21.6.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 162/1

(1)

Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 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,

21.6.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 162/3

(1)

The purpose of Regulation (EC) No 2160/2003 is to ensure that proper and effective measures are taken to detect and control salmonella and other zoonotic agents at all relevant stages of production, processing and distribution, particularly at the level of primary production, in order to reduce their prevalence and the risk they pose to public health.

(2)

Regulation (EC) No 2160/2003 provides for a Community target to be established for the reduction of the prevalence of all salmonella serotypes with public health significance in turkeys at the level of primary production. Such reduction is important in view of the strict measures which are to apply to fresh meat from infected flocks of turkeys in accordance with that Regulation, as from 12 December 2010. In particular, fresh poultrymeat, including meat of turkeys, may not be placed on the market for human consumption unless it meets the following criterion: ‘salmonella absence in 25 grams’.

(3)

Regulation (EC) No 2160/2003 provides that the Community target is to include a numerical expression of the maximum percentage of epidemiological units remaining positive and/or the minimum percentage of reduction in the number of epidemiological units remaining positive, the maximum time limit within which the target must be achieved and the definition of the testing schemes necessary to verify achievement of the target. It is also to include a definition, where relevant, of serotypes with public health significance.

(4)

Regulation (EC) No 2160/2003 provides that experience gained under existing national control measures and information forwarded to the Commission or to the European Food Safety Authority under existing Community requirements, in particular in the framework of information provided for in Directive 2003/99/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 on the monitoring of zoonoses and zoonotic agents (2), and in particular Article 5 thereof, should be taken into account when setting the Community target.

(5)

Regulation (EC) No 2160/2003 provides that, when defining each Community target, the Commission shall provide an analysis of its expected costs and benefits. However, by way of derogation, the Community target for turkey, covering Salmonella enteritidis and Salmonella typhimurium may be establish for a transitional period without such analysis.

(6)

Comparable data on the prevalence of the salmonella serotypes in flocks of turkeys in Member States have therefore been collected in accordance with Commission Decision 2006/662/EC of 29 September 2006 concerning a financial contribution from the Community towards a baseline survey on the prevalence of salmonella in turkeys to be carried out in the Member States (3).

(7)

Regulation (EC) No 2160/2003 provides that for a transitional period of three years, the Community target for turkeys is to cover only Salmonella enteritidis and Salmonella typhimurium. Other serotypes with public health significance may be considered after that period.

(8)

In order to verify progress on the achievement of the Community target, it is necessary to provide for repeated sampling of flocks of turkeys in this Regulation.

(9)

In accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 2160/2003, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) was consulted on the setting of the Community target for turkeys.

(10)

The Task Force on Zoonoses Data Collection of the EFSA adopted on 28 April 2008 a Report on the Analysis of the baseline survey on the prevalence of salmonella in flocks of turkeys in the EU, 2006-2007, Part A: Salmonella prevalence estimates.

(11)

In accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 646/2007 of 12 June 2007 implementing Regulation (EC) No 2160/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards a Community target for the reduction of Salmonella enteritidis and Salmonella typhimurium in broilers and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1091/2005 (4), at least two pairs of boot/sock swabs shall be taken to sample flocks of broilers for salmonella. New scientific evidence demonstrates the using a combination of one pair of boot/sock swabs with a dust sample is at least as sensitive as sampling by taking two pairs of boot/sock swabs. Therefore, this combination should be allowed as alternative sampling method and Regulation (EC) No 646/2007 should be amended accordingly.

(12)

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

(a)

a reduction of the maximum percentage of fattening turkey flocks remaining positive of Salmonella enteritidis and Salmonella typhimurium to 1 % or less by 31 December 2012; and

(b)

a reduction of the maximum percentage of adult breeding turkey flocks remaining positive of Salmonella enteritidis and Salmonella typhimurium to 1 % or less by 31 December 2012.

1.

at the end of point 2:

‘Alternatively, the competent authority may decide that one pair of boot swabs shall be taken, covering 100 % of the area of the house if combined with a dust sample, collected from multiple places throughout the house from surfaces with visible presence of dust.’;

2.

after the second paragraph of point 3(1):

‘The dust sample shall preferably be analysed separately. However, the competent authority may decide to pool it with the pair of boot/sock swabs for analysis.’

21.6.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 162/9

(1)

Council Regulation (EC) No 40/2008 of 16 January 2008 fixing for 2008 the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks applicable in Community waters and for Community vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required (3), lays down quotas for 2008.

(2)

According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2008.

(3)

It is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing for that stock and its retention on board, transhipment and landing,

21.6.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 162/11

(1)

Council Directive 95/50/EC (3) provides that certain measures are to 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 (4).

(2)

Decision 1999/468/EC has been amended by Decision 2006/512/EC, which introduced the regulatory procedure with scrutiny for the adoption of measures of general scope and designed to amend non-essential elements of a basic instrument adopted in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 251 of the Treaty, inter alia, by deleting some of those elements or by supplementing the instrument with new non-essential elements.

