(1)

Council Regulation (EEC) No 479/92 of 25 February 1992 on the application of Article 85(3) of the Treaty to certain categories of agreements, decisions and concerted practices between liner shipping companies (consortia) (2) has been substantially amended several times (3). In the interests of clarity and rationality the said Regulation should be codified.

(2)

Article 81(1) of the Treaty may in accordance with Article 81(3) thereof be declared inapplicable to categories of agreements, decisions and concerted practices which fulfil the conditions contained in Article 81(3).

(3)

Pursuant to Article 83 of the Treaty, the provisions for the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty should be adopted by way of Regulation or Directive. According to Article 83(2)(b), these provisions must lay down detailed rules for the application of Article 81(3), taking into account the need to ensure effective supervision, on the one hand, and to simplify administration to the greatest possible extent on the other. According to Article 83(2)(d), these provisions are required to define the respective functions of the Commission and of the Court of Justice.

(4)

Liner shipping is a capital intensive industry. Containerisation has increased pressures for cooperation and rationalisation. The Community shipping industry should attain the necessary economies of scale in order to compete successfully on the world liner shipping market.

(5)

Joint-service agreements between liner shipping companies with the aim of rationalising their operations by means of technical, operational and/or commercial arrangements (described in shipping circles as consortia) can help to provide the necessary means for improving the productivity of liner shipping services and promoting technical and economic progress.

(6)

Maritime transport is important for the development of the Community’s trade and the consortia agreements may play a role in this respect, taking account of the special features of international liner shipping. The legalisation of these agreements is a measure which can make a positive contribution to improving the competitiveness of shipping in the Community;

(7)

Users of the shipping services offered by consortia can obtain a share of the benefits resulting from the improvements in productivity and service, by means of, inter alia, regularity, cost reductions derived from higher levels of capacity utilisation, and better service quality stemming from improved vessels and equipment.

(8)

The Commission should be enabled to declare by way of Regulation that the provisions of Article 81(1) of the Treaty do not apply to certain categories of consortia agreements, decisions and concerted practices, in order to make it easier for undertakings to cooperate in ways which are economically desirable and without adverse effect from the point of view of competition policy. The Commission, in close and constant liaison with the competent authorities of the Member States, should be able to define precisely the scope of these exemptions and the conditions attached to them.

(9)

Consortia in liner shipping are a specialised and complex type of joint venture. There is a great variety of different consortia agreements operating in different circumstances. The scope, parties, activities or terms of consortia are frequently altered. The Commission should therefore be given the responsibility of defining from time to time the consortia to which a group exemption should apply.

(10)

In order to ensure that all the conditions of Article 81(3) of the Treaty are met, conditions should be attached to group exemptions to ensure in particular that a fair share of the benefits will be passed on to shippers and that competition is not eliminated,

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 80/2001 of 16 January 2001 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 as regards notifications concerning recognition of producer organisations, the fixing of prices and intervention within the scope of the common organisation of the market in fishery and aquaculture products (2) has been substantially amended several times (3). Since further amendments are to be made as regards adjustments to the list of Member States' regions and to the currency codes used for the purposes of this Regulation, it should be recast in the interests of clarity.

(2)

In accordance with Article 13(6) of Regulation (EC) No 104/2000, the Commission publishes annually a list of recognised producer organisations and associations thereof. Member States must therefore provide it with adequate information.

(3)

The Commission has to be able to monitor the price stabilisation activities of the producer organisations and the way in which they apply the systems of financial compensation and carry-over premiums.

(4)

The Community intervention arrangements pursuant to Articles 21 to 26 of Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 require information to be available on the prices recorded in clearly defined regions at regular intervals.

(5)

A system of electronic transmission of data between the Member States and the Commission has been introduced within the framework of management of the common fisheries policy (FIDES II system). It should be used for the purposes of collecting the information referred to in this Regulation.

