(1)

Fragrance substances are organic compounds with characteristic, usually pleasant, odours. They are widely used in perfumes and other perfumed cosmetic products, but also in many other products such as detergents, fabric softeners and other household products.

(2)

Contact allergy is a life-long, altered specific reactivity in the human immune system. Upon re-exposure to a sufficient amount of an allergen, eczema (allergic contact dermatitis) may develop. When a person has already been sensitised to an allergen, a much lower concentration of it is sufficient to trigger symptoms of an allergy. The percentage of the population allergic to fragrance allergens in the Union can be estimated to 1–9 % (2).

(3)

Different measures aim to protect the whole population from acquiring fragrance allergies (primary prevention) and to protect sensitised individuals from developing allergy symptoms (secondary prevention).

(4)

For the purposes of primary prevention, a restriction of fragrance allergens may be sufficient. However, sensitised persons may develop symptoms when they are exposed to lower concentrations of an allergen than the maximum permitted levels. Therefore, as a measure of secondary prevention, it is important to provide information on the presence of individual fragrance allergens in cosmetic products so that sensitised persons can avoid contact with the substance to which they are allergic.

(5)

In accordance with Article 19(1), point (g), of Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009, a cosmetic product is to be made available on the Union market only where a list of ingredients is indicated on its packaging. Furthermore, that Article specifies that perfume and aromatic compositions and their raw material are to be referred to by the terms ‘parfum’ or ‘aroma’ in the list of ingredients and complemented by substances the mention of which is required under the column ‘Other’ in Annex III to that Regulation. Currently, 24 fragrance allergens listed in entries 45 and 67 to 92 of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 are to be mentioned in the list of ingredients (individually labelled).

(6)

In response to the request of the Commission for an update of the list of individually labelled fragrance allergens, the Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) adopted an opinion at its plenary meeting of 26-27 June 2012 (3). It confirmed that the fragrance allergens listed in entries 45 and 67–92 of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 are still relevant. Furthermore, it identified 56 additional fragrance allergens, which have clearly caused allergies in humans and which have currently no requirement of individual labelling.

(7)

In light of the SCCS opinion, it can be concluded that there is a potential risk to human health arising from the use of the additional fragrance allergens identified by the SCCS and that it is necessary to inform consumers about the presence of those fragrance allergens. Therefore, an obligation to individually label those fragrance allergens should be introduced in Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 when their concentration exceeds 0,001 % in leave-on products and 0,01 % in rinse-off products. Furthermore, fragrance substances, such as prehaptens and prohaptens, that can be transformed to known contact allergens via air oxidation or bioactivation should be treated as equivalent to fragrance allergens and be subject to the same restrictions and other regulatory requirements.

(8)

For reasons of consistency and clarity, it is also necessary to update certain existing entries for fragrance allergens in Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 by aligning common names of the substances to those of the latest version of the Common Ingredients Glossary referred to in Article 33 of that Regulation, and by grouping similar substances in one entry. Furthermore, when there are multiple common ingredient names for a substance, it should be set out in the individual labelling requirement which name is to be used in the list of ingredients referred to in Article 19(1), point (g), in order for the labelling to be streamlined and more consumer-friendly, as well as to facilitate the work of economic operators and national authorities.

(9)

For reasons of completeness and clarity, it is also necessary to update certain existing entries for fragrance allergens in Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 by adding isomers and by complementing and amending the respective CAS and EC numbers, thus facilitating the work of economic operators and national authorities.

(10)

As the updated list of fragrance allergens is likely to result in entries in Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 combining existing and new restrictions, it is necessary to provide that the economic operators should, on the one hand, continue to apply existing restrictions, and, on the other hand, be allowed a reasonable period of time to comply with new restrictions.

(11)

With regard to the new restrictions, economic operators should be allowed a reasonable period of time to adapt to them by making the adjustments to product formulations and containers that are necessary to ensure that only cosmetic products complying with the new requirements are placed on the market. Economic operators should also be allowed a reasonable period of time to withdraw from the market cosmetic products which do not comply with the new requirements and which were placed on the market before the new labelling provisions become applicable. Considering the relatively low and stable percentage of consumers developing allergic contact dermatitis, the large number of new fragrance allergens to be individually labelled and the significant number of cosmetic products concerned, the transition period should be 3 and 5 years, respectively.

(12)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Cosmetic Products,

(1)

Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the application from France to register the names: ‘Pancetta de l’Ile de Beauté / Panzetta de l'Ile de Beauté’ (PGI-FR-02427) (2), ‘Saucisson sec de l’Ile de Beauté / Salciccia de l'Ile de Beauté’ (PGI-FR-02431) (3), ‘Bulagna de l’Ile de Beauté’ (PGI-FR-02429) (4) and ‘Figatelli de l'Ile de Beauté / Figatellu de l'Ile de Beauté’ (PGI-FR-02432) (5) as Protected Geographical Indications (PGIs) was published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

(2)

Three notices of opposition concerning the above applications were received from Italy, Spain and an international organization based in Switzerland.