(3)

In accordance with the statement by the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission (5) concerning Decision 2006/512/EC, for the regulatory procedure with scrutiny to be applicable to instruments adopted in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 251 of the Treaty which are already in force, those instruments must be adjusted in accordance with the applicable procedures.

(4)

In particular the Commission should be empowered to adapt the Annexes to Directive 95/50/EC to scientific and technical progress. Since those measures are of general scope and are designed to amend non-essential elements of Directive 95/50/EC, they must be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny provided for in Article 5a of Decision 1999/468/EC.

(5)

Directive 95/50/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.

(6)

Since the amendments made to Directive 95/50/EC by this Directive are technical in nature and concern committee procedure only, they do not need to be transposed by the Member States. It is therefore not necessary to lay down provisions to that effect,

21.6.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 162/13

(1)

The questions of biodiversity and the conservation of plant genetic resources have grown in importance in recent years, as shown by different developments at international and Community level. Examples include Council Decision 93/626/EEC of 25 October 1993 concerning the conclusion of the Convention on Biological Diversity (7), Council Decision 2004/869/EC of 24 February 2004 concerning the conclusion, on behalf of the European Community, of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (8), Council Regulation (EC) No 870/2004 of 24 April 2004 establishing a Community programme on the conservation, characterisation, collection and utilisation of genetic resources in agriculture and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1467/94 (9) and Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (10). Specific conditions should be established under the Community legislation governing the marketing of seed of agricultural plants, namely Directives 66/401/EEC, 66/402/EEC, 2002/53/EC, 2002/54/EC, 2002/56/EC and 2002/57/EC, in order to take account of these issues.

(2)

In order to ensure in situ conservation and the sustainable use of plant genetic resources, landraces and varieties which are naturally adapted to local and regional conditions and threatened by genetic erosion (conservation varieties) should be grown and marketed even where they do not comply with the general requirements as regards the acceptance of varieties and the marketing of seed and seed potatoes. In order to achieve that objective it is necessary to provide for derogations as regards the acceptance of conservation varieties, for inclusion in the national catalogues of varieties of agricultural plant species as well as for the production and marketing of seed and seed potatoes of those varieties.

(3)

Those derogations should concern the substantive requirements for the acceptance of a variety and the procedural requirements provided for in Commission Directive 2003/90/EC of 6 October 2003 setting out implementing measures for the purposes of Article 7 of Council Directive 2002/53/EC as regards the characteristics to be covered as a minimum by the examination and the minimum conditions for examining certain varieties of agricultural plant species (11).

(4)

Member States should, in particular, be authorised to adopt their own provisions as regards distinctness, stability and uniformity. These provisions should, as regards distinctness and stability, at least be based on the characteristics listed in the technical questionnaire to be completed by the applicant in connection with the application for the variety acceptance as referred to in Annexes I and II to Directive 2003/90/EC. Where uniformity is established on the basis of off-types, the provisions should be based on defined standards.

(5)

The procedural requirements should be provided for under which a variety may be accepted without official examination. Furthermore, as regards the denomination, it is necessary to provide for certain derogations from the requirements laid down in Directive 2002/53/EC and Commission Regulation (EC) No 930/2000 of 4 May 2000 establishing implementing rules as to the suitability of the denominations of varieties of agricultural plant species and vegetable species (12).

(6)

As regards the production and marketing of seed and seed potatoes of conservation varieties, a derogation from official certification should be provided for.

(7)

To ensure that the marketing of seed and seed potatoes of conservation varieties takes place in the context of the conservation of plant genetic resources, restrictions should be provided for, in particular regarding the region of origin. In order to contribute to the conservation in situ and to the sustainable use of those varieties, Member States should have the possibility to approve additional regions where seed exceeding the quantities necessary to ensure the conservation of the variety concerned in its region of origin may be marketed provided that those additional regions are comparable as regards natural and semi-natural habitats. To ensure that the link with the region of origin is preserved, this should not apply where a Member State has approved additional regions of production.

(8)

Maximum quantities should be fixed for the marketing of each conservation variety within one species and a total quantity for all conservation varieties within one species together. To make sure that these quantities are respected, Member States should require producers to notify the quantities of conservation varieties they intend to produce and should allocate the quantities to producers.

(9)

The traceability of seed and seed potatoes should be ensured through appropriate sealing and labelling requirements.

(10)

To ensure that the rules provided for in this Directive are correctly applied, seed crops should be monitored, seed should be tested and official post control carried out. Amounts of seed of conservation varieties placed on the market should be reported by the suppliers to the Member States and by the Member States to the Commission.

(11)

After three years the Commission should assess whether the measures provided for in this Directive, in particular the provisions concerning quantitative restrictions, are effective.

