withdrawal Agreement, pursuant to Article 182 thereof.

(2)

The Joint Consultative Working Group (‘the working group’) was established by Article 15(1) of the Protocol to serve as a forum for the exchange of information and mutual consultation on the implementation of the Protocol.

(3)

Pursuant to Article 15(2) of the Protocol, the working group is composed of representatives of the Union and the United Kingdom and is to carry out its functions under the supervision of the Specialised Committee on issues related to the implementation of the Protocol, established by Article 165(1), point (c), of the Withdrawal Agreement, to which it reports.

(4)

Pursuant to Article 15(6) of the Protocol, the working group is to adopt its own rules of procedure by mutual consent. The working group adopted its own rules of procedure at its first meeting on 29 January 2021 (‘the Rules of Procedure’).

(5)

It is necessary to amend the Rules of Procedure to allow the working group to be supported by structured sub-groups in order to improve the manner in which the working group carries out its tasks as defined in Article 15 of the Protocol.

(6)

It is appropriate to establish the position to be taken on the Union’s behalf within the working group concerning the amendment of the Rules of Procedure.

(7)

In order to allow for the prompt application of the measures provided for in this Decision, this Decision should enter into force on the date of its adoption,

(1)

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’) was concluded by the Union by Council Decision (EU) 2020/135 (1) and entered into force on 1 February 2020.

(2)

Article 164(5)(d) of the Withdrawal Agreement empowers 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, except in relation to Parts One, Four and Six of the Withdrawal Agreement, and provided that such decisions do not amend the essential elements of that Agreement.

(3)

Article 166(1) of the Withdrawal Agreement empowers the Joint Committee to adopt decisions in respect of all matters for which that Agreement so provides and to make appropriate recommendations to the Union and the United Kingdom. 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, and the Union and the United Kingdom are to implement those decisions, which have the same legal effect as the Withdrawal Agreement. Article 166(3) of the Withdrawal Agreement provides that recommendations are to be made by mutual consent.

(4)

In accordance with Article 182 of the Withdrawal Agreement, the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland (‘the Protocol’) forms an integral part of that Agreement.

(5)

It is appropriate for the Union and the United Kingdom to make a Joint Declaration within the Joint Committee to the effect that, wherever relevant in their dealings under the Withdrawal Agreement, they will, consistent with the requirements of legal certainty, refer to the Protocol as amended as the ‘Windsor Framework’, and that they may in the same way refer to the Protocol as amended in their domestic legislation.

(6)

Having regard to the specific circumstances in Northern Ireland, it is necessary to provide that the Union and the United Kingdom should make their best efforts to ensure that the facilitations to trade between Northern Ireland and other parts of the United Kingdom include specific arrangements for the movement of goods within the United Kingdom’s internal market, consistent with Northern Ireland’s position as part of the customs territory of the United Kingdom in accordance with that Protocol, where the goods are destined for final consumption or final use in Northern Ireland and where the necessary safeguards are in place to protect the integrity of the Union’s internal market and customs union. Consequently, the Protocol should be amended accordingly.

(7)

The Union should take note of the Unilateral Declaration by the United Kingdom within the Joint Committee setting out the practice it intends to put in place as regards the movement of goods from Northern Ireland to other parts of the United Kingdom.

(8)

The Union should take note of the Unilateral Declaration by the United Kingdom in the Joint Committee setting out the practice it intends to put in place as regards market surveillance and enforcement activities.

(9)

It is necessary to ensure enhanced cooperation between the United Kingdom and the Union, and between the United Kingdom and Member State authorities where appropriate, to underpin the envisaged specific arrangements with effective market surveillance and enforcement activity. The Joint Committee should therefore make a recommendation providing for such enhanced cooperation and setting out that the cooperation could encompass knowledge-sharing, information exchange, work with operators and joint activity.

(10)

Taking into account the specific circumstances in Northern Ireland, including its integral place in the United Kingdom’s internal market, certain amendments to Annex 3 to the Protocol should be made. The application of those amendments should not lead to fiscal fraud risks or to any potential distortion of competition. The implementation of those amendments in Northern Ireland, and in particular the implementation of the special scheme for distance sales of goods imported from third territories or third countries, should neither create risks to the Union’s internal market, and the United Kingdom’s internal market, nor create undue burdens for businesses operating in Northern Ireland. In order to clarify the scope of application to and in the United Kingdom in respect of Northern Ireland, of certain acts already listed in Annex 3 to the Protocol, two notes should be added to that Annex. With a view to addressing further potential deficiencies or unforeseen circumstances, and in order to ensure that any other notes specifying the manner in which the Union acts listed in Annex 3 apply to and in the United Kingdom in respect of Northern Ireland could be added to that Annex at any point in time, such possibility should be foreseen.

