9.11.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 293/1

(1)

Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations, the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products and periods stipulated in the Annex thereto.

(2)

In compliance with the above criteria, the standard import values must be fixed at the levels set out in the Annex to this Regulation,

9.11.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 293/3

(1)

In accordance with Article 2 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3149/92 of 29 October 1992 laying down detailed rules for the supply of food from intervention stocks for the benefit of the most deprived persons in the Community (3), the Commission has to adopt a distribution plan to be financed from resources available in the 2006 budget year. The plan should lay down in particular, for each of the Member States applying the measure, the maximum financial resources available to carry out its part of the plan, and the quantity of each type of product to be withdrawn from the stocks held by the intervention agencies.

(2)

The Member States involved in the plan for 2006 have supplied the information required in accordance with Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 3149/92.

(3)

For the purposes of resource allocation, account must be taken of experience and of the degree to which the Member States have used the resources allocated to them in previous years.

(4)

Article 2(3)(1)(c) of Regulation (EEC) No 3149/92 provides for the making of grants for the purchase on the market of products temporarily unavailable in intervention stocks. Since stocks of skimmed-milk powder currently held by intervention agencies are very low and arrangements have already been made for their sale on the market, it is necessary to fix the grant in order to allow skimmed-milk powder required for the 2006 plan to be purchased on the market. Furthermore, specific provisions need to be introduced to ensure that the supply contract is properly carried out.

(5)

Article 7(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 3149/92 provides for the transfer between Member States of products unavailable in intervention stocks of the Member State where such products are required for the implementation of an annual plan. The intra-Community transfers necessary to carry through the 2006 plan should therefore be authorised subject to the conditions provided for in Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 3149/92.

(6)

To implement the plan, the operative event within the meaning of Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 2799/98 should be the date on which the financial year for administration of stocks in public storage starts.

(7)

In accordance with Article 2(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 3149/92 the Commission has consulted the major organisations familiar with the problems of the most deprived persons in the Community when drawing up the plan.

(8)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinions of all the relevant management committees,

9.11.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 293/8

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1623/2000 (2) provides for a system of disposal of wine alcohol by invitation to tender for use as bio-ethanol in the fuel sector in the Community. In order to enable the highest selling price to be obtained for such alcohol, the conditions for competition on the wine alcohol market should be improved.

(2)

To that end, firstly, an increase in the number of tenderers should be encouraged by simplifying the approval procedure. Secondly, where applicable, those undertakings should have the possibility of freely choosing on the market the clients to whom they will sell on the processed alcohol for its final use.

(3)

To that end, tenderers should not be required, on presentation of their tenders, to indicate the destination and the final purchasers of the alcohol, provided that final use takes place in the form of bio-ethanol in the fuel sector in the Community.

(4)

In order to better ensure that the planned final use of the alcohol is complied with, the amount of the performance guarantee should be increased.

(5)

The conditions for the participation of undertakings in invitations to tender as regards the date of their approval should be set out in greater detail.

(6)

The exchange of information between the intervention agencies, the Member States and the Commission should be made more transparent and efficient.

(7)

Regulation (EC) No 1623/2000 should be amended accordingly.

(8)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Wine,

1.

Article 92 is amended as follows:

2.

Article 94(1) and (2) is replaced by the following:

‘1.   Tenders must come from undertakings approved at the date of publication of the notice of invitation to tender.

2.   Tenderers may submit only one tender for each lot to be awarded. If a tenderer submits more than one tender for each lot, none of those tenders shall be admissible.’

3.

Article 94a(c) is deleted.

4.

Article 94b(3) is replaced by the following:

‘3.   The Commission shall notify the decisions taken under this Article to those Member States and intervention agencies holding alcohol to which tenders have been submitted.’

5.

Article 94c is replaced by the following:

‘Article 94c

Statement of award and notification to the Commission

1.   The intervention agency shall inform tenderers in writing, without delay against a receipt, of the decision taken on their tenders.

2.   Within five working days of receipt of the notification referred to in Article 94b(3), the intervention agency shall inform the Commission of the name and address of the tenderer for each tender submitted.

3.   Within two weeks of the date of receipt of the information notice referred to in paragraph 1, the intervention agency shall issue each successful tenderer with a statement of award certifying that their tender has been accepted.

4.   Within two weeks of the date of receipt of the information notice referred to in paragraph 1, each successful tenderer shall provide proof that they have lodged with the intervention agency concerned a performance guarantee of EUR 40 per hectolitre of alcohol at 100 % vol. to ensure that all the alcohol awarded is used in accordance with the purpose stated in Article 92(1).’