(12)

The measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Seeds and Propagating Material for Agriculture, Horticulture and Forestry,

(a)

for acceptance for inclusion in the national catalogues of varieties of agricultural plant species, as provided for in Directive 2002/53/EC, of landraces and varieties which are naturally adapted to the local and regional conditions and threatened by genetic erosion;

(b)

for the marketing of seed and seed potatoes of such landraces and varieties.

(a)

‘conservation in situ’ means the conservation of genetic material in its natural surroundings and, in the case of cultivated plant species, in the farmed environment where they have developed their distinctive properties;

(b)

‘genetic erosion’ means loss of genetic diversity between and within populations or varieties of the same species over time, or reduction of the genetic basis of a species due to human intervention or environmental change;

(c)

‘landrace’ means a set of populations or clones of a plant species which are naturally adapted to the environmental conditions of their region;

(d)

‘seed’ means seed and seed potatoes, unless seed potatoes are expressly excluded.

(a)

the technical questionnaires associated with the test protocols of the Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) listed in Annex I to Directive 2003/90/EC, which applies to those species, or

(b)

the technical questionnaires of the guidelines of the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) listed in Annex II to Directive 2003/90/EC, which applies to those species.

(a)

the description of the conservation variety and its denomination;

(b)

the results of unofficial tests;

(c)

knowledge gained from practical experience during cultivation, reproduction and use, as notified by the applicant to the Member State concerned;

(d)

other information, in particular from the plant genetic resource authorities or from organisations recognised for this purpose by the Member States.

(a)

it is already listed in the common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species as a variety other than a conservation variety, or it was deleted from the common catalogue within the last two years, or within the last two years from the expiry of the period granted under Article 15(2) of Directive 2002/53/EC, or

(b)

it is protected by a Community plant variety right as provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 (13), or by a national plant variety right, or an application for such a right is pending.

(a)

it has been produced in its region of origin or in a region referred to in Article 11;

(b)

marketing takes place in its region of origin.

(a)

the words ‘EC rules and standards’;

(b)

the name and address of the person responsible for affixing the labels or his identification mark;

(c)

the year of sealing expressed as: ‘sealed…’ (year), or, except for seed potatoes, the year of the last sampling for the purposes of the last testing of germination expressed as: ‘sampled…’ (year);

(d)

the species;

(e)

the denomination of the conservation variety;

(f)

the words ‘conservation variety’;

(g)

the region of origin;

(h)

where the region of seed production is different from the region of origin, the indication of the region of seed production;

(i)

the reference number of the lot given by the person responsible for affixing the labels;

(j)

the declared net or gross weight, or, except for seed potato, declared number of seeds;

(k)

where weight is indicated and granulated pesticides, pelleting substances or other solid additives are used, the nature of the chemical treatment or additive and the approximate ratio between the weight of clusters of pure seeds and the total weight, except for seed potatoes.

21.6.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 162/20

(1)

Commission Directive 88/301/EEC of 16 May 1988 on competition in the markets in telecommunications terminal equipment (1) has been substantially amended (2). In the interests of clarity and rationality the said Directive should be codified.

(2)

In all the Member States, telecommunications were, either wholly or partly, a State monopoly generally granted in the form of special or exclusive rights to one or more bodies responsible for providing and operating the network infrastructure and related services. Those rights, however, often used to go beyond the provision of network utilisation services and used to extend to the supply of user terminal equipment for connection to the network. The last decades have seen considerable technical developments in networks, and the pace of development has been especially striking in the area of terminal equipment.

(3)

Member States have, in response to technical and economic developments, reviewed their grant of special or exclusive rights in the telecommunications sector. The proliferation of types of terminal equipment and the possibility of the multiple use of terminals means that users must be allowed a free choice between the various types of equipment available if they are to benefit fully from the technological advances made in the sector.

(4)

The existence of exclusive rights has the effect of restricting the free movement of telecommunications terminal equipment either as regards the importation and marketing of terminal equipment (including satellite equipment), because certain products are not marketed, or as regards the connection, bringing into service or maintenance because, taking into account the characteristics of the market and in particular the diversity and technical nature of the products, a monopoly has no incentive to provide these services in relation to products which it has not marketed or imported, nor to align its prices on costs, since there is no threat of competition from new entrants on the market. Taking into account the fact that in most equipment markets there is typically a large range of telecommunication equipment, any special right which directly or indirectly limits the number of the undertakings authorised to import, market, connect, bring into service and maintain such equipment, is liable to have the same kind of effect as the grant of exclusive rights. Such exclusive or special rights constitute measures having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions incompatible with Article 28 of the Treaty. Thus it is necessary to abolish all existing exclusive rights in the importation, marketing, connection, bringing into service and maintenance of terminal and telecommunications equipment, as well as those rights having comparable effects — that is to say, all special rights except those consisting in legal or regulatory advantages conferred on one or more undertakings and affecting only the ability of other undertakings to engage in any of the abovementioned activities in the same geographical area under substantially equivalent conditions.

