12.7.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 182/1

(1)

Council Regulation (EC) No 894/97 of 29 April 1997 laying down certain technical measures for the conservation of fishery resources (1) establishes a management framework for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures in the form of a general overall length limitation of drift nets to maximum 2,5 km, as well as a prohibition to use or keep on board drift nets intended for the capture of certain species. This prohibition applies to all Community fishing vessels with the exception of those operating in the Baltic Sea, the Belts and the Øresund.

(2)

Council Regulation (EC) No 812/2004 of 26 April 2004 laying down measures concerning incidental catches of cetaceans in fisheries (2) sets out requirements concerning the use of acoustic deterrent devices and the monitoring of incidental catches of cetaceans in certain drift net fisheries.

(3)

Council Regulation (EC) No 2187/2005 of 21 December 2005 for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures in the Baltic Sea, the Belts and the Øresund (3) sets out the restrictions and conditions on the use drift nets in this regulated area.

(4)

Those Regulations do not however contain a definition of drift nets. For reasons of clarity and in order to facilitate uniformity in the practice of monitoring between Member States, it is necessary to introduce a uniform definition of drift nets in all those three acts.

(5)

The establishment of a definition of drift nets does not expand the field of application of the restrictions and conditions on the use of drift nets implemented in Community law.

(6)

Regulations (EC) No 894/97, (EC) No 812/2004 and (EC) No 2187/2005 should therefore be amended accordingly,

‘(o)

“Drift net” means: any gillnet held on the sea surface or at a certain distance below it by floating devices, drifting with the current, either independently or with the boat to which it may be attached. It may be equipped with devices aiming to stabilise the net or to limit its drift.’

12.7.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 182/3

(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,

12.7.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 182/5

(1)

To avoid any risk of ambiguity, Article 2(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 917/2004 (2) should clearly lay down that measures in apiculture programmes must be implemented before the end of the year to which they relate.

(2)

The possibility of amending the financial limits for each measure in an apiculture programme during a year without such amendment needing to be approved in accordance with the procedure at Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 797/2004 is currently restricted to a maximum of 20 % of those financial limits.

(3)

This limit of 20 % has proved administratively too restrictive for both the Member States and the Commission. It should therefore be abolished.

(4)

To achieve simplification, the adjustment of measures in the apiculture programmes during a year should be made more flexible; the limits on a new budgetary allocation by type of measure within the budget allocated to each Member State should therefore be abolished.

(5)

There should be provision for adjustments to the measures in the apiculture programmes to be notified to the Commission where certain measures were not notified in the three-year programme forwarded initially.

(6)

Regulation (EC) No 917/2004 should be amended accordingly.

(7)

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

1.

Article 2 is amended as follows:

2.

Article 6 is replaced by the following:

‘Article 6

Provided they continue to comply with Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 797/2004, measures in apiculture programmes may be adjusted during a year. The financial limits for each of these measures may be amended provided that the overall ceiling on planned annual expenditure is not exceeded and that the Community contribution to financing of the apiculture programme does not exceed 50 % of the expenditure borne by the Member State concerned.

The Member State concerned shall notify the Commission of any draft adjustment to the measures during a year, pursuant to the first subparagraph, where a measure had not been planned initially and notified in the three-year programme. If the Commission raises no objection, the adjustment shall take effect from the first day of the second month following such notification.

At the latest two months after the end of each year of the programme, Member States shall send the Commission a summary of implementation of expenditure by type of measure.’;

3.

Article 7 is deleted.

12.7.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 182/7

(1)

The agreement in the form of an exchange of letters between the European Community and the United States of America pursuant to Article XXIV:6 and Article XXVIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 relating to the modification of concessions in the schedules of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic, in the course of their accession to the European Union (2), approved by Council Decision 2006/333/EC (3), provides for the opening of a specific tariff quota allocated to the United States for imports of 4 722 tonnes of pigmeat.

(2)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1233/2006 of 16 August 2006 opening and providing for the administration of an import tariff quota of pigmeat allocated to the United States of America (4) has to be amended substantially. Regulation (EC) No 1233/2006 should therefore be repealed and replaced by a new regulation.

(3)

Commission Regulations (EC) Nos 1291/2000 of 9 June 2000 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of import and export licences and advance fixing certificates for agricultural products (5) and 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (6) should apply, save as otherwise provided for in this Regulation.