(3)

After examining the reasoned statements of opposition and finding them admissible, in accordance with Article 51(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Commission invited the opponents to engage in appropriate consultations in view of reaching an agreement.

(4)

The consultations between France and the opponents 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 the first place, the opponents invoked a non-compliance of the PGI applications: ‘Pancetta de l’Ile de Beauté / Panzetta de l’Ile de Beauté’, ‘Saucisson sec de l’Ile de Beauté / Salciccia de l’Ile de Beauté’, ‘Bulagna de l’Ile de Beauté’ and ‘Figatelli de l’Ile de Beauté / Figatellu de l’Ile de Beauté’ with the conditions laid down in Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012.

In this regard, the opponents argued that the requirements set forth in the definition of a protected geographical indication under the aforementioned Article are not met, because, in their opinion, the products covered by the present PGI applications do not possess any specific characteristics that could be linked to the geographical area concerned. Attention has been also drawn to allegedly industrial methods of production, such as smoking, used for the charcuterie products in question, which according to the opponents, would further demonstrate the absence of the link to the geographical area.

(6)

Moreover, the opponents claimed that, contrary to the requirements of Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, at the time the PGI applications were submitted, the name ‘Ile de Beauté’ was not used in trade.

(7)

The opponents further referred to a potential breach of the rules on homonymy contained in Article 6(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 in view of the existing PDOs from Corsica: ‘Lonzo de Corse / Lonzo de Corse – Lonzu’, ‘Jambon sec de Corse / Jambon sec de Corse – Prisuttu’ and ‘Coppa de Corse / Coppa de Corse – Coppa di Corsica’. To that end, the opponents asked whether, having regard to the specific objective pursued by the above Article, homonymy may exist only in the case of identical terms or also in the case of expressions which are synonymous.

(8)

Furthermore, the opponents argued that the proposed PGIs’ registration would jeopardise the existence of the above PDOs, as provided in Article 10(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012. In this context, they drew attention to the fact that the names under the four PGI applications refer to products produced in a geographical area almost identical to that of other charcuterie products, whose names are already recognised as above PDOs. Although the names under the four PGI applications in question appear to be different from the above indicated PDOs names from a lexical point of view, ‘Ile de Beauté’ is commonly understood by consumers as synonymous to ‘Corse’ (Corsica), which forms part of those PDO names.

As a result, the opponents believe that consumers may get the wrong impression that there is a link between ‘Pancetta de l’Ile de Beauté / Panzetta de l’Ile de Beauté’, ‘Saucisson sec de l’Ile de Beauté / Salciccia de l’Ile de Beauté’, ‘Bulagna de l’Ile de Beauté’ and ‘Figatelli de l’Ile de Beauté / Figatellu de l’Ile de Beauté’ and registered PDOs: ‘Lonzo de Corse / Lonzo de Corse – Lonzu’, ‘Jambon sec de Corse / Jambon sec de Corse – Prisuttu’ and ‘Coppa de Corse / Coppa de Corse – Coppa di Corsica’. In the opinion of the opponents, the confusion can be more likely taking the fact the products designated as above PGIs and PDOs all belong to the same product category (charcuterie).

(9)

The Commission has assessed the arguments exposed by the opponents in the light of the provisions of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 and has taken into account the results of the appropriate consultations carried out between the applicant and the opponents.

(10)

As regards the alleged non-compliance of the PGI applications with the conditions laid down in Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 in the context of not possessing the specific characteristics that could be linked to the geographical area concerned, the following should be considered:

(11)

With regard to the claims that there is no evidence of previous or commercial use of name ‘Ile de Beauté’ for the charcuterie products in question, it should be reiterated that Article 7(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 neither requires, nor presumes any specific length of the prior use of the names to be protected.

The applicant drew attention to the well-established use of the PGI names in recent years and pointed out to various communication or marketing activities undertaken to promote the use of the names since 2015.

In view of the foregoing, the condition for the use of the name in trade, as referred to in Article 7(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, should be considered as fulfilled.

(12)

For the claims concerning alleged or potential breach of Article 6(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 in case of the registration of the PGI names in question, these claims should be rejected as the situation in the present case does not fall under the scope of the aforementioned provision, which sets forth the rules exclusively for partial or whole homonyms. Homonyms are commonly understood as words having the same spelling or pronunciation, but different meanings and origins. ‘Ile de Beauté’ and ‘Corse / Corsica’ are clearly both spelled and pronounced differently and thus cannot be considered as homonyms. The parts of the names referring to the charcuterie types in both PGI and PDO names are also entirely different. As such, the PGI names proposed for registration are neither wholly, nor partially homonymous with the registered PDO names ‘Lonzo de Corse / Lonzo de Corse – Lonzu’, ‘Jambon sec de Corse / Jambon sec de Corse – Prisuttu’ and ‘Coppa de Corse / Coppa de Corse – Coppa di Corsica’.

