14.10.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 283/1

(1)

It is advisable to adopt measures that would ensure compliance with the conditions for certain tariff quotas for imports of high quality beef into the Community.

(2)

Discussions with the countries exporting high quality beef within the EC-WTO tariff quotas of 11 000 t, 5 000 t and 4 000 t respectively have revealed the need to better adapt the import conditions for these quotas.

(3)

To clarify the situation, it is appropriate to allocate the relevant tariff quotas for which Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay are the sole suppliers to the respective country.

(4)

The Commission should subsequently adopt definitions which are more easily auditable and verifiable in accordance with the procedure foreseen in Article 32(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal (1) so as to allow for an ex post verification and audit of the definition compliance, without changing the basic import conditions,

14.10.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 283/3

(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,

14.10.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 283/5

(1)

In accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 1898/2005 of 9 November 2005 laying down detailed rules for implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/99 as regards measures for the disposal of cream, butter and concentrated butter on the Community market (2), the intervention agencies may sell by standing invitation to tender certain quantities of butter from intervention stocks that they hold and may grant aid for cream, butter and concentrated butter. Article 25 of that Regulation lays down that in the light of the tenders received in response to each individual invitation to tender a minimum selling price shall be fixed for butter and maximum aid shall be fixed for cream, butter and concentrated butter. It is further laid down that the price or aid may vary according to the intended use of the butter, its fat content and the incorporation procedure. The amount of the processing security as referred to in Article 28 of Regulation (EC) No 1898/2005 should be fixed accordingly.

(2)

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

14.10.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 283/7

(1)

In accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 1898/2005 of 9 November 2005 laying down detailed rules for implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/99 as regards measures for the disposal of cream, butter and concentrated butter on the Community market (2), the intervention agencies may sell by standing invitation to tender certain quantities of butter of intervention stocks that they hold and may grant aid for cream, butter and concentrated butter. Article 25 of that Regulation lays down that in the light of the tenders received in response to each individual invitation to tender a minimum selling price shall be fixed for butter and maximum aid shall be fixed for cream, butter and concentrated butter. It is further laid down that the price or aid may vary according to the intended use of the butter, its fat content and the incorporation procedure. The amount of the processing security as referred to in Article 28 of Regulation (EC) No 1898/2005 should be fixed accordingly.

(2)

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

14.10.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 283/9

(1)

In accordance with Article 47 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1898/2005 of 9 November 2005 laying down detailed rules for implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/99 as regards measures for the disposal of cream, butter and concentrated butter on the Community market (2), the intervention agencies are opening a standing invitation to tender for the granting of aid for concentrated butter. Article 54 of that Regulation provides that in the light of the tenders received in response to each special invitation to tender, a maximum amount of aid is to be fixed for concentrated butter with a minimum fat content of 96 %.

(2)

An end-use security provided for in Article 53(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1898/2005 is to be lodged to ensure the taking over of the concentrated butter by the retail trade.

(3)

In the light of the tenders received, the maximum aid should be fixed at the appropriate level and the end-use security should be determined accordingly.

(4)

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

14.10.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 283/10

(1)

Pursuant to Article 21 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2771/1999 of 16 December 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 as regards intervention on the market in butter and cream (2), intervention agencies have put up for sale by standing invitation to tender certain quantities of butter held by them.

(2)

In the light of the tenders received in response to each individual invitation to tender a minimum selling price shall be fixed or a decision shall be taken to make no award, in accordance with Article 24a of Regulation (EC) No 2771/1999.

(3)

In the light of the tenders received, a minimum selling price should be fixed.

(4)

The Management Committee for Milk and Milk Products has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its chairman,

14.10.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 283/11

(1)

Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 provides that the rates of duty in the Common Customs Tariff are to be charged on import of the products referred to in Article 1 of that Regulation. However, in the case of the products referred to in paragraph 2 of that Article, the import duty is to be equal to the intervention price valid for such products on importation and increased by 55 %, minus the cif import price applicable to the consignment in question. However, that duty may not exceed the rate of duty in the Common Customs Tariff.

(2)

Pursuant to Article 10(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003, the cif import prices are calculated on the basis of the representative prices for the product in question on the world market.

(3)

Regulation (EC) No 1249/96 lays down detailed rules for the application of Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 as regards import duties in the cereals sector.

(4)

The import duties are applicable until new duties are fixed and enter into force.

(5)

In order to allow the import duty system to function normally, the representative market rates recorded during a reference period should be used for calculating the duties.

(6)

Application of Regulation (EC) No 1249/96 results in import duties being fixed as set out in Annex I to this Regulation,

14.10.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 283/14

(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 2007 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 2007 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 and rice currently held by intervention agencies are very low and arrangements have already been made for their sale on the market and their distribution in the framework of Regulation (EEC) 3149/92, and since no purchases of these products are foreseen in 2006, it is necessary to fix the grant in order to allow skimmed-milk powder and rice required for the 2007 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)

To take into account the specific necessities of certain Member States, the withdrawal of cereals in payment for rice and rice based products should be authorised, in accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 3149/92.

(6)

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 2007 plan should therefore be authorised subject to the conditions provided for in Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 3149/92.

(7)

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.

(8)

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.

(9)

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

14.10.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 283/20

(1)

In accordance with Article 28(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 payments under the support schemes listed in Annex I to that regulation shall be made once a year within the period from 1 December to 30 June of the following calendar year.

