(1)

Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, France’s application to register the name ‘Farine de blé noir de Bretagne’ or ‘Farine de blé noir de Bretagne — Gwinizh du Breizh’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

(2)

As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,

(1)

On 4 December 2009, following the conclusions of the European Council at its meetings on 11 and 12 December 2008 and on 18 and 19 June 2009, the Spanish Government submitted, in accordance with Article 48(2), first sentence, of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), a proposal for the amendment of the Treaties concerning the composition of the European Parliament.

(2)

On 7 December 2009, in accordance with Article 48(2), third sentence, of the TEU, the said proposal was submitted by the Council to the European Council. It was also notified to the national Parliaments.

(3)

At its meeting on 10 and 11 December 2009, the European Council decided, in accordance with Article 48(3), first subparagraph, of the TEU, to consult the European Parliament and the Commission on the proposed amendments. It also decided, in accordance with Article 48(3), second subparagraph, of the TEU, to request the consent of the European Parliament on its intention not to convene a Convention given that, in its view, this was not justified by the extent of the proposed amendments. Letters to those ends were sent by the President of the European Council on 18 December 2009.

(4)

On 6 May 2010, the European Parliament adopted a favourable opinion on the proposed amendments. It also gave its consent on the decision not to convene a Convention as this is not justified by the extent of the proposed amendments. On 28 April 2010, the Commission adopted a favourable opinion on the proposed amendments.

(5)

Therefore, it is appropriate that, in accordance with Article 48(3) of the TEU, the European Council decide that a conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States should examine the amendments proposed by the Spanish Government, define the terms of reference of the conference and decide not to convene a Convention,

(1)

Pursuant to Article 9(2) of Council Decision 2010/330/CFSP, the Political and Security Committee (PSC) is authorised, in accordance with Article 38 of the Treaty, to take the relevant decisions for the purpose of political control and strategic direction of the European Union Integrated Rule of Law Mission for Iraq, EUJUST LEX-IRAQ (hereinafter referred to as ‘EUJUST LEX-IRAQ’), including in particular the decision to appoint a Head of Mission.

(2)

On 15 December 2009, upon a proposal by the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR), the PSC adopted Decision 2009/982/CFSP (2) appointing Mr Francisco DÍAZ ALCANTUD as Head of Mission of EUJUST LEX-IRAQ.

(3)

On 16 June 2010, the HR proposed to the PSC that it extend the mandate of Mr Francisco DÍAZ ALCANTUD as Head of Mission of EUJUST LEX-IRAQ until 30 June 2011.

(1)

Member States have submitted to the Commission their fisheries control programme for 2010 together with the applications for a Union financial contribution towards the expenditure to be incurred in carrying out the projects contained in such programme.

(2)

Applications concerning actions listed in Article 8(a) of Regulation (EC) No 861/2006 may qualify for Union funding.

(3)

Applications for Union funding are to comply with the rules set out in Commission Regulation (EC) No 391/2007 (2).

(4)

It is appropriate to fix the maximum amounts and the rate of the Union financial contribution within the limits set by Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 861/2006 and to lay down the conditions under which such contribution may be granted.

(5)

In order to encourage investment in the priority actions defined by the Commission in conformity with the Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 (3) and in view of the negative impact of the financial crisis on Member States’ budgets, expenditure related to automation and management of data, electronic recording and reporting systems (ERS) and vessel monitoring systems (VMS), as well as to seminars by Member States aiming at enhancing awareness on the new control Regulation as well as on illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing, should benefit from a high co-financing rate, within the limits laid down in Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 861/2006.

(6)

In order to limit the amount dedicated to the purchase and modernisation of fisheries patrol vessels and aircraft, the Union contribution to these expenditure shall be restricted to a maximum amount of EUR 1 Million by Member State.

(7)

In order to qualify for the contribution, automatic localisation devices should satisfy the requirements fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2244/2003 of 18 December 2003 laying down detailed provisions regarding satellite-based Vessel Monitoring Systems (4).

(8)

In order to qualify for the contribution, electronic recording and reporting devices on board fishing vessels should satisfy the requirements laid down by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1077/2008 of 3 November 2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1966/2006 on electronic recording and reporting of fishing activities and on means of remote sensing and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1566/2007 (5).

(9)

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

(1)

In accordance with Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in March 2006 the United Kingdom received an application from Nissan Chemical Europe SARL for the inclusion of the active substance amisulbrom in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. Commission Decision 2007/669/EC (2) confirmed that the dossier was complete and could be considered as satisfying, in principle, the data and information requirements of Annex II and Annex III to that Directive.

