(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 831/2002 of 17 May 2002 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 322/97 on Community statistics concerning access to confidential data for scientific purposes (2) aims at establishing, for the purpose of enabling statistical conclusions to be drawn for scientific purposes, the conditions under which access to confidential data transmitted to the Community authority may be granted and the rules of cooperation between the Community and national authorities in order to facilitate such access.

(2)

Four important sources are particularly referred to, which are the following: the European Community Household Panel (ECHP); the Labour Force Survey (LFS); the Community Innovation Survey (CIS); the continuing vocational training survey (CVTS).

(3)

Access to confidential data may be granted by the Community authority to researchers of universities and other higher education organisations established by Community law or by the law of a Member State or of organisations or institutions for scientific research established under Community law or under the law of a Member State.

(4)

Additionally and according to Article 3(1)(c) of this Regulation, access may also be granted to researchers of other agencies, organisations and institutions after having received the opinion of the Committee on statistical confidentiality, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 20(2) of Regulation (EC) No 322/97.

(5)

It is therefore necessary to establish a list of such bodies further to an evaluation that takes into account a number of conditions such as the primary purpose of the body, the internal organisational arrangements for research, the safeguards in place or the arrangements for dissemination of results of research.

(6)

An established record or reputation of the body of producing quality research and making it publicly available is a consideration in favour of granting access. A secondary consideration is whether the body is well-established and well-recognised as an authoritative body in its particular sphere, perhaps with reputable sponsors, partners or shareholders.

(7)

Research in the body is to be in a well-defined unit with no organisational or management links to policy areas of the body and the research unit should be seen to be a separate, self-contained unit headed by a senior manager with no direct responsibility for policy or implementation of the body's purpose.

(8)

Adequate guarantees from the head of the body are also necessary covering various aspects such as preventing the staff of the research unit from passing information obtained from the data supplied to any staff outside the unit other than summary and aggregated research results with the permission of the head of the research unit or ensuring that it would be a major disciplinary offence for any staff of the body to ask members of the research unit for any information concerning individual records in the dataset provided.

(9)

Physical security of the premises of the body and its computer systems have to be outlined; descriptions of the safekeeping of the data in computer systems should be given, including details of how authorised access is made and unauthorised access is prevented and how the systems are protected from unauthorised access from outside the body; safekeeping of documents, including paper documents, containing information from the dataset should also be described.

(10)

The reason for access being scientific purposes, it implies that results will be made freely and quickly available to the scientific community. Use of the datasets for purely internal reports or purposes would appear to be contrary to the objective of Regulation (EC) No 831/2002. The policy of the body on dissemination of research from its research unit has to be an open policy with publication in the relevant scientific literature encouraged and making results from research freely available on the body's website or other appropriate website.

(11)

The European Central Bank (ECB) has to be regarded as a body fulfilling the conditions mentioned above and therefore is added to the list of agencies, organisations and institutions referred to in Article 3(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 831/2002.

(12)

This list will be updated as more agencies, organisations and institutions have to be regarded as admissible bodies.

(13)

It remains that specific access requests submitted by those bodies have subsequently to be processed according to the rules and procedures laid down by Regulation (EC) No 831/2002.

(14)

The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on Statistical Confidentiality,

(1)

A Member State that considers its territory or part of territory free from one or more of the diseases listed in Annex A, column I, list III to Directive 91/67/EEC, may pursuant to Article 13 of that Directive submit the evidence supporting the claim of freedom of diseases to the Commission for the purpose of being granted disease-free status. Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Sweden and the United Kingdom have submitted such claims to the Commission.

(2)

A Member State that draws up a programme to control with a view to eradicating one or more of the diseases listed in Annex A, column I, list III to Directive 91/67/EEC, may pursuant to Article 12 of that Directive submit the programme to the Commission for approval. Finland, Ireland, Sweden and the United Kingdom have submitted such programmes to the Commission.

(3)

Council Regulation (EEC) No 706/73 of 12 March 1973 concerning the Community arrangements applicable to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man for trade in agricultural products (3), lays down that veterinary legislation is to apply to those islands under the same conditions as in the United Kingdom for the products imported into those islands or exported from them to the Community.

(4)

It is necessary to establish the requirements to be fulfilled for Member States to be declared disease-free and the criteria the Member States are to apply under the control and eradication programmes. It is also necessary to define the additional guarantees which are required for the introduction of certain fish species into the disease-free zones and the zones concerned by the control and eradication programmes. For those purposes the recommendations of the World Organisation of Animal Health (OIE) should be taken into account.

(5)

Denmark has submitted evidence of freedom from spring viraemia of carp (SVC), and should therefore be considered free from that disease.