(2)

Member States are facing various and sometimes persisting difficulties in the finalisation of the measures necessary for the application of the aid schemes provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003. The integration of the regimes for olive oil and sugar into the Single Payment Scheme in year 2006 has caused further difficulties for those Member States that introduced that aid scheme the previous year.

(3)

It is therefore appropriate, as an exceptional measure in 2006, to authorise the Member States, in conformity to Article 28(3)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003, to provide for an advance of the payments listed in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003. Advances should be paid only after the administrative checks and on-the-spot checks have been carried out in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 of 21 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers (2).

(4)

Farmers have been affected by severe climatic conditions in 2006, in particular in the course of the summer. The need to adapt to those conditions along with the effects of the change-over from coupled aid schemes to the single payment scheme may lead to financial difficulties and/or cash-flow problems for farmers. It is therefore appropriate, in conformity to Article 28(3)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003, to allow Member States to pay advances. The timetable and the amount of the advances to be paid to farmers should be compatible with the regulatory financial provisions. Advances should therefore be paid from 16 October 2006 and the maximum amount of the advances to be paid before 1 December 2006 should be limited to 50 % of the payments due to the farmers.

(5)

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

14.10.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 283/22

(1)

Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 493/2006 lays down that for each undertaking, the share of the production of sugar, isoglucose or inulin syrup in the 2006/07 marketing year which is produced under the quotas set in Annex IV to that Regulation and which exceeds a certain threshold shall be considered withdrawn within the meaning of Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 318/2006.

(2)

For the purposes of establishing the threshold in question, a coefficient must be fixed no later than 15 October 2006 by dividing the sum of the quotas renounced in the 2006/07 marketing year in the Member State concerned, under Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 of 20 February 2006 establishing a temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry in the Community and amending Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (3), by the sum of the quotas fixed for that Member State in Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 493/2006.

(3)

In fixing that coefficient, account should be taken of the Commission Communication of 29 September 2006 on the estimated availability of financial resources for granting of restructuring aid for the 2006/07 marketing year, in the framework of the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 establishing a temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry in the Community (4), which was adopted in accordance with Article 10(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 968/2006 of 27 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 establishing a temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry in the Community (5).

(4)

The coefficient for establishing the withdrawal threshold for the 2006/07 marketing year should therefore be fixed,

(a)

Belgium: 0,1945;

(b)

Spain: 0,0863;

(c)

France (mainland): 0,0074;

(d)

Ireland: 1,0000;

(e)

Italy: 0,4936;

(f)

Netherlands: 0,0848;

(g)

Portugal: 0,4422;

(h)

Sweden: 0,1156;

(i)

other Member States: 0,0000.

14.10.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 283/24

(1)

In order to improve the market balance in the Community without creating new stocks of sugar in the 2006/07 marketing year, Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 493/2006 of 27 March 2006 laying down transitional measures within the framework of the reform of the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector, and amending Regulations (EC) No 1265/2001 and (EC) No 314/2002 (2) provides for a preventive withdrawal to reduce eligible production under quota in respect of that marketing year. Thus, above a certain threshold, production under quota of each undertaking is considered withdrawn or, at the request of the undertaking, as produced in excess of the quota. The thresholds are to be calculated on the basis of the quotas set out in Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 318/2006, as fixed when it was adopted. Article 10 of the abovementioned Regulation requires the Commission to adjust the quotas set out in Annex III by 30 September 2006 at the latest. The result of such adjustment will be to change the quotas and reduce eligible production under quota. In order to limit the effect to that intended by preventive withdrawal and to avoid any ambiguity when applying this measure, the reference to the quotas set out in Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 should be replaced by a reference to the quotas annexed to Regulation (EC) No 493/2006.

(2)

The transitional aid granted to sugar produced in the French overseas departments under Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 493/2006 is to be subject to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1554/2001 of 30 July 2001 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 as regards marketing sugar produced in the French overseas departments and equalising the price conditions with preferential raw sugar (3). However, the detailed rules laid down in Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1554/2001 to establish the flat-rate amount to cover the sea transport costs will, as from 1 July 2006, no longer be applicable following the decision of the United Terminal Sugar Market Association of London to cease setting the London Daily Price. A flat-rate amount should therefore be set based on the April to June 2006 average value, to be applied during the period of application of the aid provided for in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 493/2006.

(3)

The transitional quotas allocated in accordance with Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 493/2006 for the 2006/07 marketing year may be used only if the undertaking concerned has been able to change in time investment decisions already taken; certain undertakings have not been able to do so. The Member States should therefore be allowed to reallocate to the undertakings concerned the remainder of the transitional quotas as transitional quotas for the 2007/08 marketing year.

(4)

Annex V to Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 sets out the conditions for the allocation by the Member States of quotas to undertakings resulting from a merger or transfer. Depending on the date of such merger or transfer, the measures will take effect either in respect of the current marketing year or the following marketing year. Where merger or transfer takes place between 1 July and 30 September 2006, provision should be made to allow measures to take effect, at the request of the undertakings concerned, in respect of the 2006/07 marketing year rather than the following marketing year, as provided for in Point V of the abovementioned Annex, in order to take account of the fact that the 2006/07 marketing year commences on 1 July rather than on 1 October, like the subsequent marketing years.

(5)

Regulation (EC) No 493/2006 should therefore be amended accordingly.

(6)

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

1.

In Article 3, paragraph 1 and 2 are replaced by the following:

‘1.   For each undertaking, the share of the production of sugar, isoglucose or inulin syrup in the 2006/07 marketing year which is produced under the quota allocated in accordance with the quotas laid down in Annex IV and which exceeds the threshold established in accordance with paragraph 2 of this Article shall be considered withdrawn within the meaning of Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 or, at the request of the undertaking concerned submitted before 31 January 2007, shall be considered fully or partially to be produced in excess of the quota within the meaning of Article 12 of that Regulation.