(5)

The special or exclusive rights relating to terminal equipment are exercised in such a way as, in practice, to disadvantage equipment from other Member States, notably by preventing users from freely choosing the equipment that best suits their needs in terms of price and quality, regardless of its origin. The exercise of these rights is therefore not compatible with Article 31 of the Treaty in all the Member States.

(6)

The provision of installation and maintenance services is a key factor in the purchasing or rental of terminal equipment. The retention of exclusive rights in this field would be tantamount to retention of exclusive marketing rights. Such rights must therefore also be abolished if the abolition of exclusive importing and marketing rights is to have any practical effect.

(7)

The maintenance of terminal equipment is a service within the meaning of Article 50 of the Treaty. The service in question, which cannot from a commercial point of view be dissociated from the marketing of the equipment terminals, must be provided freely in accordance with Article 49 of the Treaty and in particular when provided by qualified operators.

(8)

The situation in the market continues to produce infringements of the competition rules laid down by the Treaty and to affect adversely the development of trade to such an extent as would be contrary to the interests of the Community. Stronger competition in the terminal equipment market requires the introduction of transparent technical specifications which meet the essential requirements mentioned in Directive 1999/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 1999 on radio equipment and telecommunications terminal equipment and the mutual recognition of their conformity (3) and allow the free movement of terminal equipment. In turn, such transparency necessarily entails the publication of technical specifications.

(9)

Special or exclusive rights to import and market terminal equipment give rise to a situation which is contrary to the objective of Article 3(g) of the Treaty, which provides for the institution of a system ensuring that competition in the internal market is not distorted, and requires a fortiori that competition must not be eliminated. Member States have an obligation under Article 10 of the Treaty to abstain from any measure which could jeopardise the attainment of the objectives of the Treaty, including Article 3(g). The exclusive rights must therefore be regarded as incompatible with Article 82 of the Treaty in conjunction with Article 3 thereof, and the grant or maintenance of such rights by a Member State is prohibited under Article 86(1) of the Treaty.

(10)

To enable users to have access to the terminal equipment of their choice, it is necessary to know and make transparent the characteristics of the interface points of the public network to which the terminal equipment is to be connected. Member States must therefore ensure that the characteristics are published and that users have access to interface points of the public network.

(11)

To be able to market their products, manufacturers of terminal equipment must know what technical specifications they must satisfy. Member States should therefore formalise and publish the specifications, which they must notify to the Commission in draft form, in accordance with Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations (4). The specifications may be extended to products imported from other Member States only in so far as they are necessary to ensure conformity with the essential requirements specified in Article 3 of Directive 1999/5/EC that can legitimately be required under Community law. Member States must, in any event, comply with Articles 28 and 30 of the Treaty, under which an importing Member State must allow terminal equipment legally manufactured and marketed in another Member State.

(12)

To ensure that type-approval specifications are applied transparently, objectively and without discrimination monitoring applications cannot be entrusted to a competitor in the terminal equipment market in view of the obvious conflict of interest. Member States should therefore ensure that the responsibility for monitoring is assigned to a body independent of the operator of the network and of any other competitor in the market in question.

(13)

This Directive should be without prejudice to the obligations of the Member States relating to the time limits for transposition into national law of the Directives set out in Annex II, Part B,

1.

‘terminal equipment’ means:

2.

‘satellite earth station equipment’ means equipment which is capable of being used for the transmission only (‘transmit-only’), or for the transmission and reception (‘transmit/receive’), or for the reception only (‘receive-only’) of radio communication signals by means of satellites or other space-based systems;

3.

‘undertaking’ means a public or private body, to which a Member State grants special or exclusive rights for the importation, marketing, connection, bringing into service of telecommunications terminal equipment and/or maintenance of such equipment;

4.

‘special rights’ means rights that are granted by a Member State to a limited number of undertakings, through any legislative, regulatory or administrative instrument, which, within a given geographical area:

(a)

limit to two or more the number of undertakings, otherwise than according to objective, proportional and non-discriminatory criteria; or

(b)

designate, otherwise than according to the criteria referred to in point (a), several competing undertakings.

(a)

in the case of satellite earth station equipment, refuse to allow such equipment to be connected to the public telecommunications network or to be brought into service where it does not satisfy the relevant common technical regulations adopted in pursuance of Directive 1999/5/EC or, in the absence thereof, the essential requirements laid down in Article 3 of that Directive; in the absence of common technical rules of harmonised regulatory conditions, national rules shall be proportionate to those essential requirements and shall be notified to the Commission in accordance with Directive 98/34/EC where that Directive so requires;

(b)

in the case of other terminal equipment, refuse to allow such equipment to be connected to the public telecommunications network where it does not satisfy the relevant common technical regulations adopted in pursuance of Directive 1999/5/EC or, in the absence thereof, the essential requirements laid down in Article 3 of that Directive;

(c)

require economic operators to possess the technical qualifications needed to connect, bring into service and maintain terminal equipment on the basis of objective, non-discriminatory and publicly available criteria.