(6)

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

(1)

Article 67(3) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (2), stipulates that the revenue of the European Medicines Agency (hereinafter the Agency) shall consist of a contribution from the Community and fees paid by undertakings to the Agency. Regulation (EC) No 297/95 lays down the categories and levels of such fees.

(2)

Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 297/95 lays down that the Commission shall review the fees of the Agency by reference to the inflation rate and update them, with effect from 1 April of each year.

(3)

Those fees should therefore be updated by reference to the inflation rate of 2008. The inflation rate in the Community, as published by the Statistical Office of the European Communities (Eurostat), was 3,7 % in 2008.

(4)

For the sake of simplicity, the adjusted levels of the fees should be rounded to the nearest EUR 100.

(5)

Regulation (EC) No 297/95 should therefore be amended accordingly.

(6)

For reasons for legal certainty this Regulation should not apply to valid applications which are pending on 1 April 2009.

(7)

Pursuant to Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 297/95 the update has to be made with effect from 1 April 2009. It is therefore appropriate that this Regulation enters into force as a matter of urgency and applies from that date,

1.

Article 3 is amended as follows:

2.

in Article 4, ‘EUR 60 600’ is replaced by ‘EUR 62 800’.

3.

Article 5 is amended as follows:

4.

in Article 6, ‘EUR 36 400’ is replaced by ‘EUR 37 700’;

5.

Article 7 is amended as follows:

6.

Article 8 is amended as follows:

(1)

Against a background of very high external financing needs, Latvian capital and financial markets have recently come under pressure, reflecting a general deterioration in market sentiment, and increasing concerns about the health of the Latvian economy given its large imbalances in terms of wide external deficit and very large external debt, weakening public finances and high rates of cost and price inflation. The Latvian banking sector has experienced serious liquidity and confidence problems. The level of foreign currency reserves has decreased as the central bank intervened to preserve the currency peg.

(2)

The Council regularly reviews the economic policies implemented by Latvia, in particular in the contexts of Latvia’s convergence programme and National Reform Programme, as well as in the context of Convergence Reports.

(3)

Latvia’s total external financing needs up to the first quarter of 2011 are estimated at EUR 7,5 billion.

(4)

The Latvian authorities have requested substantial financial assistance from the EU and other international financial institutions and countries to support balance of payments sustainability.

(5)

There is a serious threat to the Latvian balance of payments which justifies the urgent granting of mutual assistance by the Community in conjunction with the IMF and other contributors. In addition, in view of the urgency of the matter, it is imperative to grant an exception to the six-week period referred to in paragraph I(3) of the Protocol on the role of national Parliaments in the European Union, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaties establishing the European Communities.

(6)

The financial assistance package would be provided subject to a strong commitment from the Latvian authorities to implement an ambitious fiscal, financial system and structural reform programme to facilitate the necessary external and internal adjustments, to stabilise the economy and to restore economic policy credibility. The Commission will review regularly and closely, in collaboration with the EFC, that the economic policy conditions attached to the assistance are fully implemented,

(1)

By Decision 2009/289/EC (2), the Council decided to grant mutual assistance for Latvia.

(2)

Against a background of very high external financing needs, Latvian capital and financial markets have recently come under pressure, reflecting a general deterioration in market sentiment, and increasing concerns about the health of the Latvian economy given its large imbalances in terms of wide external deficit, weakening public finances and high rates of cost and price inflation. The Latvian banking sector has experienced serious liquidity and confidence problems. The level of foreign currency reserves has decreased as the central bank intervened to preserve the currency peg.

(3)

Latvia’s total external financing needs up to the first quarter of 2011 are estimated at EUR 7,5 billion.