2.   For each undertaking, the threshold mentioned in paragraph 1 shall be calculated by multiplying its quota mentioned in paragraph 1 by the sum of the following coefficients:

However, where the sum of the coefficients exceeds 1,0000, the threshold shall be equal to the quota referred to in paragraph 1.’;

2.

The following subparagraph shall be added to Article 4(2):

‘The flat-rate amount mentioned in Article 2(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1554/2001 is hereby fixed for the period from 1 July to 30 October 2006 at EUR 34,19 per tonne.’;

3.

The following subparagraph is added to Article 9(1):

‘Where, for a given undertaking, the transitional quotas allocated in accordance with this paragraph exceed production in respect of the 2006/07 marketing year, the Member State may allocate to such an undertaking the remainder of those quotas for the 2007/08 marketing year.’;

4.

The following Article 10a is added to the end of Chapter I:

‘Article 10a

Merger or transfer of undertakings

By way of derogation from Point V of Annex V to Regulation (EC) No 318/2006, where merger or transfer occurs between 1 July and 30 September 2006, the measures mentioned in Points II and III of that that annex shall, at the request of the undertakings concerned, take effect for the 2006/07 marketing year.’;

5.

The Annex to this Regulation is added as Annex IV.

14.10.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 283/27

(1)

The Commission adopted Regulation (EC) No 474/2006 of 22 March 2006 establishing the Community list of air carriers which are subject to an operating ban within the Community referred to in Chapter II of Regulation (EC) No 2111/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2).

(2)

The Commission adopted Regulation (EC) No 910/2006 of 20 June 2006 amending Regulation (EC) No 474/2006 of 22 March 2006 establishing the Community list of air carriers which are subject to an operating ban within the Community referred to in Chapter II of Regulation (EC) No 2111/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3).

(3)

In accordance with Article 4(2) of the basic Regulation and Article 2 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 473/2006 of 22 March 2006 laying down implementing rules for the Community list of air carriers which are subject to an operating ban within the Community referred to in Chapter II of Regulation (EC) No 2111/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council (4), a Member State requested to update the Community list.

(4)

In accordance with Article 4(3) of the basic Regulation, Member States communicated to the Commission information that is relevant in the context of updating the Community list. On this basis, the Commission should decide to update the Community list on its own initiative or at the request of Member States.

(5)

In accordance with Article 7 of the basic Regulation and Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 473/2006, the Commission informed all air carriers concerned either directly or, when this was not practicable, through the authorities responsible for their regulatory oversight, indicating the essential facts and considerations which would form the basis for a decision to impose on them an operating ban within the Community or to modify the conditions of an operating ban imposed on an air carrier which is included in the Community list.

(6)

In accordance with Article 7 of the basic Regulation and Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 473/2006, opportunity was given by the Commission to the air carriers concerned to consult the documents provided by Member States, to submit written comments and to make an oral presentation to the Commission within 10 working days and to the Air Safety Committee (5).

(7)

In accordance with Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 473/2006, the authorities with responsibility for regulatory oversight over the air carriers concerned have been consulted by the Commission as well as, in specific cases, by some Member States.

(8)

There is evidence that the operator DAS Air Cargo (DAZ) certified in Kenya is a subsidiary of Dairo Air Services (DSR) certified in Uganda. The two carriers operate the same aircraft. Therefore, any measure decided with regard to DSR should equally be applicable to DAZ.

(9)

There is verified evidence of serious safety deficiencies on the part of Dairo Air Services. These deficiencies have been identified by the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Belgium, France, Germany and Spain, during ramp inspections performed under the SAFA programme (6); the repetition of these inspection findings indicates systemic safety deficiencies. Despite cooperation with Member States and individual remedial actions taken by the Ugandan authorities and by Dairo Air Services, the repetition of these findings indicates systemic safety deficiencies.

(10)

The UK Civil Aviation Authority performed an inspection on Dairo Air Services and Das Air Cargo, which revealed that between 21 April and 25 July 2006 aircraft operated by the two air carriers were being maintained by a maintenance organisation without a proper approval, thus constituting a serious safety deficiency.

(11)

DSR demonstrated a lack of transparency and adequate and timely communication in response to an enquiry by the civil aviation authority of the Netherlands regarding the safety aspect of its operation, as demonstrated by the absence of an adequate and timely reply to the correspondence sent by this Member State.

(12)

On the basis of the common criteria, it is assessed that Dairo Air Services and DAS Air Cargo do not fully meet the relevant safety standards, and therefore should be included in Annex A.

(13)

Following the invitation of the Kyrgyz Republic civil aviation authority, a team of European experts conducted a fact-finding mission to the Kyrgyz Republic from 10 to 15 September 2006. Its report shows that the Kyrgyz civil aviation authority has revealed an insufficient ability to implement and enforce the relevant safety standards in accordance with their obligations under the Chicago convention.

(14)

In addition, a majority of carriers visited by the European experts although holders of an Air Operators Certificate (AOC) issued by Kyrgyz Republic, did not have their principle place of business in Kyrgyz Republic, contrary to the requirements of Annex 6 to the Chicago Convention.

(15)

On the basis of the common criteria, it is assessed that all air carriers certified in Kyrgyz Republic do not meet the relevant safety standards and therefore they should be subject to an operating ban and included in Annex A.