9.11.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 293/10

(1)

Article 30 of the Commission Regulation (EC) No 1653/2004 of 21 September 2004 on a standard financial regulation for the executive agencies pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 58/2003 laying down the statute for executive agencies to be entrusted with certain tasks in the management of Community programmes (2) provides that the management board of an executive agency shall appoint an accounting officer of the executive agency, who is an official subject to the Staff Regulations.

(2)

The responsibilities of the accounting officer of an executive agency, which are set out in that Article 30, are limited to the administrative budget of the executive agency, whereas the accounting officer of the Commission is responsible for all tasks relating to the operational budget implemented by executive agencies.

(3)

The Commission has encountered problems in finding appropriate candidates for the post of accounting officer of an executive agency to be seconded to this body.

(4)

The function of an accounting officer of an executive agency could be entrusted to temporary staff within the meaning of Article 2(a) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities, laid down by Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 (3).

(5)

Therefore, Regulation (EC) No 1653/2004 should be amended accordingly,

9.11.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 293/11

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 466/2001 of 8 March 2001 setting maximum levels for certain contaminants in foodstuffs (2), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 563/2002 (3), makes provision in particular for specific measures concerning nitrate levels in lettuce and spinach and lays down transitional periods during which lettuce and spinach containing nitrate in excess of the maximum level can be marketed within national territory.

(2)

Despite developments in the application of good agricultural practice, monitoring data from Member States indicate ongoing problems in complying with the maximum levels of nitrate for lettuce and spinach.

(3)

Many of the failures to comply with the maximum levels for nitrate in fresh spinach occur in the month of October. The summer period for spinach currently includes October, whereas for lettuce October is in the winter period. For consistency, October should be included in the winter period for fresh spinach.

(4)

In regions where there are difficulties to keep nitrate below the maximum levels for fresh lettuce and fresh spinach, for example when associated with less daily sunlight, certain Member States have requested derogations and provided sufficient information to demonstrate that investigations are underway to help reduce levels in the future.

(5)

Pending further developments in the application of good agricultural practice, it is appropriate to authorise those Member States for a limited period to allow fresh lettuce and fresh spinach containing nitrate above the maximum levels to continue to be marketed, but solely within their national territory and for national consumption.

(6)

Nitrate is present in other vegetables, sometimes at high levels. To inform future discussions on a longer-term strategy for managing the risk from nitrate in vegetables, Member States should monitor nitrate levels in vegetables and aim to reduce levels where feasible, in particular by applying improved codes of good agricultural practice. An updated scientific risk assessment from the European Food Safety Authority would help to clarify the risks posed by nitrate in vegetables. The maximum levels laid down in Regulation (EC) No 466/2001 would be reviewed taking into account information from the above activities.

(7)

Regulation (EC) No 466/2001 should be amended accordingly.

(8)

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

1.

Article 3 is deleted;

2.

the following Article 3a is inserted:

‘Article 3a

Member States shall monitor nitrate levels in vegetables containing significant levels, in particular green leafy vegetables, and communicate the results to the Commission by 30 June each year.’;

3.

the following Article 3b is inserted:

‘Article 3b

1.   By way of derogation from Article 1(1), Belgium, Ireland, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom are authorised until 31 December 2008 to place on the market fresh spinach grown and intended for consumption in their territory with nitrate levels higher than the maximum levels set out in point 1.1 of Annex I.

2.   By way of derogation from Article 1(1), Ireland and the United Kingdom are authorised until 31 December 2008 to place on the market fresh lettuce grown and intended for consumption in their territory and harvested throughout the year with nitrate levels higher than the maximum levels set out in point 1.3 of Annex I.

By way of derogation from Article 1(1), France is authorised until 31 December 2008 to place on the market fresh lettuce grown and intended for consumption in its territory and harvested from 1 October to 31 March with nitrate levels higher than the maximum levels set out in point 1.3 of Annex I.’;

4.

Section 1 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 466/2001 is replaced by the table as laid down in the Annex to this Regulation.

9.11.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 293/14

(1)

In accordance with Directive 91/414/EEC, authorisations of plant protection products for use on specific crops are the responsibility of the Member States. Such authorisations have to be based on the evaluation of effects on human and animal health and influence on the environment. Elements to be taken into account in such evaluations include operator and bystander exposure and impact on the terrestrial, aquatic and aerial environments, as well as impact on humans and animals through consumption of residues on treated crops.

(2)

Maximum residue levels (MRLs) reflect the use of minimum quantities of pesticides to achieve effective protection of plants, applied in such a manner that the amount of residue is the smallest practicable and is toxicologically acceptable, in particular in terms of estimated dietary intake.

(3)

MRLs for pesticides should be kept under review. They may be changed to take account of new uses, new information and data.

(4)

MRLs are fixed at the lower limit of analytical determination where authorised uses of plant protection products do not result in detectable levels of pesticide residues in or on the food product, or where there are no authorised uses, or where uses which have been authorised by Member States have not been supported by the necessary data, or where uses in third countries resulting in residues in or on food products which may enter into circulation in the Community market have not been supported with such necessary data.