21.6.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 162/27

(1)

Decision No 896/2006/EC (2) establishes common rules on unilateral recognition by the Member States of certain residence permits issued by Switzerland and Liechtenstein allowing a simplified regime for the control at the external borders of third country nationals who hold these documents.

(2)

As a result of the two-step implementation of the Schengen acquis, those Member States that joined the European Union on 1 May 2004 were required, as from that date, to issue national visas to third country nationals who hold a residence permit issued by Switzerland and Liechtenstein and who are subject to a visa obligation under Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 of 15 March 2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement (3). That requirement created additional administrative burdens on the consulates of those Member States in Switzerland and Liechtenstein.

(3)

However, it did not appear necessary for Member States to require that category of persons to hold a visa for the purpose of transit, as they represent a low illegal immigration risk for the Member States.

(4)

Considering that the same reasoning applies to Bulgaria and Romania, the simplified regime introduced by Decision No 896/2006/EC should be extended to Bulgaria and Romania.

(5)

Such amendment of Decision No 896/2006/EC should allow Bulgaria and Romania, if they decide to apply Decision No 582/2008/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 introducing a simplified regime for the control of persons at the external borders based on the unilateral recognition by Bulgaria, Cyprus and Romania of certain documents as equivalent to their national visas for the purposes of transit through their territories (4), to recognise unilaterally the residence permits issued by Switzerland and Liechtenstein which are listed in the Annex to Decision No 896/2006/EC as equivalent to their national transit visas.

(6)

Recognition should be limited to the purpose of transit through the territory of Bulgaria and Romania and should not affect the possibility for those two Member States to issue visas for short-term stay.

(7)

The possibility for Bulgaria and Romania not to apply Decision No 896/2006/EC should be limited to the transitional period until the date to be determined by the Council in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 4(2) of the 2005 Act of Accession.

(8)

The entry conditions laid down in Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) (5) have to be fulfilled, with the exception of the condition laid down in Article 5(1)(b) thereof, insofar as this Decision sets up an equivalence regime between transit visas issued by Bulgaria and Romania and certain residence permits issued by Switzerland and Liechtenstein.

(9)

Since the objective of this Decision cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States as it directly affects the Community acquis on external borders and can therefore, by reason of the scale and effects of the action, be better achieved at Community level, the Community may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity 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 that objective.

(10)

As regards Iceland and Norway, this Decision constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis within the meaning of the Agreement concluded by the Council of the European Union and the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway concerning the association of those two States with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis  (6), which fall within the area referred to in Article 1, point (A) of Council Decision 1999/437/EC of 17 May 1999 (7) on certain arrangements for the application of that Agreement

(11)

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 is not taking part in the adoption of this Decision and is not bound by it or subject to its application. Given that this Decision builds upon the Schengen acquis under the provisions of Title IV of Part Three of the Treaty establishing the European Community, Denmark shall, in accordance with Article 5 of the said Protocol, decide within a period of six months after the date of adoption of this Decision whether it will implement it in its national law.

(12)

This Decision constitutes a development of provisions of the Schengen acquis in which the United Kingdom does not take part, in accordance with Council Decision 2000/365/EC of 29 May 2000 concerning the request of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis  (8); the United Kingdom is therefore not taking part in its adoption and is not bound by it or subject to its application.

(13)

This Decision constitutes a development of provisions of the Schengen acquis in which Ireland does not take part, in accordance with Council Decision 2002/192/EC of 28 February 2002 concerning Ireland’s request to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis  (9). Ireland is therefore not taking part in its adoption and is not bound by it or subject to its application,

21.6.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 162/30

(1)

The European Union has created a European Union Solidarity Fund (‘the Fund’) to show solidarity with the population of regions struck by disasters.

(2)

The Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the Fund within the annual ceiling of EUR 1 billion.

(3)

Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 contains the provisions whereby the Fund may be mobilised.

(4)

Greece submitted an application to mobilise the Fund, concerning a disaster caused by forest fires in August 2007.

(5)

Slovenia submitted an application to mobilise the Fund, concerning a disaster caused by flooding in September 2007,

21.6.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 162/31

(1)

By Commission Decision 98/293/EC of 22 April 1998 concerning the placing on the market of genetically modified maize (Zea mays L. line T25), pursuant to Council Directive 90/220/EEC (2) it was decided that consent was to be given for the placing on the market of that product.

(2)

On 3 August 1998 the French authorities granted such consent. The consent covers all uses of the product, namely import, processing into food and feed products and cultivation.

(3)

Pursuant to Article 35(1) of Directive 2001/18/EC which replaced Council Directive 90/220/EEC (3), procedures in respect of notifications concerning the placing on the market of genetically modified organisms which have not been completed by 17 October 2002 are subject to Directive 2001/18/EC.

(4)

On 8 May 2000 Austria informed the Commission of its decision to prohibit provisionally the use and sale of Zea mays L. line T25 for all uses and gave reasons for that decision in accordance with Article 16(1) of Directive 90/220/EEC.