(13)

With regard to the opponents’ arguments that the proposed PGIs’ registration would jeopardise the existence of the above PDOs, as provided in Article 10(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Commission considers that a risk of such negative effect is unlikely. The PGI names covered by the present applications are sufficiently different from the registered PDO names, as well as the products associated with them. Thus their coexistence on the market would be neither misleading for the consumers, nor would negatively impact the protected PDOs.

Indeed, ‘Ile de Beauté’ is a customary periphrasis, which, especially for French consumers, means Corsica and the term ‘Ile de Beauté’ is used to refer to Corsica, particularly on the tourism websites. Therefore, these two terms can be considered as synonyms in the minds of consumers.

However, from the lexical point of view, as explained above, any confusion in the mind of a consumer is unlikely. Both the PGI and the PDO names under consideration are compound names indicating the place of origin and the type of product. The concrete terms pancetta/panzetta, saucisson sec/salciccia, bulagna, or figatelli/figatellu are associated with specific types of charcuterie, which are different from products designated as lonzo / lonzu, jambon sec / prisuttu or coppa. An average consumer, even if not an expert in charcuterie types, should be able to conclude that different terms refer to different products, which are possessing different characteristics.

Visual aspects and the form, in which products are offered on the market (presentation of the product to the final consumer - appearance, size, shapes, etc.) also play a vital role in distinguishing among the products.

In view of the differences between the PGI and PDO products and between their names, the Commission is of the opinion that the registration of the four PGI names under consideration would not negatively impact the products associated with the PDO names ‘Lonzo de Corse / Lonzo de Corse – Lonzu’, ‘Jambon sec de Corse / Jambon sec de Corse – Prisuttu’ and ‘Coppa de Corse / Coppa de Corse – Coppa di Corsica’. Both such PGI and PDO products could coexist, as the consumers would be able to distinguish them on the market and to make conscious purchasing choices. This, in consequence, leads to conclusion that the registration of the proposed PGI names would not cause the effect indicated in Article 10(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012.

(14)

In the light of the above, the names ‘Pancetta de l’Ile de Beauté / Panzetta de l’Ile de Beauté’, ‘Saucisson sec de l’Ile de Beauté / Salciccia de l’Ile de Beauté’, ‘Bulagna de l’Ile de Beauté’ and ‘Figatelli de l’Ile de Beauté / Figatellu de l’Ile de Beauté’ 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)

Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the application from the United Kingdom to register the name ‘Gower Salt Marsh Lamb’ as protected designation of origin was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

(2)

On 8 March 2022, the Commission received from France a notice of opposition. The Commission forwarded the notice of opposition to the United Kingdom on 10 March 2022. On 6 May 2022, France 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 the United Kingdom and France, by letter of 30 June 2022, to engage in appropriate consultations in view of reaching an agreement.

(4)

On 28 September 2022, on request of the United Kingdom, the Commission extended the deadline for consultations by one month. The consultations between the United Kingdom and France ended without an agreement being reached.

(5)

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.

(6)

The main arguments of France as set out in its reasoned statement of opposition and in the consultations carried out with the United Kingdom can be summarised as follows.

(7)

France claimed that it should be specified as required by Article 7(1)(e) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 whether the freezing of the meat is authorised. The opponent stated that if the freezing is allowed, this could destabilise the market for the two French PDO ‘Prés-salés de la baie de Somme’ and ‘Prés-salés du Mont-Saint-Michel’ which are available on the market only from July to November and lead to unfair competition. The specifications of these products prohibit freezing and thawing of the meat.

(8)

Moreover, the opponent claimed that provisions defining the salt marshes that are provided in the product specification should be added to the single document considering that the link between the product claimed as a PDO and the demarcated geographical area requires to be defined in the single document in accordance with Article 8(1)(c)(ii) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012.

(9)

The United Kingdom specified that preferably the meat should be sold and eaten fresh, although the meat may be frozen. Once frozen the meat must be sold frozen. The product specification as well as the single document have been amended accordingly.

(10)

The United Kingdom has also included the maps and GPS coordinates which demarcate the salt marshes to the single document.

(11)

France considered those amendments insufficient to satisfy its claims and further requested clarifications on the period during which the product is available frozen on the market. As regards the definition of salt marshes, they requested the inclusion of certain parts of the product specification in the single document in particular the detailed definition of ‘salt marsh’ and the related specific requirements.

(12)

The Commission has assessed the arguments exposed in the reasoned statement of opposition from France 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 and has reached the following conclusions.

(13)

As regards the alleged non-compliance of the PDO application with the conditions laid down in Article 7(1)(e) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, freezing of the meat is not per se a method of obtaining the product. Article 7(1)(e) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 does not require the inclusion of a specific rule on the possibility to freeze the meat, nor the period during which the product can be sold frozen. This is left to the choice of the applicant whether to insert rules of that kind. Following the opposition the applicant chose to specify the regime of the frozen product. Rules on freezing the product are relevant to the description of the product.

In view of the foregoing, the condition referred to in Article 7(1)(e) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, should be considered as fulfilled.