(5)

Information on new or changed uses of certain pesticides covered by Directive 90/642/EEC and Directive 86/362/EEC has been notified to the Commission. This concerns kresoxim-methyl, cyromazine, bifenthrin, metalaxyl and azoxystrobin.

(6)

The lifetime exposure of consumers to these pesticides via food products that may contain residues of these pesticides, has been assessed and evaluated in accordance with the procedures and practices used within the Community, taking account of guidelines published by the World Health Organisation (4). It has been calculated that the MRLs concerned will ensure that the acceptable daily intake is not exceeded.

(7)

An assessment of the available information has shown that no ARfD is required and that therefore a short term assessment is not needed.

(8)

Therefore it is appropriate to fix new maximum levels for residues of those pesticides.

(9)

The setting or modification at Community level of provisional MRLs does not prevent the Member States from establishing provisional MRLs for metalaxyl in accordance with Article 4(1)(f) of Directive 91/414/EEC and Annex VI thereto. It is considered that a period of four years is sufficient to permit further uses of metalaxyl or metalaxyl-M. The provisional Community MRL should then become definitive.

(10)

Directives 90/642/EEC and 86/362/EEC should therefore be amended accordingly.

(11)

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

9.11.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 293/23

(1)

Pursuant to Article 6(9) of Directive 96/49/EC, Member States must give the Commission advance notification of their derogations, for the first time by 31 December 2002 or up to two years after the last date of application of the amended versions of the Annex to the Directive.

(2)

Commission Directive 2003/29/EC (2) amended the Annex to Directive 96/49/EC. Under the terms of Directive 2003/29/EC Member States had to bring into force national legislation no later than 1 July 2003, the last date of application referred to in Article 6(9) of Directive 96/49/EC being 30 June 2003.

(3)

Certain Member States had notified the Commission by 31 December 2003 of their wish to adopt derogations from Directive 96/49/EC. By Commission Decision 2005/180/EC of 4 March 2005 authorising Member States to adopt certain derogations pursuant to Council Directive 96/49/EC with regard to the transport of dangerous goods by rail (3), the Commission authorised the adoption by those Member States of the derogations listed in Annexes I and II to that Decision.

(4)

Commission Directive 2004/89/EC (4) again amended the Annex to Directive 96/49/EC. Under the terms of Directive 2004/89/EC Member States had to bring into force national legislation at the latest by 1 October 2004, the last date of application referred to in Article 6(9) of Directive 96/49/EC being 30 September 2004.

(5)

The United Kingdom notified the Commission by 31 December 2004 of its wish to amend its existing derogations in Annex I to Decision 2005/180/EC. The Commission has examined the notifications for compliance with the conditions laid down in Article 6(9) of Directive 96/49/EC and has approved them. That Member State should therefore be authorised to adopt the derogations in question.

(6)

It is therefore necessary to amend Annex I to Decision 2005/180/EC.

(7)

The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on the transport of dangerous goods, set up under Article 9 of Council Directive 94/55/EC (5),

9.11.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 293/26

(1)

Directive 91/414/EEC provides for the development of a Community list of active substances authorised for incorporation in plant protection products.

(2)

A dossier for the active substance aminopyralid was submitted by Dow AgroSciences Ltd. to the authorities of the United Kingdom on 22 April 2004 with an application to obtain its inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. For fluopicolide a dossier was submitted by Bayer CropScience, France to the authorities of the United Kingdom on 7 May 2004 with an application to obtain its inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC.

(3)

The authorities of the United Kingdom have indicated to the Commission that, on preliminary examination, the dossiers for the active substances concerned appear to satisfy the data and information requirements set out in Annex II to Directive 91/414/EEC. The dossiers submitted appear also to satisfy the data and information requirements set out in Annex III to Directive 91/414/EEC in respect of one plant protection product containing the active substance concerned. In accordance with Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC, the dossiers were subsequently forwarded by the respective applicants to the Commission and other Member States, and were referred to the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health.

(4)

By this Decision it should be formally confirmed at Community level that the dossiers are considered as satisfying in principle the data and information requirements provided for in Annex II and, for at least one plant protection product containing the active substance concerned, the requirements set out in Annex III to Directive 91/414/EEC.

(5)

This Decision should not prejudice the right of the Commission to request the applicant to submit further data or information in order to clarify certain points in the dossier.

(6)

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

9.11.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 293/28

(1)

Outbreaks of swine vesicular disease have been recorded in certain regions of Italy.

(2)

Italy has taken measures to deal with outbreaks under Council Directive 92/119/EEC of 17 December 1992 introducing general Community measures for the control of certain animal diseases and specific measures relating to swine vesicular disease (2).