(5)

Products derived from Zea mays L. line T25 (starch and all its derivatives, crude and refined oil, all heat-processed or fermented products obtained from Zea mays L. line T25, as well as feed produced from Zea mays L. line T25) are authorised under Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council (4) and Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (5). These uses are not subject to the safeguard clause notified by Austria.

(6)

The Scientific Committee on Plants concluded on 20 July 2001 that the information submitted by Austria did not constitute new relevant scientific evidence which had not been taken into account during the original evaluation of the dossier and which would occasion a review of that Committee’s original opinion on this product.

(7)

On 9 January 2004, as well as on 9 and 17 February 2004, Austria submitted to the Commission additional information in support of its national measures concerning maize line T25.

(8)

In accordance with Article 28(1) of Directive 2001/18/EC, the Commission consulted the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), as established by Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council (6), under which it has replaced the relevant scientific committees.

(9)

The EFSA concluded on 8 July 2004 (7) that the information submitted by Austria did not constitute new scientific evidence sufficient to invalidate the environmental risk assessment of maize line T25, justifying a prohibition of the use and sale of that product in Austria.

(10)

Since, under the circumstances, there was no reason to consider that the product constituted a risk to human health or the environment, the Commission submitted on 29 November 2004 a draft Decision, requesting Austria to repeal its provisional safeguard measure, for consideration by the Committee established under Article 30 of Directive 2001/18/EC, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 30(2) of that Directive.

(11)

However, that Committee did not deliver an opinion and, in accordance with Article 5(4) of Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission (8), the Commission submitted to the Council a proposal relating to the measures to be taken.

(12)

On 24 June 2005, in accordance with Article 5(6) of Decision 1999/468/EC, the Council, acting by qualified majority, rejected this proposal.

(13)

The Council, in its declaration, stated that ‘there is still a degree of uncertainty in relation to the national safeguard measures on the market of [the] genetically modified maize variet[y] […] T25’ and called on the Commission ‘to gather further evidence on the GMO in question and further assess, whether the measure taken by [Austria] aimed at suspending as a temporary precautionary measure [its] placing on the market [is] justified and, whether the authorisation of such [an] organism still meets the safety requirements of Directive 2001/18/EC’.

(14)

In November 2005, the EFSA was consulted again by the Commission as to whether there was any scientific reason to believe that the continued placing on the market of T25 maize was likely to cause any adverse effects to human health or the environment under the conditions of consent. In particular, the EFSA was requested to take account of any further scientific information that had arisen subsequent to the previous scientific opinion concerning the safety of this GMO.

(15)

In its opinion of 29 March 2006 (9), EFSA concluded that there is no reason to believe that the continued placing on the market of T25 maize is likely to cause any adverse effects for human and animal health or the environment under the conditions of its consent.

(16)

In accordance with Article 5(6) of Decision 1999/468/EC, the Commission submitted a proposal to the Council requesting Austria to repeal its safeguard measure.

(17)

In accordance with Article 5(6) of Decision 1999/468/EC, the Environment Council, on 18 December 2006, indicated its opposition by qualified majority, to the proposal.

(18)

In its Decision, the Council referred to the environmental risk assessment as provided in the Directive 2001/18/EC and indicated that ‘the different agricultural structures and regional ecological characteristics in the European Union need to be taken into account in a more systematic manner in the environmental risk assessment’.

(19)

In accordance with Article 5(6) of Decision 1999/468/EC the Commission submitted an amended proposal in order to take into account the Council Decision of 18 December 2006 which refers only to the environmental aspects of the Austrian safeguard clause, namely cultivation aspects.

(20)

Austria has initiated work to collect any relevant scientific evidence on these aspects, which in the view of Austria justifies provisionally the maintenance of the safeguard clause, in particular in reference to ‘the different agricultural structures and regional ecological characteristics’ as indicated in recital 3 of the above mentioned Council decision. In accordance with Article 23 of Directive 2001/18/EC, Austria is invited to provide the Commission with all the scientific evidence that it has collected as well as any new risk assessment as soon as it is completed and inform all Member States thereof.

(21)

On the basis of Austria’s submission and its scientific assessment, the Commission will act in accordance with Article 23 of Directive 2001/18/EC on these aspects of the Austrian measure.

(22)

The food and feed safety aspects of Zea mays L. line T25 covered by the consent granted under Directive 90/220/EEC (including import and processing) are identical throughout Europe and have been assessed by the EFSA, which concluded that this product is unlikely to cause any adverse effects for human and animal health.

(23)

The Commission proposal takes into account only food and feed aspects of the Austrian prohibition namely the prohibition on import and processing of unprocessed kernels as source materials for further processing or for direct food or feed use.

(24)

Under these circumstances Austria should repeal its safeguard measures at least with regard to import and processing into food and feed of Zea mays L. line T25.