(2)

In accordance with Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in February 2007 Ireland received an application from DuPont International Operations SARL for the inclusion of the active substance chlorantraniliprole in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. Commission Decision 2007/560/EC (3) confirmed that the dossier was complete and could be considered as satisfying, in principle, the data and information requirements of Annex II and Annex III to that Directive.

(3)

In accordance with Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in August 2005 the United Kingdom received an application from Dow Agrosciences for the inclusion of the active substance meptyldinocap in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. Commission Decision 2006/589/EC (4) confirmed that the dossier was complete and could be considered as satisfying, in principle, the data and information requirements of Annex II and Annex III to that Directive.

(4)

In accordance with Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in March 2004 the United Kingdom received an application from Syngenta Ltd for the inclusion of the active substance pinoxaden in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. Commission Decision 2005/459/EC (5) confirmed that the dossier was complete and could be considered as satisfying, in principle, the data and information requirements of Annex II and Annex III to that Directive.

(5)

Confirmation of the completeness of the dossiers was necessary in order to allow them to be examined in detail and to allow Member States the possibility of granting provisional authorisations, for periods of up to three years, for plant protection products containing the active substances concerned, while complying with the conditions laid down in Article 8(1) of Directive 91/414/EEC and, in particular, the condition relating to the detailed assessment of the active substances and the plant protection products in the light of the requirements laid down by that Directive.

(6)

For these active substances, the effects on human health and the environment have been assessed, in accordance with the provisions of Article 6(2) and (4) of Directive 91/414/EEC, for the uses proposed by the applicants. The rapporteur Member States submitted the respective draft assessment reports to the Commission on 15 July 2008 (amisulbrom), on 11 February 2009 (chlorantraniliprole), on 25 October 2006 (meptyldinocap) and on 30 November 2005 (pinoxaden).

(7)

Following submission of the draft assessment reports by the rapporteur Member States, it has been found to be necessary to request further information from the applicants and to have the rapporteur Member States examine that information and submit their assessment. Therefore, the examination of the dossiers is still ongoing and it will not be possible to complete the evaluation within the timeframe provided for in Directive 91/414/EEC, read in conjunction with Commission Decision 2008/724/EC (6) (pinoxaden).

(8)

As the evaluation so far has not identified any reason for immediate concern, Member States should be given the possibility of prolonging provisional authorisations granted for plant protection products containing the active substances concerned for a period of 24 months in accordance with the provisions of Article 8 of Directive 91/414/EEC so as to enable the examination of the dossiers to continue. It is expected that the evaluation and decision-making process with respect to a decision on a possible inclusion in Annex I to that Directive for amisulbrom, chlorantraniliprole, meptyldinocap and pinoxaden will have been completed within 24 months.

(9)

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

(1)

Commission Decision 2008/855/EC of 3 November 2008 concerning animal health control measures relating to classical swine fever in certain Member States (3) lays down certain control measures in relation to classical swine fever in the Member States or regions thereof set out in the Annex to that Decision.

(2)

The Annex to Decision 2008/855/EC comprises three parts, depending on the epidemiological situation in the areas listed therein. Parts I and II of that Annex list the areas in the Member States where the epidemiological situation with regard to feral pigs is considered to be most favourable.

(3)

Although feral pigs are included in the scope of Decision 2008/855/EC, the control measures provided for in that Decision are primarily targeting pigs from holdings and products derived therefrom.

(4)

Commission Decision 2002/106/EC (4) sets out the diagnostic procedures, sampling methods and criteria for evaluation of the laboratory tests for the confirmation of classical swine fever.

(5)

In order to better control the spread of classical swine fever, it is appropriate to provide for certain animal health control measures targeting the feral pig population affected by that disease. In particular, a prohibition on the dispatch from the areas listed in the Annex to Decision 2008/855/EC of consignments of live feral pigs and of fresh meat, meat preparations and meat products consisting of or containing such meat should be laid down.

(6)

It is however appropriate to permit that consignments of fresh meat of feral pigs, meat preparations and meat products consisting of or containing such meat be dispatched from those areas to other areas not listed in the Annex to Decision 2008/855/EC, provided that virological tests are performed in accordance with Decision 2002/106/EC, that the results of those tests are negative and that the competent veterinary authority of the place of destination gives its prior approval.

(7)

Decision 2008/855/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.