(14)

As regards the claim concerning alleged non-compliance with Article 8(1)(c)(ii) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the single document correctly and exhaustively describes ‘the link between the product and the geographical environment or geographical origin’.

The characteristics and quality of the product are influenced by two key factors including the lamb’s natural diet which consists of grazing the unique saltmarsh vegetation found on the north Gower coastline. The single document further specifies that the salt marshes have a unique range of halophytic plants dominated by mid and upper marsh plant communities with strong representation of the two Annex 1 EC habitats and Species directive: Atlantic Sea Meadows and Salicornia and other annuals colonising mud and sand. A map and GPS coordinate showing the area covered by these salt marshes has also been included to the single document by the applicant in response to the claim made by France.

The single document is a summary of the product specification. The additional elements that the opponent requests to insert are not essential elements for the understanding of the production method.

In the light of the above, the requirements of Article 8(1)(c)(ii) of the said Regulation should be considered as fulfilled.

(15)

In the context of the consultations between the parties, both the single document and the product specification were amended. Since those amendments are not considered substantial, in accordance with Article 51(4) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Commission did not repeat the scrutiny of the application and concluded that the conditions for registration were fulfilled.

(16)

In the light of the above, the name ‘Gower Salt Marsh Lamb’ should be entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications. The consolidated version of the single document should be published for information only.

(17)

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

(1)

The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund for Displaced Workers (EGF) aims to demonstrate solidarity and promote decent and sustainable employment in the Union by providing support for workers made redundant and self-employed persons whose activity has ceased in the case of major restructuring events and assisting them in returning to decent and sustainable employment as soon as possible.

(2)

The EGF is not to exceed a maximum annual amount of EUR 186 million (in 2018 prices), as laid down in Article 8 of Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2093 (3).

(3)

Regulation (EU) 2021/691 provides that a maximum of 0,5 % of the annual maximum amount of the EGF may be used each year for technical assistance at the initiative of the Commission.

(4)

This assistance is necessary to fulfill obligations in EGF implementation as imposed by Article 11 of the Regulation (EU) 2021/691, in particular concerning monitoring and data gathering as well as communication activities and those enhancing the EGF’s visibility.

(5)

The EGF should, therefore, be mobilised in order to provide the sum of EUR 190 000 for technical assistance at the initiative of the Commission,

(1)

The term of office of one of the current Deputy Executive Directors of Europol ends on 31 July 2023. It is therefore necessary to appoint a new Deputy Executive Director of Europol.

(2)

The decision of the Management Board of Europol of 1 May 2017 establishes the rules for the selection, extension of the term of office and removal from office of the Executive Director and Deputy Executive Directors of Europol.

(3)

One of the posts for a Deputy Executive Director of Europol has been deemed to be vacant pursuant to Article 3(1), point (b), of the decision of the Management Board of Europol of 1 May 2017 since 1 November 2022. A vacancy notice for the post of a Deputy Executive Director of Europol was published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 31 October 2022 (2).

(4)

In accordance with Article 54(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/794, a shortlist of candidates has been drawn up by a selection committee set up by the Management Board (the ‘Selection Committee’). The Selection Committee prepared a duly reasoned report and submitted it to the Management Board on 13 March 2023.

(5)

On the basis of the report of the Selection Committee and in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2016/794 and the decision of the Management Board of 1 May 2017, the Management Board issued a reasoned opinion on 22 March 2023 on the appointment of a new Deputy Executive Director of Europol, in which it proposed a shortlist of three candidates suitable for the post to the Council.

(6)

On 24 April 2023, the Council selected Mr Ștefan-Andrei LINȚĂ as the new Deputy Executive Director of Europol and informed the Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affaires Committee of the European Parliament (‘LIBE Committee’), which is the competent committee for the purposes of Article 54(2), fourth subparagraph, of Regulation (EU) 2016/794, about that selection.

(7)

On 23 May 2023, Mr Ștefan-Andrei LINȚĂ appeared before the LIBE Committee. On 1 June 2023, the LIBE Committee gave its opinion in accordance with Article 54(2), fourth subparagraph, of Regulation (EU) 2016/794,

(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)

An alternate member’s seat on the Committee of the Regions will become vacant as from 3 August 2023, following the end of the national mandate on the basis of which Mr Peter KURZ was appointed.

(4)

The German Government has proposed Mr Wolfram LEIBE, representative of a local body who holds a local authority electoral mandate, Oberbürgermeister der Stadt Trier (Lord Mayor of the City of Trier), as an alternate member of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 1 September 2023 until the end of the current term of office on 25 January 2025,

(1)

By letter registered with the Commission on 10 November 2022, Germany requested an authorisation for a special measure to derogate from Articles 218 and 232 of Directive 2006/112/EC in order to introduce mandatory electronic invoicing for all transactions carried out between taxable persons established in the territory of Germany (the ‘special measure’).

(2)

By letter registered with the Commission on 8 February 2023, Germany specified that the requested date of entry into force of the special measure was 1 January 2025.