(6)

Finland has submitted evidence of freedom from SVC for its entire territory, and of freedom from Gyrodactylus salaris and infectious pancreatic necrosis (IPN) for parts of its territory. The territories concerned should therefore be considered free from those diseases. Finland has also submitted a programme for the control and eradication of bacterial kidney disease (BKD) which will apply to the continental parts of its territory. That programme should be approved with a view to eradicating the disease and achieving disease-free status.

(7)

Ireland has submitted evidence of freedom from SVC, BKD and Gyrodactylus salaris for its entire territory, and should therefore be considered free from those diseases.

(8)

Sweden has submitted evidence of freedom from SVC and IPN for its entire territory, and should therefore be considered free from those diseases. Sweden has also submitted a programme for the control and eradication of BKD which will apply to the continental parts of its territory. That programme should be approved with a view to eradicating the disease and achieving disease-free status.

(9)

The United Kingdom has submitted evidence of freedom from Gyrodactylus salaris for its entire territory and of freedom from IPN, BKD and SVC for parts of its territory. The territories concerned should therefore be considered free from those diseases. The United Kingdom has also submitted programmes for the control and eradication of SVC and BKD applicable to other parts of its territory. Those programmes should be approved with a view to eradicating the diseases and achieving disease-free status.

(10)

The additional guarantees provided for by this Decision should be reconsidered after three years, taking into account the experience gained in relation to control and eradication of the diseases and the development of alternative control measures such as vaccines.

(11)

Additional guarantees as regards SVC have been defined for certain fish species for consignment to Great Britain, Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man and Guernsey by Commission Decision 93/44/EC (4). That Decision should be repealed and replaced by this Decision.

(12)

Commission Decision 2003/513/EC (5) is a safeguard decision protecting certain regions of the Community against introduction of Gyrodactylus salaris. Those measures have been in force since 1996, and are by their very nature additional guarantees and not safeguard measures. Decision 2003/513/EC should therefore also be repealed and replaced by this Decision.

(13)

The guarantees laid down in Decisions 93/44/EC and 2003/513/EC should be updated to take into account the present scientific knowledge and current recommendations of the World Organisation of Animal Health (OIE).

(14)

The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Scientific Committee for the Food Chain and Animal Health,

1.

A Member State where there has not been any observed occurrence of the disease for at least the past 25 years despite conditions that are conducive to its clinical expression may be considered disease-free if

1.1.

basic disease security conditions have been in place continuously for at least the previous 10 years. The basic disease security conditions should as a minimum consist of:

1.2.

infection is not known to be established in wild populations;

1.3.

conditions applied to trade and imports to prevent the introduction of the disease into the Member State are in place.

2.

A Member State where the last known clinical occurrence was within the past 25 years or where the infection status prior to targeted surveillance was unknown, for example because of the absence of conditions conducive to clinical expression, may be considered free from the disease if:

2.1.

it meets basic disease security conditions as described in point 1.1; and

2.2.

targeted surveillance has been in place for at least the past two years in aquaculture establishments holding any of the susceptible species without detection of the disease agent. If there are areas of the country in which surveillance in aquaculture establishments only, does not give sufficient epidemiological data (where the number of aquaculture establishments are limited), but in which there are wild populations of any of the susceptible species, those wild populations must be included in the targeted surveillance. The sampling methods and sample sizes should be at least equivalent to those laid down in Decision 2001/183/EC or in the relevant chapters of the OIE International Aquatic Animal Health Code and OIE Manual of Diagnostic Tests for Aquatic Animals. The diagnostic methods should be at least equivalent to those laid down in the relevant chapters of the OIE Manual for diagnostic tests in aquatic animals.

1.

A zone where there has not been any observed occurrence of the disease for at least the past 25 years despite conditions that are conducive to its clinical expression may be considered free if:

1.1.

basic disease security conditions have been in place continuously for at least the previous 10 years. The basic disease security conditions should as a minimum consist of:

1.2.

infection is not known to be established in wild populations;

1.3.

conditions applied to trade and imports to prevent the introduction of the disease into the zone are in place.

2.

A zone where the last known clinical occurrence was within the past 25 years or where the infection status prior to targeted surveillance was unknown, for example because of the absence of conditions conducive to clinical expression, may be considered free from the disease if:

2.1.

it meets basic disease security conditions as described in point 1.1;

2.2.

targeted surveillance has been in place for at least the past two years in aquaculture establishments holding any of the susceptible species without detection of the disease agent. If surveillance in aquaculture establishments only, does not give sufficient epidemiological data (where the number of aquaculture establishments are limited), but in which there are wild populations of any of the susceptible species, those wild populations must be included in the targeted surveillance. The sampling methods and sample sizes should be at least equivalent to those laid down in Decision 2001/183/EC or in the relevant chapters of the OIE International Aquatic Animal Health Code and OIE Manual of Diagnostic Tests for Aquatic Animals. The diagnostic methods should be at least equivalent to those laid down in the relevant chapters of the OIE Manual for diagnostic tests in aquatic animals.