(4)

It is appropriate to provide Community support to Latvia of up to EUR 3,1 billion under the Facility providing medium-term financial assistance for Member States’ balance of payments established by Regulation (EC) No 332/2002. That assistance should be provided in conjunction with a loan from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) of SDR 1,5 billion (1 200 % of Latvia’s IMF quota, around EUR 1,7 billion) under an IMF Stand-by arrangement approved on 23 December 2008. The Nordic countries (Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Estonia and Norway) are to contribute EUR 1,9 billion together, the World Bank — EUR 0,4 billion, the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development, the Czech Republic and Poland — a total of EUR 0,4 billion, bringing the total to EUR 7,5 billion over the period up to the first quarter of 2011.

(5)

The Community assistance should be managed by the Commission. The specific economic policy conditions agreed with the authorities of Latvia after consultation of the EFC should be laid down in a Memorandum of Understanding. They should include, inter alia, measures intended to stem immediate liquidity pressures, to restore long-term stability by strengthening the banking sector, to correct fiscal imbalances and to adopt domestic policies that will improve competitiveness. The measures should include an immediate and sustained fiscal consolidation, a comprehensive bank resolution strategy, a strengthened crisis management capacity of regulatory authorities, comprehensive structural reforms, as well as other important measures. The detailed financial terms should be laid down by the Commission in the Loan Agreement.

(6)

The assistance should be provided with a view to stemming immediate liquidity pressures and conditional on policies to restore long-term stability by strengthening the banking sector, correcting fiscal imbalances and adopting domestic policies that will improve competitiveness, while maintaining the narrow-band exchange rate at its existing central rate,

(1)

In accordance with the procedure provided for in the second paragraph of Article 19, Directive 2000/13/EC, the Irish authorities notified the Commission on 25 June 2008 of a draft Health Regulations concerning the mandatory labelling of the country of origin of poultrymeat, pigmeat and sheepmeat.

(2)

The draft Regulations require all poultrymeat, pigmeat and sheepmeat, and foods containing at least 70 % by weight of these meats to be labelled to indicate their country of origin in clear legible type in Irish and/or English language. ‘Origin’ is defined as the country in which the animal was reared for most of its life and, if different, the country where it was slaughtered.

(3)

Directive 2000/13/EC harmonises the rules governing the labelling of foodstuffs by making provision for, on the one hand, harmonisation of certain national provisions and, secondly, arrangements for non-harmonised national provisions. The scope of harmonisation is defined in Article 3(1), which lists all the particulars that are compulsory on the labelling of foodstuffs ‘in accordance with Articles 4 to 17 and subject to the exceptions contained therein’. Furthermore, Article 4(2) provides that other particulars in addition to those listed in Article 3(1) may be required, in the case of specified foodstuffs, by Community provisions or, in their absence, by national provisions.

(4)

Article 18(2) of Directive 2000/13/EC allows the adoption of non-harmonised national provisions if they are justified on one of the grounds listed therein, including, inter alia, the prevention of fraud and the protection of public health, and provided they are not of such a nature as to impede application of the definitions and rules laid down by Directive 2000/13/EC; therefore where draft national labelling provisions have been proposed in a Member State, it is necessary to examine their compatibility with the above-mentioned requirements and the provisions of the Treaty establishing the European Community.

(5)

In accordance with Article 3(1) point 8 of Directive 2000/13/EC the indication of the place of origin or provenance is mandatory ‘where failure to give such particulars might mislead the consumer to a material degree as to the true origin or provenance of the foodstuff’. This provision, by providing an obligation to indicate the origin or the provenance of a food where other indications on the label of a given product could imply that such product comes from a different origin, provides an appropriate mechanism to counter the risk of consumers being misled.

(6)

In the case of poultrymeat, pigmeat and sheepmeat, the grounds presented by the Irish authorities do not allow for the conclusion that Irish consumers might, as a general rule, erroneously think that the products concerned come from a certain place.

(7)

Ireland has not provided any evidence that the draft Regulations are necessary to attain one of the objectives of the above-mentioned Article 18 or that the obstacle thus created is proportionate. It mentions only the aim of informing consumers on the origin of the products concerned. This ground alone is not sufficient to justify the draft Regulations.