(11)

The Union and the United Kingdom should make a Joint Declaration within the Joint Committee on the VAT regime for goods not being at risk for the Union’s internal market and the VAT arrangements for cross border refunds. By that declaration the Union and the United Kingdom would commit to examining the possibility to add notes clarifying the scope of application of certain acts listed in Annex 3 to the Protocol. The first note would concern the application of the rates laid down in Council Directive 2006/112/EC (2) and would contain a list of goods that by their nature and by the conditions under which they are supplied would be subject to final consumption in Northern Ireland and where the application of different rates would not lead to a negative impact on the Union’s internal market in the form of fiscal fraud risks or potential distortion of competition. The Union and the United Kingdom should also indicate their willingness to evaluate and revise such a list on a regular basis. The second note would concern the current VAT arrangements for cross border refunds under the applicable Union law referred to in Article 8 of the Protocol.

(12)

To ensure the effectiveness of Article 8 of the Protocol, the Union and the United Kingdom should exchange information and discuss in a structured manner any issues arising from the implementation and application of Article 8 of that Protocol, including important changes envisaged in the applicable legislative framework in the Union and the United Kingdom in the areas of VAT and excise concerning goods. It is therefore appropriate for a Decision of the Joint Committee to provide for special meetings of the Specialised Committee on issues related to the implementation of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland (‘the Specialised Committee’) as an enhanced coordination mechanism to allow the Union and the United Kingdom to identify and discuss any issues relating to the functioning of the Protocol in the areas of VAT and excise and propose appropriate action, as necessary.

(13)

In order to further clarify the scope of application of Article 10(1) of the Protocol, it is appropriate for the Union and the United Kingdom to set out a common understanding of the conditions for state aid granted by the United Kingdom authorities to be within the scope of Article 10(1), notably as regards the genuine and direct link to Northern Ireland. It is therefore appropriate for the Union and the United Kingdom to make a Joint Declaration in the Joint Committee to that effect.

(14)

In order to address a situation where a specific Union act amending or replacing an act referred to in the Protocol significantly changes the content or the scope of that act as applicable before being amended or replaced and where the application in Northern Ireland of the Union act as thus amended or replaced would have a significant impact on everyday life of communities in Northern Ireland in a way that is liable to persist, it is necessary to establish an emergency brake mechanism enabling 30 Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) in Northern Ireland from at least two parties (and excluding the Speaker and Deputy Speakers), under each of the conditions set out in paragraph 1 of the draft Unilateral Declaration by the United Kingdom on involvement of the institutions of the Good Friday or Belfast Agreement of 10 April 1998 between the Government of the United Kingdom, the Government of Ireland and the other participants in the multi-party negotiations (‘the 1998 Agreement’) annexed to the envisaged Joint Committee Decision amending the Protocol, to address the abovementioned situation. Those conditions provide, inter alia, that the notification can be made in the most exceptional circumstances and as a last resort, and that MLAs have sought prior substantive discussion with the UK Government and within the Northern Ireland Executive to examine all possibilities in relation to the Union act. Where the United Kingdom has made a notification to the Union to that effect, the Union act as amended or replaced by the specific Union act would not apply to and in the United Kingdom in respect of Northern Ireland pursuant to Article 13(3) of the Protocol. Instead, the Union act as amended or replaced by the specific Union act would have to be added to the relevant Annex to the Protocol in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 13(4) thereof. The Protocol should therefore be amended accordingly.

(15)

Where the United Kingdom has made the notification to the Union referred to in Article 13(3a), first subparagraph, of the Protocol as newly envisaged, but an arbitration panel has ruled that the United Kingdom has failed to comply with the conditions for such notification as laid down in the third subparagraph of that paragraph, swift compliance with such an arbitration panel ruling should be achieved. The Joint Committee should therefore make a recommendation providing for such swift compliance. That should be based on the joint understanding that swift compliance should be achieved in the same way where the United Kingdom has failed to comply with its good faith obligations under Article 5 of the Withdrawal Agreement by making such notification without each of the conditions set out in paragraph 1 of the Unilateral Declaration by the United Kingdom on involvement of the institutions of the 1998 Agreement, as annexed to Joint Committee Decision No 1/2023, being met.