(a)

slaughter of all live fish under the supervision of the official service or, in the case of fish which have reached commercial size and show no clinical sign of disease, slaughter under the supervision of the official service for marketing or processing for human consumption. In the latter case, the official service shall ensure that the fish are immediately slaughtered and gutted, that these operations are carried out in conditions such as to prevent the spread of pathogens. The Member State may on a case by case basis, taking into consideration the risk of spreading the disease to other farms or to the wild population, allow fish which have not yet reached commercial size to be kept at the farm until market size is reached; and

(b)

fallowing of the farm or site (and where appropriate disinfection) for an appropriate period following withdrawal, taking into consideration Section 1.7 of the most current edition of the OIE International Aquatic Animal Health Code.

(a)

removal and destruction of dead fish and fish displaying clinical signs of disease, harvesting fish not displaying clinical signs of disease, until each epidemiological unit affected by disease within the site is emptied of fish and disinfected; or

(b)

removal and destruction of dead fish and fish displaying clinical signs of disease, in the case of sites where withdrawal and/or disinfection may not be possible because of the nature of the site (e.g. a river system or extensive lake).

1.

The disease must be compulsorily notifiable to the competent authority, including notification of suspicion.

2.

All farms having species susceptible to the disease, to which the Member State has been granted free status, must be under the supervision of the competent authority.

3.

An early detection system ensuring the rapid recognition of signs suspicious of the disease in question, in aquatic animals in an aquaculture establishment or in the wild, and the rapid communication of the event to the competent authority, with the aim to activate diagnostic investigation with minimal delay must be in place enabling the competent authority to undertake effective disease investigation and reporting, including access to laboratories capable of diagnosing and differentiating relevant diseases, and training of veterinarians or fish health specialists in detecting and reporting unusual disease occurrence. Such an early detection system must at least include the following:

4.

Conditions to trade and imports as well as management of wild fish stocks of the susceptible species, to prevent the introduction of the disease in question into the Member State or parts thereof covered by this Decision must be in place. Fish originating in coastal zones should not be introduced into continental zones, unless authorised by the competent authority of the Member State of destination.

5.

In Member States where only parts of territory is declared free according to Annex I, Chapter II (not whole territory is declared free), targeted surveillance must been maintained in accordance with the provisions of Annex II, Chapter I.4 in the areas declared free.

6.

Live aquaculture fish, eggs and gametes introduced into the territories listed in Annex I Chapter II, or Annex II Chapter II, shall be transported under conditions not altering their health status and not jeopardising the health status at the place of destination. The transport shall take place in water considered free from the disease in question as it is taken from the water source of the farm or site of origin, and that water exchange during transport is done only at places authorised by the competent authority of the Member State of destination, where appropriate in collaboration with the competent authority of the Member State of origin.

7.

Vaccination against the disease in question shall not take place.

8.

Before 1 May each year submit a report to the Commission giving information on the number of suspicions, the number confirmations, the number of farms and sites under restrictions, the number of restrictions lifted and the result of any active surveillance performed the previous calendar year according to the following table.

1.

Appropriate samples are taken for examinations with a view of establish the presence of the pathogen in question.

2.

Pending the result of the examination referred to in point 1, the competent authority shall place the farm under official surveillance and relevant control measures must be implemented and no fish should leave the affected farm, unless authorised by the official service.

3.

If the examination referred to in point 1 show the presence of a pathogen or clinical signs, an epizootic investigation must be carried out by the official service in order to determine the possible means of contamination and to investigate whether fish have left the farm, during the relevant period preceding observation of the suspicion.

4.

If the epizootic investigation shows that the disease has been introduced into one or more farms or unenclosed waters the provisions of point 1 shall apply in these areas and;

5.

In the case of extensive water catchment areas or coastal areas, the official service may decide to limit this measure to a less extensive area close to the farm suspected of being infected, if it considers that this area affords maximum guarantees for the prevention of the spread of the disease.

1.

The farm or site containing the infected fish is immediately placed under restrictions and no live fish is moved into the premises, and no fish is moved out of the farm unless authorised by the official services in the Member State.

2.

The restrictions shall be maintained until eradication has been achieved either through the requirements in 2.1 or 2.2 below:

2.1.