(8)

In light of these observations, the Commission has delivered a negative opinion pursuant to Article 19, third paragraph of Directive 2000/13/EC.

(9)

The Irish authorities should accordingly be requested not to adopt the draft Regulations in question.

(10)

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

(1)

Commission Decision 1999/177/EC of 8 February 1999 establishing the conditions for a derogation for plastic crates and plastic pallets in relation to the heavy metal concentration levels established in Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste (2) expired on 9 February 2009.

(2)

At the expiry of Decision 1999/177/EC, a considerable amount of plastic crates and plastic pallets containing heavy metals whose concentration level exceeds that provided for by Directive 94/62/EC were still on the market. Given the lack of capacity of the industry to replace all such crates and pallets, there is a high risk that those crates and pallets will be disposed of through land filling or incineration. Both solutions would have harmful impacts on health and the environment.

(3)

Directive 94/62/EC aims at limiting the presence of heavy metals in packaging as well as at providing a high level of environmental protection, including reuse and recycling.

(4)

In order to give time to the industry to replace those plastic crates and plastic pallets using the best available techniques, it is appropriate to adopt conditions for a derogation relating to those crates and pallets which are in product loops in a closed and controlled chain. The scientific reports submitted to the Commission recommend that such derogation should be granted.

(5)

Since the Commission intends to review the functioning of the system provided for in this Decision and the progress made in phasing out plastic crates and plastic pallets containing heavy metals after five years, it is necessary that Member States submit the relevant information. In order not to increase the existing administrative burden by imposing a specific reporting obligation on the Member States, it is sufficient that such information is included in the reports to be submitted to the Commission under Article 17 of Directive 94/62/EC.

(6)

For reasons of legal certainty, this Decision should apply with effect from the date following that of the expiry of Decision 1999/177/EC in order to avoid any possible negative effects resulting from that expiry.

(7)

The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established pursuant to Article 21 of Directive 94/62/EC,

1.

‘heavy metals’ means lead, cadmium, mercury and hexavalent chromium;

2.

‘intentional introduction of heavy metals’ means the act of deliberately utilising a substance containing heavy metals in the formulation of a packaging or a packaging component where its continued presence is desired in the final packaging or packaging component to provide a specific characteristic, appearance or quality;

3.

‘incidental presence of heavy metals’ means the presence of heavy metals as an unintended ingredient of a packaging or packaging component.

(1)

On 2 June 2008, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) adopted Resolution 1816 (2008) calling upon all States to cooperate in determining jurisdiction, and in the investigation and prosecution of persons responsible for acts of piracy and armed robbery off the coast of Somalia. Those provisions were reaffirmed by UNSC Resolution 1846 (2008), adopted on 2 December 2008.

(2)

On 10 November 2008, the Council adopted Joint Action 2008/851/CFSP on a European Union military operation to contribute to the deterrence, prevention and repression of acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast (1) (operation ‘Atalanta’).

(3)

Joint Action 2008/851/CFSP provides that persons having committed, or suspected of having committed acts of piracy or armed robbery in Somali territorial waters, who are arrested and detained, with a view to their prosecution, and property used to carry out such acts, may be transferred to a third State which wishes to exercise its jurisdiction over the aforementioned persons and property, provided that the conditions for the transfer have been agreed with that third State in a manner consistent with relevant international law, notably international law on human rights, in order to guarantee in particular that no one shall be subjected to the death penalty, to torture or to any cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

(4)

In accordance with Article 24 of the Treaty, the Presidency, assisted by the Secretary-General/High Representative (SG/HR), negotiated an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Government of Kenya on the conditions and modalities for the transfer of persons suspected of having committed acts of piracy and detained by the European Union-led naval force (EUNAVFOR), and seized property in the possession of EUNAVFOR, from EUNAVFOR to Kenya and for their treatment after such transfer.

(5)

The Exchange of Letters should be approved,