(16)

The Union and the United Kingdom should acknowledge that the United Kingdom’s notification under the newly envisaged Article 13(3a) of the Protocol is to be made under each of the conditions of paragraph 1 of the Unilateral Declaration by the United Kingdom on involvement of the institutions of the 1998 Agreement for it to be made in good faith, in accordance with Article 5 of the Withdrawal Agreement. It is also appropriate to clarify through a Joint Declaration that where an arbitration panel has ruled that the United Kingdom failed to comply with Article 5 of the Withdrawal Agreement in relation to a notification to the Union triggering the mechanism, swift compliance with the ruling of the arbitration panel should be achieved.

(17)

The Union and the United Kingdom should make full use of the joint bodies established by the Withdrawal Agreement to oversee its implementation. The Specialised Committee may allow for exchanges of views on any future legislation of the United Kingdom regarding goods of relevance to the operation of the Protocol. To that end, the Specialised Committee may convene in a specific composition, namely the Special Body on Goods, to assess the potential impact of that future legislation in Northern Ireland, anticipate and discuss any practical difficulties at stake. The Union and United Kingdom would resolve any issues in the operation of the Protocol in the best and most expeditious way possible. It is therefore appropriate for the Union and the United Kingdom to adopt a Joint Declaration in the Joint Committee to that effect.

(18)

The Union should take note of the Unilateral Declaration by the United Kingdom in the Joint Committee concerning the democratic consent mechanism in Article 18 of the Protocol, recalling the tasks of the Joint Committee under Article 164 of the Withdrawal Agreement.

(19)

It has proven necessary to extend the scope of the traders eligible for moving goods not at risk from other parts of the United Kingdom to Northern Ireland referred to in Decision No 4/2020 of the Joint Committee (3). In particular, new conditions should be established for considering that goods are not subject to commercial processing including by increasing the annual turnover threshold for operators in order to consider that the processing of goods by those operators does not qualify as commercial processing, irrespective of their sector of activity. Moreover, operators established in other parts of the United Kingdom should be allowed to adhere to the trusted trader scheme underpinning the arrangements for moving goods not at risk. The specific conditions for the authorisation of trusted traders should be set out in greater detail, thereby ensuring that the customs facilitations afforded to trusted traders and authorised carriers when moving goods not at risk from other parts of the United Kingdom to Northern Ireland, which are to be laid down in targeted amendments to the relevant Union acts will be accompanied by stronger safeguards.

(20)

In addition, rules should be laid down for specifying the conditions under which goods sent in parcels from other parts of the United Kingdom to Northern Ireland can be considered as being not at risk where those parcels are delivered to private individuals residing in Northern Ireland and are brought into Northern Ireland by authorised carriers.

(21)

The Union should take note of the Unilateral Declaration by the United Kingdom in the Joint Committee setting out the practice it intends to put in place to strengthen enforcement action concerning goods moved in parcels from another part of the United Kingdom to Northern Ireland.

(22)

It is appropriate to establish the position to be taken on the Union’s behalf within the Joint Committee as regards a decision to be adopted, and recommendations and joint and unilateral declarations to be made,

(1)

Pursuant to Article 300(2) of the Treaty, the Economic and Social Committee is to consist of representatives of organisations of employers, of the employed, and of other parties representative of civil society, notably in socioeconomic, civic, professional and cultural areas.

(2)

On 2 October 2020, the Council adopted Decision (EU) 2020/1392 (2), appointing the members of the European Economic and Social Committee for the period from 21 September 2020 to 20 September 2025.

(3)

A member’s seat on the European Economic and Social Committee has become vacant following the resignation of Ms Mary DOYLE.

(4)

The Government of Ireland has proposed Mr Neil WALKER, Head of Infrastructure, Energy and Environment, Irish Business and Employers Confederation (IBEC), as a member of the European Economic and Social Committee for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 20 September 2025,

(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 20 January 2020, the Council adopted Decision (EU) 2020/102 (2), appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2020 to 25 January 2025. On 26 March 2020, the Council adopted Decision (EU) 2020/511 (3), 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 Pierre-Yves JEHOLET.

(4)

An alternate member’s seat will become vacant following the appointment of Ms Annabel TAVERNIER as a member of the Committee of the Regions.