2.2.

3.

To facilitate a swift and rapid eradication of the disease from infected premises, the competent authority of the Member State may allow fish not displaying clinical signs of disease to be transported — under the supervision of the competent authority — to other farms or areas within the Member State in question that is not covered by disease-free status or an approved control and eradication programme.

4.

Fish removed and disposed of as a consequence of the action in paragraphs 2.1 and 2.2 must be disposed of in accordance with Regulation 1774/2002.

5.

Fish used to re-stock sites must originate from certified disease-free sources.

6.

Member States shall take the necessary measures to prevent the spreading of the disease to other farmed fish or wild stocks.

7.

When the Member State has eradicated the disease from a continental farm according to Point C 2.1 of this Annex, and the epizootic investigations required in Point B 3 of this Annex concludes that the disease has not spread to other farms or into the wild, disease-free status is reinstated immediately. Otherwise, the disease-free status could only be reinstated after compliance with Annex I.’

(1)

Commission Decision 2003/858/EC (2) lays down the specific animal health conditions and model certificates applicable to third countries or parts thereof from which Member States are authorised to import live fish, their eggs and gametes intended for farming, and live fish of aquaculture origin and products thereof intended for human consumption.

(2)

By Commission Decision 2004/453/EC of 29 April 2004 implementing Council Directive 91/67/EEC as regards measures against certain diseases in aquaculture animals (3) Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Sweden and the United Kingdom have been granted additional guarantees for certain diseases referred to in Annex A, Column 1, List III, to Directive 91/67/EEC.

(3)

Those guarantees should also apply when live fish is imported from third countries. Annexes I, II and III to Decision 2003/858/EC should take those additional guarantees into account and be amended accordingly.

(4)

The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee of the Food Chain and Animal Health,

1.

Annex I is replaced by the text in Annex I to this Decision.

2.

Annex II is replaced by the text in Annex II to this Decision.

3.

Annex III is replaced by the text in Annex III to this Decision.

(1)

For certain acts which remain valid beyond 1 May 2004 and require adaptation by reason of accession, the necessary adaptations were not provided for in the 2003 Act of Accession, or were provided for but need further adaptations. All these adaptations need to be adopted before accession so as to be applicable as from accession.

(2)

Pursuant to Article 57(2) of the Act of Accession, such adaptations are to be adopted by the Commission in all cases where the Commission adopted the original act.

(3)

Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 October 2002 laying down health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption (1) provides the possibility for Member States to authorise the feeding of endangered or protected species of necrophagous birds with certain Category 1 material by derogation to the restrictions applicable to the use of animal by-products laid down in that Regulation.

(4)

Commission Decision 2003/322/EC (2) lists the Member States authorised to make use of that possibility, the species of necrophagous birds which may be fed with the Category 1 material, and the implementing rules under which the feeding may take place.

(5)

Cyprus has submitted a request for the authorisation of feeding certain species of necrophagous birds with certain Category 1 material and has submitted satisfactory information concerning the occurrence of those species on its territory as well as on the safety measures to be applied when feeding Category 1 animal by-products to those birds.

(6)

Decision 2003/322/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.

(7)

The Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health has been informed of the measures provided for in this Decision,

1.

Article 1 is replaced by the following:

‘Article 1

Implementing rules on the feeding of necrophagous birds with Category 1 material

Pursuant to Article 23(2)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Cyprus and Portugal may authorise the use of entire bodies of dead animals which may contain specified risk material as referred to in Article 4(1)(b)(ii) of that Regulation for the feeding of the endangered or protected species of necrophagous birds as set out in Part A of the Annex to this Decision.’

2.

Article 4 is replaced by the following:

‘Article 4

Compliance by Member States

Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Cyprus and Portugal shall immediately take the necessary measures to comply with this Decision and shall publish those measures. They shall immediately inform the Commission thereof.’

3.

Article 6 is replaced by the following:

‘Article 6

Addressees

This Decision is addressed to the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Republic of Cyprus and the Portuguese Republic.’

4.

In the Annex, in Part A, the following point (f) is added:

(1)

Commission Decision 2002/613/EC of 19 July 2002 laying down the importation conditions of semen of domestic animals of the porcine species (2) establishes a list of third countries, including Canada, from which Member States are to authorise the importation of semen of domestic animals of the porcine species.

(2)

Canada has requested that amendments be made to the list of semen collection centres approved in accordance with Decision 2002/613/EC as regards entries for that country.

(3)

Canada has provided guarantees regarding compliance with the appropriate rules set out in Directive 90/429/EEC and the new centre to be added to the list has been officially approved for exports to the Community by the veterinary services of that country.