(3)

In accordance with Article 395(2), second subparagraph, of Directive 2006/112/EC, the Commission transmitted the request made by Germany to the other Member States by letters dated 22 February 2023. By letter dated 23 February 2023, the Commission notified Germany that it had all the information necessary for the appraisal of the request.

(4)

Germany intends to put in place the special measure as a first step in the implementation of a transaction-based reporting system. Such a reporting system would provide benefits in combatting value added tax (VAT) fraud and evasion. It would enable the earlier identification of VAT fraud chains by the tax authorities. It would also enable the tax authorities to verify consistency between the VAT declared and the VAT due in a timely and automatic manner. The transaction-based reporting system would enable such discrepancies to be detected and checked early. Furthermore, Germany expects that timely access to invoice data would obviate the need for a more bureaucratic request for invoices by the tax authorities, speeding up and facilitating the fight against VAT fraud.

(5)

Germany considers that the introduction of the special measure would not be very burdensome for taxable persons as, in Germany, electronic invoicing is already common practice in many sectors of the economy and is mandatory in the field of public procurement. Furthermore, the special measure would benefit taxable persons through the digitalisation of processes and the reduction of their administrative burden. Finally, the use of electronic invoices would provide long-term savings due to the elimination of paper invoices, thereby reducing the costs of issuing, sending, processing and storing invoices.

(6)

On 8 December 2022, the Commission adopted a proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 2006/112/EC as regards VAT rules for the digital age. The Commission proposes to amend Article 218 and delete Article 232 of Directive 2006/112/EC. It is therefore possible that a directive amending those Articles will be adopted which would allow Member States to implement mandatory electronic invoicing and eliminate the need to request further special measures to derogate from Directive 2006/112/EC. Therefore, from the date Member States would be required to apply any national provisions transposing the Directive amending those Articles, this Decision should cease to apply.

(7)

Given the broad scope and the novelty of the special measure, it is important to evaluate its impact on combatting VAT fraud and evasion and on taxable persons. Therefore, if Germany considers that an extension of the special measure is necessary, it should submit to the Commission, together with the request for extension, a report including an assessment of the special measure concerning its effectiveness in combatting VAT fraud and evasion and in simplifying VAT collection.

(8)

The special measure should not affect the right of customers to receive paper invoices in the case of intra-Community transactions.

(9)

The special measure should be limited in time to allow for an appraisal to be carried out of whether it is appropriate and effective in light of its objectives.

(10)

The special measure is proportionate to the objectives pursued since it is limited in time and scope. In addition, the special measure does not give rise to the risk that fraud would shift to other sectors or to other Member States.

(11)

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

(1)

By Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/1401 (2), Italy was authorised, until 31 December 2017, to require that value added tax (VAT) due on supplies to public authorities was to be paid by those authorities to a separate and blocked bank account of the tax authorities (the ‘special measure’). The special measure constituted a derogation from Articles 206 and 226 of Directive 2006/112/EC in relation to VAT payment and invoicing rules.

(2)

By Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/784 (3), Italy was authorised to apply the special measure until 30 June 2020 and the scope of the special measure was broadened to include supplies to certain companies controlled by public authorities and to companies listed on the stock exchange that are included in the Financial Times Stock Exchange Milano Indice di Borsa (‘FTSE MIB’) index. The special measure was subsequently extended until 30 June 2023 by Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/1105 (4).

(3)

By letter registered with the Commission on 26 September 2022, Italy requested an authorisation to continue to apply the special measure until 31 December 2026. By letter registered with the Commission on 8 May 2023, Italy requested that, from 1 July 2025, the scope of the special measure be restricted to supplies of goods and services to public authorities and to certain companies controlled by public authorities.

(4)

In accordance with Article 395(2), second subparagraph, of Directive 2006/112/EC, the Commission transmitted the request made by Italy to the other Member States by letter dated 11 May 2023. By letter dated 12 May 2023, the Commission notified Italy that it had all the information necessary for the appraisal of the request.

(5)

The special measure is part of a package of measures introduced by Italy in order to counter tax fraud and evasion. That package of measures, including mandatory electronic invoicing authorised by Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/593 (5), has replaced other control measures and allows the Italian tax authorities to cross-check different operations declared by taxable persons and to monitor their VAT payments.

(6)

Italy considers that, in the context of the package of measures implemented, mandatory electronic invoicing reduces the time needed by the tax authorities to become aware of the existence of a potential case of tax fraud or evasion. However, Italy also considers that, in the absence of the split payment mechanism introduced by the special measure, the recovery of VAT amounts due from taxable persons engaged in tax fraud or evasion might be impossible after the cross-check has been carried out because, in the meantime, those taxable persons might have become insolvent. Thus, the split payment mechanism, as an ex ante measure, has proved to be highly effective and complementary to mandatory electronic invoicing, which is an ex post measure.