(25)

The measures provided for in this Decision are not in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established under Article 30 of Directive 2001/18/EC and the Commission therefore submitted to the Council a proposal relating to these measures. Since on the expiry of the period laid down in Article 30(2) of Directive 2001/18/EC, the Council had neither adopted the proposed measures nor indicated its opposition to them, in accordance with Article 5(6) of Decision 1999/468/EC, the measures should be adopted by the Commission,

21.6.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 162/34

(1)

In the framework of Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 the following substances have been identified as priority substances for evaluation in accordance with Commission Regulations (EC) No 1179/94 (2) and (EC) No 2364/2000 (3) respectively concerning the first and the fourth list of priority substances as foreseen under Regulation (EEC) No 793/93:

(2)

The rapporteur Member States designated pursuant to those Regulations have completed the risk evaluation activities with regard to man and the environment for those substances in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 of 28 June 1994 laying down the principles for the assessment of risks to man and the environment of existing substances in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 (4) and have suggested a strategy for limiting the risks.

(3)

The Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment (SCTEE) and the Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER) have been consulted and have issued opinions with respect to the risk evaluations carried out by the rapporteurs. The opinions have been published on the website of the Scientific Committees.

(4)

The results of the risk evaluation and further results of the strategies for limiting the risks are set out in the corresponding Commission Communication (5).

(5)

It is appropriate, on the basis of that evaluation, to recommend certain risk reduction measures for certain substances.

(6)

The risk reduction measures recommended for workers should be considered within the framework of the legislation for workers protection, which is considered to provide an adequate framework to limit the risks of the relevant substances to the extent needed.

(7)

The risk reduction measures provided for in this recommendation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee set up pursuant to Article 15(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 793/93,

1.

A voluntary agreement should be considered with the European Chlorinated Solvents Association on behalf of European producers of the substance, their distributors and customers, restricting the sale of the substance to purchasers who comply with the Charter for the safe use of trichloroethylene in metal cleaning. This Charter requires that users may only use trichloroethylene for metal cleaning in sealed or enclosed systems as defined in Part 4 of European Standard EN 12921, and is subject to third-party monitoring of compliance.

2.

For the elimination of potential risks to industrial wastewater treatment plants at benzene production and/or processing sites it is recommended that competent authorities in the Member States concerned lay down conditions, emission limit values or equivalent parameters or technical measures regarding benzene in the permits issued under Council Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (6) (Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control) in order to operate according to the best available techniques taking into account the technical characteristic of the installations concerned, their geographical location and the local environmental conditions.

3.

Member States should carefully monitor the implementation of BAT regarding benzene and report any important developments to the Commission in the framework of the exchange of information on BAT.

4.

To facilitate permitting and monitoring under Directive 2008/1/EC (Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control) benzene should be included in the ongoing work to develop guidance on ‘Best Available Techniques’ (BAT).

5.

Exposure of microorganisms in industrial wastewater treatment plants should, where necessary, be controlled by national rules to ensure that no risk for the microorganisms and the environment is expected.

6.

The prevention of all anthropogenic inputs, including TAME, to groundwater is a key objective of current Community legislation (7). It is recommended therefore that monitoring programmes be undertaken, where appropriate, in order to permit the early detection of groundwater contaminated by TAME.

7.

It is further recommended that the best available techniques be widely applied for the construction and operation of petrol underground storage and distribution facilities at service stations. In this regard Member States should consider mandatory requirements especially for all service stations in groundwater recharge areas.

8.

The competent authorities in the Member States concerned should lay down, in the permits issued under Directive 2008/1/EC, conditions, emission limit values or equivalent parameters or technical measures regarding TAME in order for installations concerned to operate according to the best available techniques (BAT) taking into account the technical characteristic of the installations concerned, their geographical location and the local environmental conditions.

9.

Member States should carefully monitor the implementation of BAT regarding TAME and report any important developments to the Commission in the framework of the exchange of information on BAT.

10.

Local emissions to the surface water should, where necessary, be controlled by national rules to ensure that no risk for the environment is expected.

11.

The risk reduction measures recommended to protect the groundwater are considered sufficient to protect humans via the environment.

12.

This Recommendation is addressed to all sectors importing, producing, transporting, storing, formulating into a preparation or other processing, using, disposing or recovering the substances and to the Member States.

21.6.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 162/37

(1)

In the framework of Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 the following substances have been identified as priority substances for evaluation in accordance with Commission Regulations (EC) No 143/97 (2) and (EC) No 2364/2000 (3) respectively concerning the third and fourth list of priority substances as foreseen under Regulation (EEC) No 793/93:

(2)

The rapporteur Member States designated pursuant to those Regulations have completed the risk evaluation activities with regard to man and the environment for those substances in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 of 28 June 1994 laying down the principles for the assessment of risks to man and the environment of existing substances in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 (4) and have suggested a strategy for limiting the risks.

(3)

The Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER) has been consulted and has issued opinions with respect to the risk evaluations carried out by the rapporteurs. The opinions have been published on the website of the Scientific Committee.