(16)

The authorities of Kyrgyz Republic have provided the Commission with evidence of the withdrawal of the Air Operator's Certificates of the following two air carriers: Phoenix Aviation and Star Jet. Since these two carriers certified in Kyrgyz Republic have consequently ceased their activities, they should not be included in Annex A.

(17)

The authorities of the Democratic Republic of Congo have provided the Commission with information indicating that they released an AOC to the following air carriers: Air Beni, Air Infini, Bel Glob Airlines, Bravo Air Congo, Gomair, Katanga Airways, Sun Air Services, Zaabu International. Since these new air carriers are certified by the authorities of the Democratic Republic of Congo which have shown a lack of ability to carry out adequate safety oversight, they should be included in Annex A.

(18)

The authorities of the Democratic Republic of Congo have provided the Commission with evidence of the withdrawal of the Air Operator's Certificates of the following air carriers: African Business and Transportations, Air Charter Services, Air Plan International, Air Transport Service, ATO – Air Transport Office, Congo Air, Dahla Airlines, DAS Airlines, Espace Aviation Services, Funtshi Aviation Service, GR Aviation, JETAIR – Jet Aero Services, Kinshasa Airways, Okapi Airways, Scibe Airlift, Shabair, Trans Service Airlift, Waltair Aviation, Zaire Aero Service (ZAS). Since these carriers certified in the Democratic Republic of Congo have consequently ceased their activities, they should be withdrawn from Annex A.

(19)

The authorities of Liberia have provided the Commission with evidence of the withdrawal of the Air Operator's Certificates of the following air carriers: Air Cargo Plus, Air Cess (Liberia), Air Liberia, Atlantic Aviation Services, Bridge Airlines, Excel Air Services, International Air Services, Jet Cargo-Liberia, Liberia Airways, Liberian World Airlines, Lonestar Airways, Midair Limited, Occidental Airlines, Occidental Airlines (Liberia), Santa Cruise Imperial Airlines, Satgur Air Transport, Simon Air, Sosoliso Airlines, Trans-African Airways, Transway Air Services, United Africa Airlines (Liberia). Since these carriers certified in Liberia have consequently ceased their activities, they should be withdrawn from Annex A.

(20)

The authorities of Sierra Leone have provided the Commission with evidence of the withdrawal of the Air Operator's Certificates of the following air carriers: Aerolift, Afrik Air Links, Air Leone, Air Salone, Air Sultan Limited, Air Universal, Central Airways Limited, First Line Air, Inter Tropic Airlines, Mountain Air Company, Orange Air Services, Pan African Air Services, Sierra National Airlines, Sky Aviation, Star Air, Transport Africa, Trans Atlantic Airlines, West Coast Airways. Since these carriers certified in Sierra Leone have consequently ceased their activities, they should be withdrawn from Annex A.

(21)

The authorities of Swaziland have provided the Commission with evidence of the withdrawal of the Air Operator's Certificates of the following air carriers: African International Airways, Air Swazi Cargo, East Western Airways, Galaxy Avion, Interflight, Northeast Airlines, Ocean Air, Skygate International, Swazi Air Charter, Volga Atlantic Airlines. Since these carriers certified in Swaziland have consequently ceased their activities, they should be withdrawn from Annex A.

(22)

The authorities of Swaziland and South Africa have provided sufficient evidence that the Air Operator's Certificate issued to African International Airway’s under the aegis of the CAA of Swaziland has been withdrawn, and that the air carrier is now operating under a new Air Operator's Certificate issued by the CAA of South Africa which therefore has the responsibility for its safety oversight. Therefore, on the basis of the common criteria, and without prejudice to verification of effective compliance with the relevant safety standards through adequate ramp inspections, it is assessed that African International Airways should be withdrawn from Annex A.

(23)

In reply to an inquiry by the civil aviation authority of France, Air Service Comores indicated that an action plan had been established in order to correct the safety deficiencies identified during ramp inspections. However, there is still no evidence of the implementation of an appropriate action plan for all operations of Air Service Comores.

(24)

The authorities of Comoros with responsibility for regulatory oversight of Air Service Comores have provided the Civil Aviation Authorities of France with sufficient information about the safety of operations with respect to the specific aircraft LET 410 UVP with registration mark D6-CAM.

(25)

Therefore, on the basis of the common criteria, it is assessed that Air Service Comores meets the relevant safety standards only for flights operated with the aircraft LET 410 UVP with registration mark D6-CAM. Consequently Air Service Comores should be subject to operational restrictions and should be moved from Annex A to Annex B.

(26)

Ariana Afghan Airlines submitted a request to be withdrawn from the Community list, provided some documentation in support of this request and showed strong disposition towards cooperation with the Commission and Member States. However, since the full implementation of an adequate corrective action plan by the carrier is not completed, the Commission considers that Ariana Afghan Airlines should be retained in the Community list.

(27)

Ariana Afghan Airlines provided information indicating that it has ceased operations with the aircraft Airbus A-310 registered in France with marks F-GYYY, which has been sold.

(28)

Therefore, the specific conditions applicable to the Community ban to Ariana Afghan Airlines have changed. The air carrier should be subject to a ban to all its operations and therefore remain included in Annex A.

(29)

Documentation submitted by Air Koryo and the Civil Aviation Authorities of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) indicates that the carrier has embarked upon a corrective action plan with the intention of aligning itself fully with the relevant safety standards in due time.

(30)

Furthermore, the Civil Aviation Authorities of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) has stated that at present, Air Koryo is not permitted to operate any flights to European destinations unless the carrier equips itself with new aircraft which meet the relevant international safety standards.