(7)

Italy repeatedly committed itself not to seek the renewal of the special measure after a full implementation of the package of measures. However, Italy considers that, given the effectiveness of the special measure and its synergies with other applied measures, in particular with mandatory electronic invoicing, the special measure should be extended to avoid a setback in the efforts made to reduce the the overall difference between the expected VAT revenue and the amount actually collected in Italy. Nevertheless, in order to honour its commitment to gradually phase out the special measure, Italy modified its request to exclude from the scope of the special measure, from 1 July 2025, supplies of goods and services to companies listed on the stock exchange that are included in the FTSE MIB index. That timeframe will allow taxable persons affected by the restriction of the scope of the special measure to make the appropriate operational adjustments. It will also allow the Italian tax authorities to monitor the effectiveness of the special measure and adequately evaluate possible alternative measures.

(8)

One of the effects of the special measure is that suppliers, being taxable persons, are not able to offset the VAT paid on their input with the VAT received on their supplies. Such suppliers can be constantly in a credit position and might need to ask for an effective refund of the VAT paid on their input from the tax authorities. According to the information provided by Italy, taxable persons carrying out transactions subject to the special measure are entitled to receive payment of the relevant VAT credits as a priority, within the limit of the credit deriving from such transactions. That practice implies that refund requests related to the special measure are processed as a matter of priority both during the preliminary investigation phase and when amounts due from non-priority refunds are paid.

(9)

The requested further extension of the authorisation to apply the special measure should be limited in time to allow an assessment to be carried out as to whether the special measure is appropriate and effective. The authorisation to apply the special measure should therefore be extended until 30 June 2026. That would give sufficient time to assess the effectiveness of the measures implemented by Italy aimed at reducing tax evasion in the sectors concerned.

(10)

To guarantee the necessary follow-up within the framework of the special measure and in particular to assess the impact on VAT refunds to taxable persons covered by the special measure, Italy should be required to submit a report to the Commission by September 2024. That report should address the overall situation of, and in particular the average time needed for, VAT refunds to taxable persons, and the effectiveness of the special measure and any other measures implemented by Italy with the aim of reducing tax evasion in the sectors concerned. That report should also include a list of those measures, together with their date of entry into force.

(11)

The special measure is proportionate to the objectives pursued since it is limited in time and restricted to sectors which pose considerable risks with respect to tax evasion. In addition, the special measure does not create a risk that tax evasion would shift to other sectors or to other Member States.

(12)

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

(13)

In order to ensure that the objectives pursued by the special measure are achieved, including the uninterrupted application of the special measure, and to provide legal certainty with regard to the tax period, it is appropriate to grant an authorisation to extend the special measure with effect from 1 July 2023. As Italy requested authorisation on 26 September 2022 to continue to apply the special measure and has continued to apply the legal regime established in its national law on the basis of Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/784 from 1 July 2023, the legitimate expectations of the persons concerned are duly respected.

(14)

Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/784 should therefore be amended accordingly,

(1)

in Article 1, the third indent is deleted;

(2)

in Article 3, second paragraph, the date ‘30 September 2021’ is replaced by the date ‘30 September 2024’;

(3)

in Article 5, the date ‘30 June 2023’ is replaced by the date ‘30 June 2026’.

(1)

By letter registered with the Commission on 14 January 2022, Romania requested an authorisation for a special measure to derogate from Articles 178, 218 and 232 of Directive 2006/112/EC in order to introduce mandatory electronic invoicing for all transactions carried out between taxable persons established in the territory of Romania (the ‘special measure’). The special measure was requested for a period from 1 July 2022 to 31 December 2025.

(2)

By letter registered with the Commission 30 September 2022, Romania informed the Commission that the requested derogation from Article 178 of Directive 2006/112/EC was no longer required. Further, Romania requested the authorisation to be granted for a period from 1 January 2024 to 31 December 2026, instead of the period originally requested.

(3)

In accordance with Article 395(2), second subparagraph, of Directive 2006/112/EC, the Commission transmitted the request made by Romania to the other Member States by letters dated 8 December 2022. By letter dated 9 December 2022, the Commission notified Romania that it had all the information necessary for the appraisal of the request.

(4)

Romania submits that mandatory electronic invoicing for transactions between taxable persons established in Romania, coupled with the obligation to report the data on those transactions to the tax authorities, would be beneficial in combatting value added tax (VAT) fraud and evasion. It would enable the tax authorities to verify consistency between the VAT declared and VAT due in a timely and automatic manner. Such automatic verification would significantly improve the analytical skills of the Romanian tax authorities. Further, the introduction of mandatory electronic invoicing would be a powerful tool for real-time tracking of VAT fraud chains, enabling tax authorities to take immediate action to identify and stop taxable persons from participating in such fraudulent activities.

(5)

Romania considers that the introduction of the special measure would also benefit taxable persons through the digitalisation of invoicing processes and the reduction of their administrative burden, while at the same time ensuring a fair competitive environment for taxable persons. The digitalisation of invoicing processes would entail faster payments, savings on transmission costs, fast and cheap processing of invoice data and reduced archiving costs for taxable persons. The introduction of the special measure would lead to the removal of the current obligation to report information on domestic supplies, reducing the administrative burden for taxable persons.