(5)

The Belgian Government has proposed Ms Annabel TAVERNIER, representative of a regional body who holds a regional authority electoral mandate, Vlaams Parlementslid (Member of the Flemish Parliament), as a member of the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2025.

(6)

The Belgian Government has proposed Mr Jeroen TIEBOUT, representative of a regional body who holds a regional authority electoral mandate, Vlaams Parlementslid (Member of the Flemish Parliament), 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,

(a)

as a member:

and

(b)

as an alternate member:

(1)

Regulation (EC) No 66/2010 provides that the EU Ecolabel may be awarded to products with a reduced environmental impact during their entire life cycle. Specific EU Ecolabel criteria are to be established for each product group.

(2)

By Commission Decision (EU) 2017/175 (2) EU Ecolabel criteria and related assessment and verifications requirements were established for the product group “tourist accommodation”.

(3)

By Commission Decision (EU) 2018/680 (3) EU Ecolabel criteria and related assessment and verifications requirements were established for the product group “indoor cleaning services”.

(4)

Both Decisions (EU) 2017/175 and (EU) 2018/680 include energy efficiency requirements for specific energy-related products, referring to legislation that need to be updated.

(5)

The Commission has introduced A to G rescaled energy efficiency labels for certain energy-related products (‘rescaled products’) as per the working plan referred to in Article 15 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1369 of the European Parliament and of the Council (4). Those rescaled products are referred to in criteria 8, 31 (a), 31 (c), 31 (d), 31 (e) and 31 (h) of Decision (EU) 2017/175, and in criterion O10 (a) of Decision (EU) 2018/680 and are, respectively, light sources, refrigerating appliances, household dishwashers, household washing machines and electronic displays. Given that Commission Delegated Regulations (EU) 2019/2015 (5), (EU) 2019/2016 (6), (EU) 2019/2017 (7), (EU) 2019/2014 (8) and (EU) 2019/2013 (9) have repealed Commission Delegated Regulations (EU) No 874/2012 (10), (EU) No 1060/2010 (11), (EU) No 1059/2010 (12), (EU) No 1061/2010 (13) and (EU) No 1062/2010 (14), those criteria therefore need to be updated with references to energy requirements set out in Delegated Regulations (EU) 2019/2015, (EU) 2019/2016, (EU) 2019/2017, (EU) 2019/2014 and (EU) 2019/2013. In addition to the references, those criteria need to be updated in order to reflect rescaled top classes of energy efficiency so that the EU Ecolabel criteria continue to correspond to the best 10-20% of the products available on the Union market in terms of environmental performance, in accordance with Annex I, Part A, point 2, of Regulation (EC) No 66/2010.

(6)

References to the energy requirements set out in Delegated Regulations (EU) No 874/2012, (EU) No 1060/2010, (EU) No 1059/2010, (EU) No 1061/2010 and (EU) No 1062/2010 should be maintained in Decisions (EU) 2017/175 and (EU) 2018/680 to allow products purchased prior to the entry into force of the new energy labelling rules to be considered still compliant with the EU Ecolabel criteria.

(7)

Criterion 31 (e) set out in Decision (EU) 2017/175 includes references to the EU Energy Star programme for office equipment and to EU-USA Energy Star agreements (15), (16) expired on 20 February 2018. In order to guarantee a high environmental performance of the EU Ecolabel criteria, in the absence of relevant energy labels or Regulations defining energy classes for office equipment, except for “electronic displays” for which rescaled classes of energy efficiency are available9, the amended requirement should require that newly bought office equipment qualifies according to an EN ISO 14024 type I ecolabel (17).

(8)

Criterion 31(g) set out in Decision (EU) 2017/175 and criterion O5 set out in Decision (EU) 2018/680 award points to EU Ecolabel applicants for the use of energy-efficient vacuum cleaners and include a reference to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 665/2013 (18) and related energy efficiency classes. The General Court, by decision in case T-544/13 RENV, had annulled that Delegated Regulation (19). In order to ensure that points can continue to be awarded to EU Ecolabel applicants for the use of energy-efficient vacuum cleaners, references to that the annulled Delegated Regulation (EU) No 665/2013 should be replaced by references to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 666/2013 (20), and the references to energy efficiency classes should be replaced by references to annual energy consumption thresholds.

(9)

Decisions (EU) 2017/175 and (EU) 2018/680 should therefore be amended accordingly.

(10)

The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 66/2010,