(4)

In order to maintain a regular flow of imports, the quota period from 1 July to 30 June of the following year should be subdivided into a number of subperiods. In any event, under Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 licences are valid only up to and including the last day of the tariff quota period.

(5)

The tariff quota should be administered on the basis of import licences. For this purpose, it is important to specify the arrangements for submitting applications and the details that should appear on the licence applications and the licences themselves.

(6)

In view of the risk of speculation inherent in the system in question in the pigmeat sector, precise conditions should be laid down as regards operators' access to the tariff quota scheme.

(7)

For appropriate administration of the tariff quotas, the security linked to the import licences should be set at EUR 20 per 100 kilograms.

(8)

In the interest of the operators, the Commission should establish the quantities that have not been applied for, which are to be carried over to the following subperiod in accordance with Article 7(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006.

(9)

Access to the tariff quota should be subject to the presentation of a certificate of origin issued by the authorities of the United States in accordance with Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (7).

(10)

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

(a)

25 % from 1 July to 30 September;

(b)

25 % from 1 October to 31 December;

(c)

25 % from 1 January to 31 March;

(d)

25 % from 1 April to 30 June.

(a)

in box 8, the country of origin and the entry ‘yes’ marked by a cross;

(b)

in box 20, one of the entries listed in Annex II, Part A.

12.7.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 182/15

(1)

Applications for import licences were submitted to the competent authority during the week of 2 to 6 July 2007, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 950/2006 or Commission Regulation (EC) No 1832/2006 of 13 December 2006 laying down transitional measures in the sugar sector by reason of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania (3) for a total quantity equal to or exceeding the quantity available for serial number 09.4343 (2006 to 2007).

(2)

In these circumstances, the Commission should fix an allocation coefficient in order to issue licences in proportion to the quantity available and inform the Member States that the set limit has been reached,

12.7.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 182/19

(1)

The Protocol on protection and welfare of animals annexed to the Treaty establishing the European Community requires that in formulating and implementing agriculture policies, the Community and the Member States are to pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals, while respecting the legislative or administrative provisions and customs of the Member States relating in particular to religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage.

(2)

Council Directive 98/58/EC of 20 July 1998 concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes (3), drawn up on the basis of the European Convention for the Protection of Animals kept for Farming Purposes (4) (hereinafter referred to as the Convention) lays down minimum standards for the protection of animals bred or kept for farming purposes including provisions on housing, food, water and care appropriate to the physiological and ethological needs of the animals.

(3)

The Community is a party to the Convention and a specific Recommendation concerning domestic fowl (Gallus gallus) which includes additional provisions for poultry kept for meat production has been adopted within the framework of the convention.

(4)

The report of the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare of 21 March 2000 on the Welfare of Chickens Kept for Meat Production (Broilers) concluded that the fast growth rate of chicken strains currently used for this purpose is not accompanied by a satisfactory level of animal welfare and health, and that the negative effects of high stocking rates are reduced in buildings where good indoor climatic conditions can be sustained.

(5)

Specific provision for non-littered areas, to minimise the influence of genetic parameters or to include welfare indicators in addition to foot-pad dermatitis, will be made when the relevant opinions of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) are available.

(6)

It is necessary to establish rules at Community level for the protection of chickens kept for meat production in order to avoid distortions of competition that may interfere with the smooth running of the common market organisation in that sector and also to ensure the rational development of the sector.

(7)

In accordance with the principle of proportionality, it is necessary and appropriate for the achievement of the basic objective of introducing animal welfare improvements in the intensive farming of chickens to lay down minimum rules for the protection of chickens for meat production. This Directive does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve the objectives pursued, in accordance with the third paragraph of Article 5 of the Treaty.

(8)

The rules should focus on the welfare problems in intensive farming systems. In order to avoid disproportionate measures applicable to the keeping of small flocks of chickens, a minimum threshold for the application of this Directive should be set.

(9)

It is important that persons attending to chickens have an understanding of the relevant animal welfare requirements and receive appropriate training to perform their tasks or have acquired experience equivalent to such training.

(10)

In establishing rules for the protection of chickens kept for meat production, a balance should be kept between the various aspects to be taken into account, as regards animal welfare, health, economic and social considerations and the environmental impact.