(31)

On the basis of the common criteria, it is assessed that Air Koryo still does not meet fully the relevant safety standards and therefore should be retained within Annex A.

(32)

Following the invitation of the air carrier, a team of European experts conducted a fact-finding mission to Phuket Air in Bangkok, Thailand between 11 to 15 September 2006. The report from this mission shows that while significant progress has been made by the carrier following its inclusion in the Community list, substantial safety deficiencies still remain to be rectified.

(33)

Whilst acknowledging the effort made by the carrier towards achieving the level of progress noted in the report, as well as the strong disposition towards cooperation shown both by the carrier and the Thai Department of Civil Aviation, a decision to withdraw Phuket Air from the EC list is still considered to be premature pending the receipt and review of satisfactory evidence confirming the full implementation of the corrective action plan which the carrier is still in the process of completing.

(34)

On the basis of the common criteria, it is assessed that Phuket Air still does not meet fully the relevant safety standards and therefore should be retained within Annex A.

(35)

The air carrier formerly known as Helios Airways now operates as A Jet Aviation. Indeed the Air Operator Certificate of Helios Airways has been subject to a variation consisting in a change of name to A Jet Aviation (7).

(36)

An investigation conducted by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) under Article 45 of Regulation (EC) No 1592/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council (8) and by the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) during three joint visits which took place between October 2005 and August 2006 (9) identified series safety deficiencies related to the operations of A Jet Aviation/Helios Airways.

(37)

Following consultations with EASA, JAA and the Commission, the civil aviation authorities of Cyprus with responsibility for regulatory oversight of that carrier have provided evidence of the adoption of provisional measures to correct these safety deficiencies identified.

(38)

In view of the above considerations, the Commission considers that, at this stage, A Jet Aviation/Helios Airways should not be included in the Community list. However the situation of this carrier and the exercise of oversight responsibilities by the Cyprus civil aviation authorities will be closely monitored by the Commission with the assistance of EASA and JAA in the coming months.

(39)

Following deficiencies identified by various Member States, these Member States and the Commission entered into consultations with Johnsons Air and the civil aviation authorities of Ghana with responsibility for regulatory oversight of that carrier.

(40)

Johnsons Air has provided evidence of an action plan intended to correct the safety deficiencies identified. Furthermore, the competent authorities of Ghana should submit within strict deadlines its oversight programme for the operations conducted by Johnsons Air outside Ghana.

(41)

In view of the above considerations, the Commission considers that, at this stage, Johnsons Air should not be included in the Community list. Without prejudice to further verification of effective compliance with the relevant safety standards through adequate ramp inspections, the Commission intends to review within three months the situation of Johnsons Air on the basis of the oversight programme due to be submitted by the civil aviation authorities of Ghana.

(42)

Following serious safety deficiencies identified by various Member States indicating systemic safety problems, these Member States and the Commission entered into consultations with Pakistan International Airlines and the civil aviation authorities of Pakistan with responsibility for regulatory oversight of that carrier.

(43)

The Commission has asked Pakistan International Airlines to provide evidence of an adequate remedial action plan intended to address its systemic safety deficiencies within strict deadlines. Furthermore, the competent authorities of Pakistan have announced the establishment of an action plan to reinforce their surveillance activities on the carrier which must be urgently submitted to the Commission.

(44)

Pending the submission of the above mentioned plans within the indicated deadlines and the formal endorsement of such plan by the Pakistani authorities, the Commission considers that, at this stage, Pakistan International Airlines should not be included in the Community list. However the Commission will take appropriate action, if necessary under Article 5(1) of the basic Regulation, in the event that the above mentioned plans are not delivered in due time or are judged insufficient. In addition, the Member States intend to ensure further verification of effective compliance with the relevant safety standards through systematic ramp inspections on this carrier.

(45)

Following deficiencies identified by various Member States, the Commission entered into consultations with the authorities of Russia with responsibility for regulatory oversight of that carrier and heard the carrier concerned.

(46)

Pulkovo has provided evidence of an action plan intended to correct its systemic safety deficiencies within specific deadlines and to further improve their organisation with a view to managing safety effectively. The action plan has been formally endorsed by the competent authorities of Russia. Furthermore, the competent authorities of Russia have submitted an action plan to reinforce their surveillance activities on the carrier.

(47)

In view of the above considerations, the Commission considers that, at this stage, Pulkovo should not be included in the Community list. Without prejudice to further verification of effective compliance with the relevant safety standards including through ramp inspections, the Commission intends to review the situation of Pulkovo or the carrier resulting from its announced future merger with another Russian carrier and of the authorities with responsibility for regulatory oversight of this air carrier within three months, with the assistance of the European Aviation Safety Agency and the authorities of any interested Member State. Both the carrier and the competent authorities of Russia have accepted this procedure.

(48)

No evidence of the full implementation of appropriate remedial actions by the other carriers included in the list updated on 20 June 2006 and by the authorities with responsibility for regulatory oversight of these air carriers has been communicated to the Commission so far in spite of specific requests submitted by the latter. Therefore, on the basis of the common criteria, it is assessed that these air carriers should continue to be subject to an operating ban.

(49)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Air Safety Committee,

1.

Annex A of the Regulation is replaced by the Annex A to this Regulation.

2.

Annex B of the Regulation is replaced by the Annex B to this Regulation.