(4)

The results of the risk evaluation and further results of the strategies for limiting the risks are set out in the corresponding Commission Communication (5).

(5)

It is appropriate, on the basis of that evaluation, to recommend certain risk reduction measures for certain substances. For the substances which are not specifically listed, there are no recommendations for the addressees of this Recommendation.

(6)

The risk reduction measures recommended for workers should be considered within the framework of the legislation for workers’ protection, which is considered to provide an adequate framework to limit the risks of the relevant substances to the extent needed.

(7)

The risk reduction measures provided for in this recommendation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee set up pursuant to Article 15(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 793/93,

1.

Employers using EPTAC in manufacturing and as a cationisation agent in the cationisation of starches should take note of any sector specific guidance developed at national level based on the practical non-binding guidelines, drawn up by the Commission pursuant to Article 12(2) of Council Directive 98/24/EC (6) (Chemical Agents Directive).

2.

Local emissions to the environment of EPTAC should, where necessary, be controlled by national rules to ensure that no risk for the environment is expected.

3.

Employers using CHPTAC as a cationisation agent in the cationisation of starches should take note of any sector specific guidance developed at national level based on the practical non-binding guidelines, drawn up by the Commission pursuant to Article 12(2) of Directive 98/24/EC.

4.

Local emissions to the environment of CHPTAC should, where necessary, be controlled by national rules to ensure that no risk for the environment is expected.

5.

This Recommendation is addressed to all sectors importing, producing, transporting, storing, formulating into a preparation or other processing, using, disposing or recovering the substances and to the Member States.

21.6.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 162/39

(1)

Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on statutory audits of annual accounts and consolidated accounts, amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC and repealing Council Directive 84/253/EEC (1) establishes a minimum harmonisation of statutory audit requirements. Pursuant to Article 31 of that Directive, the Commission is to report on the impact of the national liability rules for the carrying out of statutory audits on European capital markets and on the insurance conditions for statutory auditors and audit firms and to make recommendations if it considers it appropriate.

(2)

Smooth functioning of capital markets requires sustainable audit capacity and a competitive market for audit services in which there is a sufficient choice of audit firms capable of conducting and willing to conduct statutory audits of companies the securities of which are admitted to trading on a regulated market of a Member State. However, increasing volatility in market capitalisation of companies has led to much higher liability risks, whilst access to insurance coverage against the risks associated with such audits has become increasingly limited.

(3)

Since unlimited joint and several liability may deter audit firms and networks from entering the international audit market for listed companies in the Community, there is little prospect of new audit networks emerging which are in a position to conduct statutory audits of such companies.

(4)

As a consequence, the liability of auditors and audit firms, including group auditors, carrying out statutory audits of listed companies should be limited. However, any limitation on liability is not justified in cases of intentional breach of professional duties on the part of an auditor and should not apply in such cases. Nor should such a limitation prejudice the right of any injured party to be fairly compensated.

(5)

In view of the considerable variations between civil liability systems in the Member States, it is appropriate at this stage that each Member State be able to choose the method of limitation which it considers to be the most suitable for its civil liability system.

(6)

Member States should accordingly be able to determine under national law a cap in respect of auditors’ liability. Alternatively Member States should be able to establish under national law a system of proportionate liability according to which statutory auditors and audit firms are liable only to the extent of their contribution to the damage caused, without being jointly and severally liable with other parties. In the Member States where any claims against statutory auditors might be brought only by the audited company and not by individual shareholders or any other third parties, Member State should also be able to allow the company, its shareholders and the auditor to determine the limitation of the auditor’s liability, subject to appropriate safeguards for investors in the company audited,

1.

This Recommendation concerns the civil liability of auditors and audit firms carrying out a statutory audit of the consolidated or annual accounts of a company which is registered in a Member State and the securities of which are admitted to trading on a regulated market in a Member State.

2.

The civil liability of statutory auditors and of audit firms arising from a breach of their professional duties should be limited except in cases of intentional breach of duties by the statutory auditor or the audit firm.

3.

The limitation of liability should apply against the company audited and any third party entitled under national law to bring a claim for compensation.

4.

Any limitation of civil liability should not prevent injured parties from being fairly compensated.

5.

Member States should take measures to limit liability. For that purpose, it is recommended that any one or more of the following methods in particular be used:

6.

Where liability is limited by agreement as referred to in point 5(c), Member States should ensure that all the following conditions are met:

7.

Before adopting measures implementing any of the methods referred to in point 5(a), (b) or (c), or any other method limiting liability which complies with points 2, 3 and 4, a Member State should take into account the impact on financial markets and investors and on conditions for access to the market of statutory audit for listed companies, as well as the impact on audit quality, insurability of risks and the companies to be audited.

8.

Member States are invited to inform the Commission of actions taken in light of this Recommendation by 5 June 2010.

9.

This Recommendation is addressed to the Member States