(11)

Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption (5) and Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and welfare rules (6) already establish a framework for official controls including compliance with some animal welfare rules. In addition, Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 provides that Member States are to submit annual reports on the implementation of the multi-annual national control plans, including results of controls and audits carried out. For this purpose, financial support is foreseen both in these regulations and in Council Decision 90/424/EEC of 26 June 1990 on expenditure in the veterinary field (7).

(12)

Various voluntary schemes already exist in different Member States for the labelling of chicken meat based on compliance with animal welfare standards and other parameters.

(13)

In light of the experience gained in applying such voluntary labelling schemes, it is appropriate for the Commission to submit a report on the possible introduction of a specific harmonised mandatory labelling scheme at Community level for chicken meat, meat products and preparations based on compliance with animal welfare standards, including the possible socioeconomic implications, the effects on the Community’s economic partners and compliance of such a labelling scheme with World Trade Organization rules.

(14)

It is appropriate for the Commission to submit a report based on new scientific evidence taking into account further research and practical experience in order to improve further the welfare of chickens kept for meat production including the parent stock of such chickens, in particular as regards aspects not covered by this Directive. That report should specifically consider the possibility to introduce thresholds for indications of poor welfare conditions identified during the post-mortem inspections and the influence of genetic parameters on identified deficiencies resulting in poor welfare of chickens kept for meat production.

(15)

Member States should lay down rules on penalties applicable to infringements of the provisions of this Directive and ensure that they are implemented. Those penalties must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.

(16)

The Council, in accordance with paragraph 34 of the Interinstitutional Agreement on better law-making (8), should encourage the Member States to draw up, for themselves and in the interest of the Community their own tables, which will, as far as possible, illustrate the correlation between the Directive and the transposition measures and to make them public.

(17)

The measures necessary for the implementation of this Directive should be adopted in accordance with Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission (9),

(a)

holdings with fewer than 500 chickens;

(b)

holdings with only breeding stocks of chickens;

(c)

hatcheries;

(d)

extensive indoor and free range chickens, as referred to in points (b), (c), (d), (e) of Annex IV to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1538/91 of 5 June 1991 introducing detailed rules for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1906/90 on certain marketing standards for poultry (10); and

(e)

organically reared chickens in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 of 24 June 1991 on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs (11).

(a)

‘owner’ means any natural or legal person or persons owning the holding where chickens are kept;

(b)

‘keeper’ means any natural or legal person responsible for or in charge of chickens in terms of contract or by law whether on a permanent or temporary basis;

(c)

‘competent authority’ means the central authority of a Member State competent to carry out animal welfare, veterinary and zootechnical checks or any other authority to which that competence has been conferred either at regional, local or other level;

(d)

‘official veterinarian’ means a veterinarian qualified in accordance with Annex I, Section III, Chapter IV(A) to Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 to act in such a capacity and appointed by the competent authority;

(e)

‘chicken’ means an animal of the species Gallus gallus kept for meat production;

(f)

‘holding’ means a production site on which chickens are kept;

(g)

‘house’ means a building on a holding where a flock of chickens are kept;

(h)

‘useable area’ means a littered area accessible to the chickens at any time;

(i)

‘stocking density’ means the total live weight of chickens which are present in a house at the same time per square metre of useable area;

(j)

‘flock’ means a group of chickens which are placed in a house of a holding and are present in this house at the same time;

(k)

‘daily mortality rate’ means the number of chickens which have died in a house on the same day including those that have been culled either for disease or because of other reasons divided by the number of chickens present in the house on that day, multiplied by 100;

(l)

‘cumulative daily mortality rate’ means the sum of daily mortality rates.

(a)

all houses comply with the requirements set out in Annex I;

(b)

the required inspections and the monitoring and follow-up, including those provided for in Annex III, are carried out by the competent authority or the official veterinarian.

12.7.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 182/29

(1)

Under Article 396(1) of Directive 2006/112/EC, the Council, acting unanimously on a proposal of the Commission, may authorise any Member State to conclude with a third country an agreement which may contain derogations from that Directive.

(2)

By letter registered with the Secretariat-General of the Commission on 13 September 2005, Austria requested authorisation to conclude an agreement with Switzerland in relation to a cross-border power plant across the river Inn between Prutz (Austria) and Tschlin (Switzerland).

(3)

In accordance with Article 396(2) of Directive 2006/112/EC, the Commission informed the other Member States by letter dated 1 March 2007 of the request made by Austria. By letter dated 6 March 2007, the Commission notified Austria that it had all the information it deemed necessary to consider the request.