14.10.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 283/40

(1)

On 4 November 2004 the European Council endorsed a multi-annual programme, known as the Hague Programme, for strengthening the area of freedom, security and justice, which calls for the development of the second phase of a common policy in the field of asylum, migration, visas and borders, which started on 1 May 2004, based, inter alia, on closer practical cooperation between Member States and an improved exchange of information.

(2)

The development of common asylum and immigration policies since the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam has resulted in closer interdependency between Member States' policies in these areas, making the need for a more coordinated approach of national policies essential for strengthening the area of freedom, security and justice.

(3)

In conclusions adopted at its meeting of 14 April 2005, the Justice and Home Affairs Council called for the establishment of a system of mutual information between those in charge of migration and asylum policy in the Member States, based on the necessity to communicate information on measures considered likely to have a significant impact on several Member States or on the European Union as a whole and allowing for an exchange of views between Member States and the Commission at the request of any one of the Member States or the Commission.

(4)

The information mechanism should be based on solidarity, transparency and mutual confidence and should provide a flexible, rapid and non-bureaucratic channel for exchanging information and views on national asylum and immigration measures at European Union level.

(5)

For the purposes of the application of this Decision, national asylum and immigration measures which are likely to have a significant impact on several Member States or on the European Union as a whole may comprise policy intentions, long-term programming, draft and adopted legislation, final decisions of the highest courts or tribunals which apply or interpret measures of national law and administrative decisions affecting a significant number of persons.

(6)

Communication of the relevant information should take place at the latest when the measures concerned become publicly available. Member States are however encouraged to transmit it as soon as possible.

(7)

For reasons of efficiency and accessibility, a web-based network should be an essential element of the information mechanism concerning national measures in the areas of asylum and immigration.

(8)

The exchange of information on national measures through a web-based network should be complemented by the possibility of exchanging views on such measures.

(9)

The information mechanism established by this Decision should be without prejudice to the right of Member States to request ad-hoc discussions in the Council on national measures at any time, in accordance with the Council's rules of procedure.

(10)

Since the objectives of this Decision, namely secure information exchange and consultation between Member States, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the effects of this Decision, be better achieved at Community level, the Community may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiary as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Decision does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives.

(11)

The United Kingdom and Ireland, in accordance with Article 3 of the Protocol on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty establishing the European Community, have given notice of their wish to take part in the adoption and application of this Decision.

(12)

In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol on the position of Denmark annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Denmark does not take part in the adoption of this Decision and is therefore not bound by it or subject to its application,

14.10.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 283/44

(1)

Following the outbreak of avian influenza, caused by a highly pathogenic H5N1 virus strain, in south-east Asia starting in December 2003, the Commission adopted several protection measures in relation to that disease, in particular Commission Decision 2005/710/EC of 13 October 2005 concerning certain protection measures in relation to highly pathogenic avian influenza in Romania (3).

(2)

Decision 2005/710/EC provides that Member States are to suspend imports of live poultry, ratites, farmed and wild feathered game, and hatching eggs of those species and certain other products of birds from the whole territory of Romania.

(3)

Romania has now transmitted further information to the Commission on the avian influenza situation in that country, which shows that no further outbreaks of that disease have been detected since 7 June 2006.

(4)

In the light of that information, it is appropriate to limit the suspension of the imports provided for in Decision of 2005/710/EC to certain areas of Romania that are still under direct threat of the disease.

(5)

Decision 2005/710/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.

(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,

14.10.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 283/47

(1)

Directive 2002/95/EC requires the Commission to evaluate certain hazardous substances prohibited pursuant to Article 4(1) of that Directive.

(2)

Crystal glass has been progressively used for decorative purposes on electrical and electronic equipment. Since Council Directive 69/493/EEC of 15 December 1969 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to crystal glass (2) prescribes the amount of lead to be present in crystal glass and the substitution of lead in crystal glass is therefore technically impracticable, the use of this hazardous substance in specific materials and components covered by that Directive is unavoidable. Those materials and components should be therefore exempted from the prohibition.

(3)

Some exemptions from the prohibition for certain specific materials or components should be limited in their scope, in order to achieve a gradual phase-out of hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment, given that the use of those substances in such applications will become avoidable.

(4)

Pursuant to Article 5(1)(c) of Directive 2002/95/EC each exemption listed in the Annex must be subject to a review at least every four years or four years after an item is added to the list.

(5)

Directive 2002/95/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.

(6)

Pursuant to Article 5(2) of Directive 2002/95/EC, the Commission has consulted the relevant parties.

(7)

The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 18 of Directive 2006/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (3),

14.10.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 283/48

(1)

Directive 2002/95/EC requires the Commission to evaluate certain hazardous substances prohibited pursuant to Article 4(1) of that Directive.

(2)

Certain materials and components containing lead and cadmium should be exempted from the prohibition, since the use of these hazardous substances in those specific materials and components is still unavoidable, or because the negative environmental, health or consumer safety impacts caused by substitution are likely to outweigh the environmental, health or consumer safety benefits thereof. The exemptions listed in the annex to this decision are granted on the basis of the results of a review process carried out by technical experts taking into account available evidence from studies, stakeholders and other scientific/technical sources. This review concluded that the elimination or substitution of the substances is still technically or scientifically impracticable.

(3)

Some exemptions from the prohibition for certain specific materials or components should be limited in their scope, in order to achieve a gradual phase-out of hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment, given that the use of those substances in such applications will become avoidable.

(4)

Pursuant to Article 5(1)(c) of Directive 2002/95/EC each exemption listed in the Annex must be subject to a review at least every four years or four years after an item is added to the list.