(6)

On 8 December 2022, the Commission adopted a proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 2006/112/EC as regards VAT rules for the digital age. The Commission proposes to amend Article 218 and delete Article 232 of Directive 2006/112/EC. It is therefore possible that a directive amending those Articles will be adopted, which would allow Member States to implement mandatory electronic invoicing and eliminate the need to request further special measures to derogate from Directive 2006/112/EC. Therefore, from the date Member States would be required to apply any national provisions transposing the Directive amending those Articles, this Decision should cease to apply.

(7)

Given the broad scope and the novelty of the special measure, it is important to evaluate its impact on combatting VAT fraud and evasion and on taxable persons. Therefore, if Romania considers that an extension of the special measure is necessary, it should submit to the Commission, together with the request for extension, a report including the assessment of the special measure concerning its effectiveness in combatting VAT fraud and evasion and in simplifying VAT collection.

(8)

The special measure should not affect the right of customers to receive paper invoices in the case of intra-Community transactions.

(9)

The special measure should be limited in time to allow an appraisal to be carried out of whether it is appropriate and effective in light of its objectives.

(10)

The special measure is proportionate to the objectives pursued since it is limited in time and scope. In addition, the special measure does not give rise to the risk that fraud would shift to other sectors or to other Member States.

(11)

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

(1)

African swine fever is an infectious viral disease affecting kept and wild porcine animals and can have a severe impact on the concerned animal population and the profitability of farming causing disturbance to movements of consignments of those animals and products thereof within the Union and exports to third countries.

(2)

In the event of outbreaks of African swine fever in wild porcine animals, there is a serious risk of the spread of that disease to other wild porcine animals and to establishments of kept porcine animals.

(3)

Commission Delegated Regulation 2020/687 (2) supplements the rules for the control of the listed diseases referred to in Article 9(1), points (a), (b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2016/429, and defined as category A, B and C diseases in Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1882 (3). In particular, Articles 63 to 66 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687 provide for certain measures to be taken in the event of an official confirmation of an outbreak of a category A disease in wild animals, including African swine fever in wild porcine animals. Notably, those provisions provide for the establishment of an infected zone and prohibitions on movements of wild animals of listed species and products of animal origin thereof.

(4)

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/594 (4) lays down special disease control measures regarding African swine fever. In particular, in the event of an outbreak of that disease in wild porcine animals in an area of a Member State, Article 3, point (b), of that Implementing Regulation provides for the establishment of an infected zone in accordance with Article 63 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687. In addition, Article 6 of that Implementing Regulation provides that that area is to be listed as a restricted zone II in Part II of Annex I thereto and that the infected zone, established in accordance with Article 63 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687, is to be adjusted without delay to comprise at least the restricted zone II. The special control measures for African swine fever laid down in Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/594 include, inter alia, prohibitions on movements of consignments of porcine animals kept in restricted zones II and products thereof outside those restricted zones.

(5)

Croatia has informed the Commission of the confirmation of one outbreak of African swine fever in a wild porcine animal in the Karlovacka Region on 13 July 2023. Accordingly, the competent authority of that Member State established an infected zone in accordance with Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687 and Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/594.

(6)

In order to prevent any unnecessary disturbance to trade within the Union and to avoid unjustified barriers to trade by third countries, it is necessary to identify at Union level the infected zone for African swine fever in Croatia in collaboration with that Member State.

(7)

In order to prevent the further spread of African swine fever, pending the listing of the area of Croatia affected by the recent outbreaks in wild porcine animals as a restricted zone II in Part II of Annex I to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/594, the special control measures for African swine fever laid down therein, that apply to movements of consignments of porcine animals kept in restricted zones II and products thereof outside those zones, should also apply to movements of those consignments from the infected zone established by Croatia following that recent outbreak, in addition to the measures laid down in Articles 63 to 66 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687.

(8)

Accordingly, that infected zone should be listed in the Annex to this Decision and it should be subject to the special control measures for African swine fever that apply to restricted zones II laid down in Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/594. However, due to this new epidemiological situation of African swine fever and taking account of the increased immediate risk of the further spread of the disease, movements of consignments of kept porcine animals and products thereof to other Member States and to third countries should not be authorised from the infected zone in accordance with that Implementing Regulation. The duration of that zoning should be also laid down in this Decision.

(9)

Therefore, in order to mitigate the risks arising from the recent outbreak of African swine fever in wild porcine animals in Croatia, this Decision should provide that the movements to other Member States and third countries of consignments of porcine animals kept in the infected zone and products thereof should not be authorised by Croatia until the expiry date of this Decision.

(10)

Given the urgency of the epidemiological situation in the Union as regards the spread of African swine fever, it is important that the measures laid down in this Implementing Decision apply as soon as possible.

(11)

Accordingly, pending the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed, the infected zone in Croatia should be established immediately and listed in the Annex to this Decision and the duration of that zoning fixed.