(3)

Italy has also taken additional eradication and monitoring measures for swine vesicular disease covering the whole of Italy. These measures are laid down in yearly programmes for the eradication and monitoring of swine vesicular disease presented by Italy and approved in accordance with Article 24(6) and Articles 29 and 32 of Council Decision 90/424/EEC of 26 June 1990 on expenditure in the veterinary field (3).

(4)

Commission Decision 2004/840/EC of 30 November 2004 approving programmes for the eradication and monitoring of certain animal diseases and of checks aimed at the prevention of zoonoses presented by the Member States for the year 2005 and fixing the level of the Community’s financial contribution (4) approved the programme for the eradication and monitoring of swine vesicular disease presented by Italy for 2005.

(5)

The measures laid down in the yearly programmes for the eradication and monitoring of swine vesicular disease seek to recognise pig holdings as free of swine vesicular disease and to ensure that all regions of Italy achieve that status. The programmes also include rules on movement of and trade in live pigs from regions and holdings not of the same status as regards swine vesicular disease.

(6)

Most regions of Italy with the exception of Abruzzi, Campania, Calabria and Sicily have been recognised as free from swine vesicular disease following the favourable results of repeated sampling and testing of pigs on all holdings under the yearly eradication and monitoring programmes.

(7)

However, given the nature of the disease and its persistence in certain regions of Italy, surveillance to detect swine vesicular disease at an early stage should be maintained in regions recognised as free from swine vesicular disease.

(8)

The disease situation in regions that are not recognised as free from swine vesicular disease is also liable to endanger pig holdings in other regions of Italy through trade in live pigs. Pigs should therefore not be moved from regions not recognised as free from swine vesicular disease to other regions of Italy unless they originate from holdings that fulfil certain conditions.

(9)

Pigs in regions not recognised as free from swine vesicular disease should not be dispatched to other Member States. Pigs in regions recognised as free from swine vesicular disease should only be dispatched from holdings recognised as free from that disease.

(10)

The rules laid down in this Decision should apply without prejudice to those laid down in Council Directive 92/119/EEC. It is appropriate to lay down a definition for ‘assembly centre for pigs’ different to the one laid down in Council Directive 64/432/EEC of 26 June 1964 on animal health problems affecting intra-Community trade in bovine animals and swine (5).

(11)

For the sake of transparency, rules should be laid down at Community level on the status of pig holdings and regions as regards swine vesicular disease and on movements of and intra-Community trade in live pigs from holdings and regions of a different disease status.

(12)

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

1.

the definitions in Directive 92/119/EEC shall apply;

2.

‘assembly centre for pigs’ means the holding of a trader to which and from which acquired pigs are regularly moved within 30 days of acquisition.

(a)

on two occasions at an interval of 28 to 40 days, sampling for serological testing has been carried out on a number of breeding pigs sufficient to detect a prevalence of swine vesicular disease of 5 % with a confidence interval of 95 % and the results have been negative, and

(b)

where no breeding pigs are kept on holdings in regions recognised as free from swine vesicular disease, any pigs moved to such holdings originate in holdings recognised as free from that disease.

(a)

sampling and checking procedures are carried out in accordance with Article 5(1) and Article 6 and the results are negative, and

(b)

pigs moved to such a holding originate in holdings recognised as free from swine vesicular disease.

(a)

shall be suspended where any seropositive case is detected and confirmed by further investigations, until such time as the pig concerned is slaughtered under official supervision, or

(b)

shall be withdrawn where two or more seropositive cases are detected.

(a)

once a year where the holding mainly produces pigs for slaughter,

(b)

twice a year in other cases.

(a)

the holding of origin has been recognised as free from swine vesicular disease for at least two years without interruption;

(b)

in the 60 days prior to movement, the holding of origin has not been located in a protection or surveillance zone following an outbreak of swine vesicular disease;

(c)

no pigs were introduced onto the holding of origin in the 12 months prior to movement from holdings where swine vesicular disease was suspected;

(d)

pigs on the holding of origin are sampled between 20 and 30 days before movement and serologically testing is carried out on a number of pigs sufficient to detect prevalence of swine vesicular disease of 5 % with a confidence interval of 95 %;

(e)

pigs on the holding of destination are sampled at least 28 days after movement and serologically testing is carried out on a number of pigs sufficient to detect prevalence of swine vesicular disease of 5 % with a confidence interval of 95 %. Pigs may not be moved from the holding of destination until testing has been carried out and the results are negative;

(f)

the animals moved are transported in sealed vehicles under the supervision of the authorities;

(g)

movement of the pigs is notified at least 48 hours in advance to the local veterinary authority responsible for the holding of destination;

(h)

the vehicles used for transporting the pigs are cleaned and disinfected under official supervision before and after movement.