(5)

Directive 2002/95/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.

(6)

Pursuant to Article 5(2) of Directive 2002/95/EC, the Commission has consulted the relevant parties.

(7)

The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 18 of Directive 2006/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (2),

14.10.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 283/50

(1)

Directive 2002/95/EC requires the Commission to evaluate certain hazardous substances prohibited pursuant to Article 4(1) of that Directive.

(2)

Certain materials and components containing hexavalent chromium should be exempted from the prohibition, since the use of this hazardous substance in those specific materials and components is still unavoidable, or because the negative environmental, health or consumer safety impacts caused by substitution are likely to outweigh the environmental, health or consumer safety benefits thereof. The exemption is granted on the basis of the results of a review process carried out by technical experts taking into account available evidence from studies, stakeholders and other scientific/technical sources. This review concluded that the elimination or substitution of the substance is still technically or scientifically impracticable until 1 July 2007. A similar exemption is provided in Directive 2000/53/EC on End of Life Vehicles.

(3)

Some exemptions from the prohibition for certain specific materials or components should be limited in their scope, in order to achieve a gradual phase-out of hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment, given that the use of those substances in such applications will become avoidable.

(4)

Pursuant to Article 5(1)(c) of Directive 2002/95/EC each exemption listed in the Annex must be subject to a review at least every four years or four years after an item is added to the list.

(5)

Directive 2002/95/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.

(6)

Pursuant to Article 5(2) of Directive 2002/95/EC, the Commission has consulted the relevant parties.

(7)

The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 18 of Directive 2006/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (2),

14.10.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 283/52

(1)

Directive 2000/75/EC lays down control rules and measures to combat bluetongue in the Community, including the establishment of protection and surveillance zones and a ban on animals leaving those zones.

(2)

Commission Decision 2005/393/EC of 23 May 2005 on protection and surveillance zones in relation to bluetongue and conditions applying to movements from or through these zones (2) provides for the demarcation of the global geographic areas where protection and surveillance zones (the restricted zones) are to be established by the Member States in relation to bluetongue.

(3)

As soon as the presence of the bluetongue virus is officially confirmed in a holding, Directive 2000/75/EC provides for certain restrictions to be applied in a 20 km radius around the infected holding. Those restrictions include a prohibition on the movement of susceptible animals from and to holdings situated within that radius (the movement ban). The Directive provides for derogations from the movement ban for movements of animals in the protection zone.

(4)

It is therefore appropriate to allow movement of animals from holdings affected by the movement ban within the restricted zone for direct transport to a slaughterhouse. Accordingly, Decision 2005/393/EC should be amended to allow for such movements.

(5)

Taking into account certain farming practices, it is also appropriate to provide for specific conditions minimising the risk of virus transmission when animals from holdings affected by the movement ban are transferred to specific holdings in the restricted zone from which they can only leave for slaughter. It is also appropriate to amend Decision 2005/393/EC to provide for such conditions.

(6)

Article 4 of Decision 2005/393/EC currently provides that domestic movements of animals from a restricted zone for immediate slaughter within the same Member State may be exempted from the exit ban by the competent authority, subject to a case-by-case risk assessment and certain conditions. However, that provision does not currently provide that exemptions from the exit ban are to be linked to a favourable outcome of the risk assessment. It is appropriate and more transparent to require that such exemptions are to be granted following the favourable outcome of the risk assessment.

(7)

The exemption from the exit ban for animals leaving the restricted zones for intra-Community trade, currently provided for in Article 5(1) of Decision 2005/393/EC, include animal health conditions for domestic movements to a holding, as laid down in Article 3 of the Decision, and the prior approval of the Member State of destination.

(8)

In the interests of consistency, it is appropriate that the animal health conditions laid down in Article 4 of Decision 2005/393/EC for the exemption from the exit ban for domestic movements for slaughter, together with the prior approval of the Member State of destination, also apply to the exemption from the exit ban for animals destined for direct slaughter in another Member State.

(9)

The provisions in Annex II to Decision 2005/393/EC relating to the movements of live animals of species susceptible to bluetongue and their semen, ova and embryos from restricted zones should be in line with those conditions laid down in Chapter 2.2.13 of the Terrestrial Animal Health Code of the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE).

(10)

Intra-Community trade in frozen semen complying with the conditions set out in Annex II to Decision 2005/393/EC should not require the prior movement approval of the Member State of destination, as post-collection testing verifies beyond doubt the absence of the disease in the donor animal.

(11)

France and Germany informed the Commission of the need to adapt the restricted zone related to those Member States. Accordingly, it is appropriate to amend Annex I to Decision 2005/393/EC.

(12)

Decision 2005/393/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.

(13)

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.

Article 2a is replaced by the following:

‘Article 2a

Derogation from the movement ban

By way of derogation from Article 6(1)(c) of Directive 2000/75/EC, the following animals shall be exempted from the ban on movement:

2.

In Article 3, the introductory phrase of paragraph 3 is replaced by the following:

‘Where in an epidemiological relevant area of the restricted zones more than 40 days have elapsed from the date when the vector ceased to be active, the competent authority shall grant exemptions from the exit ban for domestic movements of the following:’

3.

In Article 4, the introductory phrase and the introductory phrase in point (a) are replaced by the following:

‘Movements of animals from a restricted zone for immediate slaughter within the same Member State shall be exempted from the exit ban by the competent authority if:

4.

Article 5 is amended as follows:

5.

Annexes I and II are amended in accordance with the Annex to this Decision.