(12)

This Decision is to be reviewed at the next meeting of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed,

(1)

Pursuant to Article 25(2) of Directive (EU) 2017/2397, Member States are to reliably record without delay certificates of qualification, service record books and logbooks in the Commission’s databases for the purpose of implementing, enforcing and evaluating Directive (EU) 2017/2397 and for maintaining safety, for ease of navigation, as well as for statistical purposes, and in order to facilitate the exchange of information between the authorities that implement that Directive. To this end, the Commission established the European Crew Database (‘ECDB’) for certificates of qualifications and service record books and the European Hull Database (‘EHDB’) for logbooks by adopting Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/473 (2).

(2)

Article 25(2) of Directive (EU) 2017/2397 and Article 1 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/473 further provide for the inclusion of information concerning certificates of qualification, service record books and logbooks recognised pursuant to Article 10(2) of Directive (EU) 2017/2397 in the Commission’s databases. Article 10(2) of Directive (EU) 2017/2397 refers to certificates of qualification, service record books or logbooks issued in accordance with the Regulations on Rhine Navigation Personnel (3), which are valid on Union inland waterways if the requirements of those Regulations are identical to those of Directive (EU) 2017/2397 and if the issuing third country recognises, within its jurisdiction, Union documents pursuant to Directive (EU) 2017/2397.

(3)

Switzerland issues certificates of qualification, service record books or logbooks on the basis of the Regulations on Rhine Navigation Personnel under requirements identical to those of Directive (EU) 2017/2397 and accepts corresponding Union documents in its jurisdiction, so that Swiss certificates of qualification are valid on Union inland waterways pursuant to Article 10(2) of Directive (EU) 2017/2397.

(4)

Pursuant to Article 2.01 of the Regulations on Rhine Navigation Personnel, which was adopted in accordance with Council Decision (EU) 2022/1912 (4), Switzerland is also obliged to include each certificate of qualification, service record book and logbook issued by a competent authority, and the data contained therein, in the national register to be kept as required by Article 25 of Directive (EU) 2017/2397 and to link its national registers with the register kept by the Commission in accordance with the requirements of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/473.

(5)

On 20 October 2021, Switzerland has submitted to the Commission a request to receive access to the databases of the Commission.

(6)

In accordance with Article 25(4) of Directive (EU) 2017/2397, authorities in third countries that issue certificates of qualification, service record books or logbooks on the basis of the Regulations on Rhine Navigation Personnel may be granted access to the database in so far this is necessary for the purposes referred to in Article 25(2) of Directive (EU) 2017/2397 provided that the requirements on data protection of Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and the Council (5) are fulfilled, the third country does not limit access by Member States or by the Commission to its corresponding database and if the Commission ensures that the third country does not transfer the data to another third country or international organisation without the Commission’s express written authorisation and under the conditions specified by the Commission.

(7)

The Commission has recognised Switzerland as providing adequate level of data protection (6). Furthermore, Switzerland has assured by official letter that it will grant access to its corresponding databases and that it will not transfer any data to another third country or international organisation without the Commission’s express written authorisation and under the conditions specified by the Commission.

(8)

The access to the Commissions’ databases needs finally to be necessary for the purposes stated in Article 25(2) of Directive (EU) 2017/2397 of implementing, enforcing and evaluating the Directive, for maintaining safety, for ease of navigation, as well as for statistical purposes, and in order to facilitate exchange of information between relevant authorities.

(9)

Taking into account that crew members with Swiss qualifications regularly operate in Union inland waterways and that the certificates of qualification, service record books or logbooks issued by Switzerland must fulfil requirements identical to those required by Directive (EU) 2017/2397, an exchange of relevant information between Member States and Switzerland is needed for implementing, enforcing and evaluating Directive (EU) 2017/2397 while ensuring uninterrupted navigation in a safe and rightful manner in Union inland waterways. Furthermore, granting access to the ECDB and EHDB to Switzerland will allow the Commission to keep a complete register of relevant crew data and help statistical purposes. Therefore, it is necessary for the purposes stated in Article 25(2) of Directive (EU) 2017/2397 to grant access to the ECDB and EHDB to the competent authorities of Switzerland.

(10)

The Commission, after assessing the request of Switzerland, considers that it is appropriate to grant access to the ECDB and EHDB to the authorities of Switzerland,

(1)

On 31 March 2020, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2020/472, which established and launched a European Union military operation in the Mediterranean (EUNAVFOR MED IRINI) for the period until 31 March 2021.

(2)

Article 8(3) of Decision (CFSP) 2020/472 provides that, notwithstanding this period, the authorisation of the operation is to be reconfirmed every four months and that the Political and Security Committee is to prolong the operation unless the deployment of maritime assets of the operation produces a pull effect on migration on the basis of substantiated evidence gathered according to the criteria set out in the Operations Plan.

(3)

On 20 March 2023, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2023/653 (2), extending the operation until 31 March 2025, subject to the same reconfirmation procedure.

(4)

The Operation Commander provided monthly pull factor reports.

(5)

The authorization of the operation should be reconfirmed for the 11th four-month sub-period of its mandate and the operation should be prolonged accordingly,