(4)

Decision 2002/613/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.

(5)

The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Food Chain and Animal Health,

(a)

The following row for the centre No 4-AI-02 is deleted:

(b)

The following row for the centre No 4-AI-24 is deleted:

(c)

The following row is added:

(1)

Article 5 of Regulation (EEC) No 729/70, Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999, and Article 8(1) and (2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1663/95 of 7 July 1995 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 regarding the procedure for the clearance of the accounts of the EAGGF Guarantee Section (3), provide that the Commission is to make the necessary verifications, inform the Member States of its findings, take account of the Member States' comments, initiate bilateral discussions and then formally communicate its conclusions to the Member States, referring to Commission Decision 94/442/EC of 1 July 1994 setting up a conciliation procedure in the context of the clearance of the accounts of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) Guarantee Section (4).

(2)

The Member States have had an opportunity to request that a conciliation procedure be initiated. That opportunity has been used in some cases and the report issued on the outcome has been examined by the Commission.

(3)

Pursuant to Articles 2 and 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 and Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999, only refunds on exports to third countries and intervention to stabilise agricultural markets, respectively granted and undertaken according to Community rules within the framework of the common organisation of the agricultural markets, may be financed.

(4)

In the light of the checks carried out, the outcome of the bilateral discussions and the conciliation procedures, part of the expenditure declared by the Member States does not fulfil these requirements and cannot, therefore, be financed under the EAGGF Guarantee Section.

(5)

The amounts that are not recognised as being chargeable to the EAGGF Guarantee Section should be indicated. Those amounts do not relate to expenditure incurred more than 24 months before the Commission's written notification of the results of the checks to the Member States.

(6)

As regards the cases covered by this Decision, the assessment of the amounts to be excluded on grounds of non-compliance with Community rules was notified by the Commission to the Member States in a summary report on the subject.

(7)

This Decision is without prejudice to any financial conclusions that the Commission may draw from the judgments of the Court of Justice in cases pending on 31 January 2004 and relating to its content,

(1)

Annex XII, Chapter 6, Section B, subsection I, point 1(a) to the 2003 Act of Accession provides that the structural requirements laid down in Annex I to Council Directive 64/433/EEC of 26 June 1964 on health problems affecting intra-Community trade in fresh meat (3), in Annex I to Council Directive 71/118/EEC of 15 February 1971 on health problems affecting trade in fresh poultrymeat (4), in Annexes A and B to Council Directive 77/99/EEC of 21 December 1976 on health problems affecting intra-Community trade in meat products (5), in Annex I to Council Directive 94/65/EC of 14 December 1994 laying down the requirements for the production and placing on the market of minced meat and meat preparations (6), in Annex B to Council Directive 92/46/EEC of 16 June 1992 laying down the health rules for the production and placing on the market of raw milk, heat-treated milk and milk-based products (7) and in the Annex to Council Directive 91/493/EEC of 22 July 1991 laying down the health conditions for the production and the placing on the market of fishery products (8) are not to apply to establishments in Poland listed in Appendix B to Annex XII to the Act of Accession until 31 December 2006, subject to certain conditions.

(2)

In Poland, 200 more high-capacity meat establishments, 35 more milk-processing establishments and 24 more fish-processing establishments have difficulties in complying with the structural requirements laid down in Annex I to Directive 64/433/EEC, in Annex I to Directive 71/118/EEC, in Annexes A and B to Directive 77/99/EEC, in Annex I to Directive 94/65/EC, in Annex B to Directive 92/46/EEC and in the Annex to Directive 91/493/EEC, by 1 May 2004.

(3)

Accordingly those 259 establishments need time to finalize their upgrading process in order to be in full compliance with the relevant structural requirements laid down in Directives 64/433/EEC, 71/118/EEC, 77/99/EEC, 94/65/EC, 92/46/EEC and 91/493/EEC.

(4)

The 259 establishments, which are currently in an advanced state of upgrading, have given reliable guarantees that they have the necessary funds to correct their remaining shortcomings within a short time and have received a favourable opinion from the Polish General Veterinary Inspectorate, as regards the finalisation of their upgrading process.

(5)

For Poland, the detailed information regarding the shortcomings for each establishment is available.

(6)

In order to facilitate the transition from the existing regime in Poland to that resulting from the application of the Community veterinary legislation, it is justified therefore upon the request of Poland, to grant the 259 establishments a transitional period.

(7)

Due to the advanced stage of upgrading of the 259 establishments, the transitional period should be limited to a maximum of 12 months.

(8)

The Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health has been informed of the measures provided for in this Decision.