14.10.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 283/59

(1)

Under Article 53(1) of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002, where a food is likely to constitute a serious risk to human health and that risk cannot be contained satisfactorily by means of measures taken by the Member States concerned the Commission is to suspend the placing on the market or use of that food and adopt any other appropriate interim measure.

(2)

Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs (2) lays down general rules for food business operators on the hygiene of foodstuffs. Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) lays down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin. It specifies the rules applicable to the raw materials that may be placed on the market and therefore used in the manufacture of dairy products. For the purpose of those rules, dairy products are processed products derived from the processing of raw milk or from the further processing of such processed products.

(3)

Section IX, Chapter I, Part III, point 4 of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 lays down the conditions to be complied with when producing and placing raw milk on the market. Under those provisions, food business operators in the dairy sector are not allowed to place on the market raw milk containing levels of antibiotic residues exceeding those laid down in Annexes I and III to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 of 26 June 1990 laying down a Community procedure for the establishment of maximum residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin (4).

(4)

Milk which does not meet those standards must be disposed of as an animal by-product of Category 2 as laid down in 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 (5).

(5)

In order to comply with those requirements, food business operators in the dairy sector carry out rapid screening tests on milk before placing it on the market. Those tests are aimed at determining the presence of antibiotic residues and have been designed to provide positive results when such residues are close to the maximum residue limit, but do not quantify the actual level of residues present. Under those circumstances, only a test identifying and quantifying the antibiotic residues can demonstrate that the maximum residue limit is not exceeded. If such a confirmatory test is not carried out, milk showing a positive result of a screening test is deemed to be unsafe.

(6)

During an inspection mission carried out in the United Kingdom by the Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) of the Commission from 31 May to 13 June 2006, evidence was repeatedly received that raw milk not complying with the hygiene requirements was placed on the market and dispatched to an approved food establishment preparing dairy products intended for human consumption.

(7)

An on-site visit by the FVO took place on 9 June 2006 at the premises of Bowland Dairy Products Limited, located at Fulshaw Hoad Farm, Barrowford, Lancashire BB9 6RA (‘Bowland’) and approved under number UK PE 023. According to the Commission’s information, that operator exports virtually all its production of curd cheese to other Member States.

(8)

That visit revealed that the raw materials used to manufacture curd cheese included raw milk sent by the major milk collectors in the United Kingdom and downgraded for reasons such as: the presence of antibiotic residues detected after a screening test, milk-water mixture resulting from the cleaning of pipes in dairy plants with detergents and disinfectants (‘interface milk’), contamination with dyes, surplus heat-treated drinking milk in packages collected from retail establishments. According to the company documentation, such milk was variously classified as ‘reclaim milk’, ‘waste milk’, milk ‘not fit for human consumption’ or milk accompanied by certificates of analysis stating in what way the milk was defective.

(9)

It also emerged from the visit that a second activity involved the vacuum-packaging of non-compliant cheese derived from mouldy cheese or cheese containing foreign bodies, such as rubber gloves. According to the company documentation, such material was variously classified as ‘waste’, ‘contaminated cheese’ or ‘floor waste’.

(10)

An audit at Bowland's premises was carried out by the United Kingdom Food Standards Agency on 20 June 2006. The establishment was not operating at that time. Curd cheese production resumed on 26 June 2006.

(11)

Since the on-site visit of 9 June 2006, the Commission has repeatedly informed the United Kingdom authorities of its concerns as to the risks to human health of the practice in question and has on several occasions discussed with them the technical issues linked to its assessment of the situation. In particular, the Commission and the United Kingdom authorities met on 4 July 2006 and held an audioconference on 18 July 2006 to discuss those matters. A further audioconference was held on 14 September 2006, in which representatives of the Community Reference Laboratory on antibiotic residues also took part. In consequence, the United Kingdom authorities informed the Commission by letter of 15 September 2006 that they had reviewed their position on the tests, leading the Commission to believe that they would take the requisite action forthwith. However, they have failed to do so.

(12)

The FVO conducted a second inspection visit at Bowland's premises on 26 and 27 September 2006 to check the new operational procedures which had been put in place after the first FVO inspection and the audit by the FSA. The FVO inspectors noted that since 26 June 2006, the UK competent authorities have not checked on site that the operational conditions communicated to Bowland had been met. Among new problems such as the unhygienic mechanical bursting of milk packages, the visit also confirmed that the use of milk not complying with the hygienic requirements laid down in Community legislation is still taking place. In particular, the establishment is still receiving and using milk which has been tested positive for the presence of antibiotic residues before being placed on the market where it has not been demonstrated that such residues do not exceed the maximum residue limits laid down in Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90.

(13)

In accordance with Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002, Member States are to enforce food law, and monitor and verify that the relevant requirements of food law are fulfilled by food and feed business operators at all stages of production, processing and distribution. For that purpose, they are required to maintain a system of official controls and other activities as appropriate to the circumstances, including public communication on food and feed safety and risk, food and feed safety surveillance and other monitoring activities covering all stages of production, processing and distribution.

(14)

It is clear from the facts in this case that the UK authorities have repeatedly failed to comply with their control obligation. It is therefore the Commission's intention to initiate shortly an infringement procedure under Article 226 of the Treaty. The Commission also intends to apply for the interim measures that may be considered necessary in order to restore as soon as possible adequate controls on the dairy sector by the UK authorities.

(15)

In the meantime, however, it is necessary for the Commission to adopt emergency measures in order to address the immediate and serious risk to human health that is caused by the current presence on the Community market of products originating from Bowland.

(16)