15.11.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 297/1

(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,

15.11.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 297/3

(1)

In accordance with Article 6(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92, France’s application to register Miel de Provence was published in the Official Journal of the European Union  (2).

(2)

Germany opposed the registration under Article 7(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92. The statement of objection relates to non-compliance with the conditions laid down in Article 2 and the possible threat to the existence of a product which has been legally on the market for at least five years preceding the date of the publication provided for in Article 6(2).

(3)

By letter of 11 January 2005 the Commission asked the Member States concerned to seek agreement among themselves in accordance with their internal procedures.

(4)

As no agreement was reached between France and Germany within three months, the Commission must adopt a decision in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 15 of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92.

(5)

The statement of objection sent by Germany puts forward three arguments against registration. Firstly, Germany claims that registration would conflict with Article 4(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92. The opposing party claims that the organoleptic characteristics, the characteristics relating to the method of production and the quality criteria for the product applied for cannot be considered to be specific to the region of Provence.

(6)

By contrast, the Commission takes the view that the application for registration is based as much on the reputation of Provence honey as on its special quality, which is the honey’s floral origin, specific to the botanical environment of Provence.

(7)

Germany then refers to the possible threat to the existence of an entirely or partly identical name or of a mark or the existence of products which have been legally on the market for at least five years preceding the date of the publication provided for in Article 6(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92. In particular, it refers to the possibility that producers currently marketing honey under the name Miel de Provence could no longer use that name after registration if their products do not comply with the specification, either as a result of their floral origin or area of production.

(8)

The Commission takes the view that this argument is based on unproved hypotheses. According to the second indent of Article 7(4) of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92, the opposing party must ‘show’ the jeopardy claimed. Germany has only raised the possibility of jeopardy without showing that there are in fact producers who would suffer as a result of registration.

(9)

Finally, Germany argues that the use of the name Miel de Provence .is permitted under Council Directive 2001/110/EC of 20 December 2001 relating to honey (3) for honey from the French region of Provence-Alpes-Côte-d’Azur. It claims that this region is different from the geographical area covered by the specification drawn up under Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92. Also, the specification for the application for registration excludes honey made from sunflower, rape or lucerne (alfalfa), which are floral and plant origins present in the geographical area. As a result, to comply with the specification, traders currently marketing this product under the name Miel de Provence will have to exclude honey of floral origin not provided for in the specification. According to Germany, registration of Miel de Provence under Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 would conflict with Directive 2001/110/EC relating to honey.

(10)

As pointed out in recital 8, the argument relating to the existence of jeopardy has not been proved. In addition, the claimed infringement of Directive 2001/110/EC relating to honey is not one of the reasons that can be used for objections under Article 7(4) of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92. Also, Directive 2001/110/EC allows certain names without making them compulsory. By contrast, Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 is intended to regulate the use of registered names, even where they could be used more freely beforehand. As a result, the lack of restriction at a given moment is not, in principle, a reason to refuse registration.

(11)

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

(12)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Regulatory Committee on the Protection of Geographical Indications and Designations of Origin for Agricultural Products and Foodstuffs,

15.11.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 297/5

(1)

In accordance with Article 6(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92, the Italian application to register the two names ‘Mela Alto Adige’ or ‘Südtiroler Apfel’ and ‘Oliva Ascolana del Piceno’, the French application to register the two names ‘Asperge des Sables des Landes’ and ‘Pâtes d’Alsace’, and the Spanish application to register the name ‘Jamón de Trevélez’ were published in the Official Journal of the European Union  (2).

(2)

As no objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 was sent to the Commission, these names should be entered in the Register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications,

15.11.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 297/7

(1)

The fourth indent of Article 5(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1291/2000 (3) states that a licence is not required and may not be produced for the purpose of operations relating to quantities not exceeding those set out in Annex III to that Regulation.

(2)

In the seeds sector, Commission Regulation (EC) No 2081/2004 of 6 December 2004 laying down rules for the communication of the information necessary for implementing Council Regulation (EEC) No 2358/71 on the common organisation of the market in seeds (4) has repealed Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1117/79 of 6 June 1979 specifying the products in the seeds sector to be subject to the system of import licences (5); as a result hybrid maize and sorghum for sowing are no longer subject to the import licence scheme.

(3)

In the olive oil and table olives sector, Article 10(3) of Regulation (EC) No 865/2004 provides for a decision to make exports from the Community of any of the products listed in Article 1(a) of that Regulation subject to presentation of an export licence if necessary for the purposes of following market developments. Other than in that instance, a licence does not have to be presented for the export of those products.

(4)

Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1291/2000 should therefore be amended accordingly.

(5)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinions of the Management Committee for Seeds and the Management Committee for Olive Oil and Table Olives,

1.

in Part B — Oils and Fats — the section entitled ‘Export licence with or without advance fixing of the refund (Commission Regulation (EC) No 2543/95)’ is deleted;

2.

Part J — Seeds — is deleted.

15.11.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 297/9

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1864/2004 (2) opens tariff quotas of imports into the Community of preserved mushrooms of the genus Agaricus.

(2)

Due to the conclusion of Additional Protocols to the Europe Agreements with Bulgaria and Romania, approved by Council and Commission Decisions 2005/430/EC, Euratom (3) and 2005/431/EC, Euratom (4), the duty rates for products originating in Romania and the tariff quotas for products originating in Bulgaria laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1864/2004 should be modified.

(3)

The Additional Protocols to the Europe Agreements with Bulgaria and Romania, approved by Council and Commission Decisions 2005/430/EC, Euratom and 2005/431/EC, Euratom started to apply as of 1 August 2005. The present Regulation should therefore be made applicable as of that date.

(4)

Regulation (EC) No 1864/2004 should therefore be amended accordingly.

(5)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Products Processed from Fruit and Vegetables,

1.

In Article 1(2), the second subparagraph is replaced by the following:

‘However, no duty shall apply in respect of products originating in Romania (Order No 09.4726) and Bulgaria (Order No 09.4725).’

2.

Annex I is replaced by the following:

15.11.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 297/11

(a)

(b)