(4)

The agreement is to contain provisions on value added tax (VAT) derogating from Article 2(1)(d) of Directive 2006/112/EC in respect of goods imported into Austria in relation to the cross-border power plant. These imports of goods from Switzerland into Austria by taxable persons with a full right of deduction will not be subject to VAT in order to obtain a similar arrangement from Switzerland for goods imported from Austria into Switzerland.

(5)

The derogation will therefore not have an adverse effect on the European Communities’ own resources accruing from VAT,

12.7.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 182/31

(1)

The decision is addressed to TKS (ThyssenKrupp Stainless AG) for the behaviour of TS-AG (Thyssen Stahl AG). TKS voluntarily took over the liability for TS-AG’s conduct, at least for the years 1993/1994, by an explicit statement to the Commission on 23 July 1997.

(2)

TS-AG participated from 16 December 1993, until it ceased to be economically active in the stainless steel sector on 31 December 1994, in a single and continuous infringement contrary to Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty by fixing prices for alloys used in the stainless steel sector in Western Europe.

(3)

The decision concerns the readoption of Commission Decision 98/247/CECA of 21 January 1998 (2). This decision was partly annulled by the Courts (3) on procedural grounds. The Courts found that the Commission fined TKS in 1998 for the behaviour of TS-AG without having given it the possibility to comment on this behaviour prior to the imposition of a fine. This infringed the right to be heard for TKS.

(4)

On 24 April 2006 the Commission issued a Statement of Objections to TKS with the aim to correct the procedural error as mentioned by the Courts.

(5)

The alloy surcharge is a price element which was calculated on the basis of the prices of alloys and was added to the basic price for stainless steel. The cost of the alloys used by stainless steel producers (nickel, chromium and molybdenum) formed a very large proportion of the total production costs. The prices for these alloys were extremely volatile.

(6)

The prices for alloys and stainless steel fell sharply in 1993. When the nickel prices started to rise in September 1993, producers’ profits were considerably reduced. To remedy this, the producers of stainless flat products agreed to hold a meeting in Madrid on 16 December 1993. Subsequently a number of contacts took place between the producers regarding the calculation and implementation of the alloy surcharge.

(7)

The decision found that TS-AG together with other undertakings modified and applied in a concerted fashion the reference value used to calculate the alloy surcharge. This has both the object and effect of restricting and distorting competition within the common market.

(8)

The Commission considers that the substantive rules of the ECSC Treaty are to be applied to the cartel infringement given that the ECSC Treaty was in force at the time of the infringement (1993/1994). There was no indication to apply the lex mitior principle.

(9)

The decision holds TKS liable for the behaviour of TS-AG in view of TKS’ statement of 23 July 1997 and clarifies that it does not invoke the concepts of legal or economic succession.

(10)

The statement of 1997 has not been called into question in the ECJ’s judgement nor would such a statement be contrary to general principles of law or the Commission’s decisional practice.

(11)

The decision concludes that there is no prescription of the limitation period given the suspension during the Court proceedings.

(12)

In order to guarantee non-discrimination between the addressees of Commission Decision 98/247/CECA, the infringement is considered to be of a serious nature (starting amount EUR 4 million).

(13)

The starting amount is increased by 10 % as the infringement was committed during more than one year (from 16 December 1993 to 31 December 1994).

(14)

In line with Commission Decision 98/247/CECA the starting amount is decreased by 10 % because the economic situation of the sector was critical.

(15)

In application of the 1996 Notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases and in the light of the judgment of the CFI (4), the fine is further reduced by 20 % given the participation of TKS to help the Commission in establishing the facts. Therefore, the fine is EUR 3 168 000.

12.7.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 182/33

(1)

Point 7 of Annex IIC to Regulation (EC) No 41/2007 specifies the maximum number of days at sea (192) on which Community vessels of length overall equal to or greater than 10 metres carrying on board beam trawls of mesh size equal to or greater than 80 mm or static nets, including gill-nets, trammel-nets and tangle-nets, with mesh size less than 220 mm may be present within ICES division VIIe from 1 February 2007 to 31 January 2008.

(2)

Point 9 of that Annex enables the Commission to allocate an additional number of days at sea on which a vessel may be present within that area when carrying on board such beam trawls or static nets, on the basis of permanent cessations of fishing activities that have taken place since 1 of January 2004.

(3)

The United Kingdom has submitted data demonstrating that vessels, which ceased activities since 1 January 2004, measured a reduction of 5,24 % in the fishing effort expended during the year 2003, taken as reference period for vessels present in the area and carrying on board beam trawls of mesh size equal to or greater than 80 mm.

(4)

In view of the data submitted and applying the calculation method foreseen under point 9.1, 10 additional days at sea should be allocated to United Kingdom for the period between 1 February 2007 and 31 January 2008 for vessels carrying on board such beam trawls.

(5)

For reasons of clarity this decision reflects the total amount of additional days allocated to the United Kingdom and takes into account the 12 additional days at sea that are previously allocated by Commission Decision 2006/461/EC of 26 June 2006 on the allocation to the United Kingdom of additional fishing days within ICES division VIIe (2), as these additional days remain allocated in 2007.

(6)

The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture,

12.7.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 182/34

(1)

On 7 and 15 May 2007 protection zones were established by the competent authority in Italy around outbreaks of swine vesicular disease in the municipalities of Salvirola and Fiesco, Province of Cremona, in accordance with Article 10 of Directive 92/119/EEC. On 14 June 2007 a protection zone was established around an outbreak in the municipality of Offanengo, Province of Cremona. The protection zones are partially overlapping.

(2)

Accordingly, the movement and transport of pigs on public and private roads within those protection zones have been prohibited.

(3)

However, Italy has submitted two requests for an exemption from that prohibition for the transport of pigs for slaughter coming from outside those protection zones, on public and private roads within the protection zones, in order to transport them to slaughterhouses situated in the protection zones.

(4)

It is appropriate to provide for those two exemptions, subject to the condition that Italy takes strict control and precaution measures that guarantee that there is no risk of the spread of the disease.

(5)

Commission Decision 2007/123/EC of 20 February 2007 was adopted to grant a similar exemption for a slaughterhouse in the protection zone around an outbreak of swine vesicular disease in the municipality of Romano di Lombardia, Province of Bergamo, Italy. The measures provided for in that protection zone are no longer applied. Accordingly, Decision 2007/123/EC should be repealed.

(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,

(a)

the dispatch of the pigs must be notified at least 24 hours in advance by the official veterinarian for the holding of origin to the official veterinarian for the slaughterhouse;

(b)

the transport of the pigs to the slaughterhouse must be via a corridor; details of that corridor must be laid down in advance by Italy;

(c)

vehicles carrying the pigs must be sealed by the competent authority before or on entry to the corridor; at the time of sealing, the competent authority must record the registration number of the vehicle and the number of pigs transported therein;

(d)

on arrival at the slaughterhouse, the competent authority shall:

(e)

any vehicle carrying pigs to the slaughterhouse shall undergo, immediately following unloading, cleaning and disinfection under official control and in accordance with the instructions of the competent authority, before the vehicle leaves the slaughterhouse.

12.7.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 182/36

(1)

Outbreaks of Newcastle disease occurred in Denmark in 2005. The emergence of that disease presented a serious risk to the Community’s livestock population.

(2)

In order to prevent the spread of the disease and to help eradicate it as quickly as possible, the Community should contribute financially towards the eligible expenditure incurred by the Member State under the emergency measures taken to combat the disease, as provided for in Decision 90/424/EEC.

(3)

Commission Decision 2006/579/EC of 24 August 2006 on a financial contribution from the Community towards the eradication of Newcastle disease in Denmark in 2005 (2) granted a financial contribution at the rate of 50 % of the expenditure eligible for Community funding for the implementation of the measures taken to combat this outbreak.

(4)

Pursuant to that Decision, the Community financial contribution is to be paid on the basis of the request submitted by Denmark on 23 October 2006 and supporting documents set out in Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 349/2005 of 28 February 2005 laying down rules on the Community financing of emergency measures and of the campaign to combat certain animal diseases under Council Decision 90/424/EEC (3).

(5)

In view of those considerations, the total amount of the Community’s financial contribution to the eligible expenditure incurred associated with the eradication of Newcastle disease in Denmark in 2005 should now be fixed.

(6)

The results of the inspections carried out by the Commission in compliance with the Community veterinary rules and the conditions for granting Community financial contributions mean the entire amount of the expenditure submitted cannot be recognised as eligible.

(7)

The Commission’s observations, method of calculating the eligible expenditure and final conclusions were communicated to Denmark in a letter dated 8 March 2007.

(8)

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

12.7.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 182/37