(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,

(1)

By Commission Decision 2007/629/EC (2) it was decided not to include the active substance trifluralin in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. That Decision was taken within the framework of the second stage of the programme of work provided for in Commission Regulations (EC) No 451/2000 (3) and (EC) No 703/2001 (4) which lay down the detailed rules for the implementation of the second stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and which establish a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC.

(2)

The original notifier submitted a new application pursuant to Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 of 17 January 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that Directive but have not been included into its Annex I (5). It requested the application of the accelerated procedure pursuant to Articles 13 to 19 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 and submitted an updated dossier. The application was submitted to Greece, which had been designated rapporteur Member State by Regulation (EC) No 451/2000.

(3)

That application complies with the substantive and procedural requirements of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 and was submitted within the time period provided for in the second sentence of Article 13 of that Regulation.

(4)

Greece evaluated the new information and data submitted by the notifier and prepared an additional report on 7 January 2009.

(5)

The additional report was peer reviewed by the Member States and the European Food Safety Authority, hereinafter EFSA, and presented to the Commission on 14 July 2009 in the format of the EFSA Scientific Report for trifluralin (6). This report was reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and finalised on 11 May 2010 in the format of the Commission review report for trifluralin.

(6)

The new assessment by the rapporteur Member State and the new conclusion by the EFSA concentrated on the concerns that lead to the non-inclusion, which were due to the high risk for aquatic organisms, especially fish, the toxicity of metabolites to sediment dwelling organisms, the consumer exposure for non-cereal applications, the high persistence in soil, the high potential for bioaccumulation, and the potential for long range transport via air.

(7)

New data and information were submitted by the notifier in the updated dossier, in particular as regards the aquatic risk assessment, especially fish, the toxicity of metabolites to sediment dwelling organisms, the high persistence in soil and the high potential for bioaccumulation. In order to reduce the risk to consumers, the notifier, in the context of the resubmission, only supported applications on oil seed rape. As regards the potential for long range transport via air, the submitted data simply reproduced a monitoring report which already figured in the original dossier. A new assessment was performed, as included in the additional report and in the EFSA Scientific Report for trifluralin.

(8)

However, the additional data and information provided by the notifier did not permit to eliminate all the specific concerns that led to the non-inclusion.

(9)

In particular, the concern on potential high risk for aquatic organisms, especially fish, could not be solved due to shortcomings in the newly submitted studies. As a consequence, the surface water risk assessment could not be finalised. Furthermore, the potential for long range transport via air has not been adequately elucidated by the produced information which was of an obsolete nature.

(10)

The Commission invited the notifier to submit its comments on the results of the peer review. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 21(1) to Regulation (EC) No 33/2008, the Commission invited the notifier to submit comments on the draft review report and in particular on the remaining concerns for the aquatic risk and the potential for long range transport. The notifier submitted its comments, which have been carefully examined.

(11)

However, despite the arguments put forward by the notifier, the concerns identified could not be eliminated, and assessments made on the basis of the information submitted and evaluated during the EFSA expert meetings have not demonstrated that it may be expected that, under the proposed conditions of use, plant protection products containing trifluralin satisfy in general the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC.

(12)

Trifluralin should therefore not be included in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC.

(13)

Decision 2007/629/EC should be repealed.

(14)

This Decision does not prejudice the submission of a further application for trifluralin pursuant to Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC and Chapter II of Regulation (EC) No 33/2008.

(15)

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

(1)

In accordance with Article 6(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in March 1998 Spain received an application from BASF SE for the inclusion of the active substance profoxydim in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. Commission Decision 1999/43/EC (2) confirmed that the dossier was complete and could be considered as satisfying, in principle, the data and information requirements of Annex II and Annex III to that Directive.

(2)

Confirmation of the completeness of the dossier was necessary in order to allow it to be examined in detail and to allow Member States the possibility of granting provisional authorisations, for periods of up to 3 years, for plant protection products containing the active substance concerned, while complying with the conditions laid down in Article 8(1) of Directive 91/414/EEC and, in particular, the condition relating to the detailed assessment of the active substance and the plant protection products in the light of the requirements laid down by that Directive.

(3)

For this active substance, the effects on human health and the environment have been assessed, in accordance with the provisions of Article 6(2) and (4) of Directive 91/414/EEC, for the uses proposed by the applicant. The rapporteur Member State submitted the draft assessment report to the Commission on 28 March 2001.

(4)

Following submission of the draft assessment report by the rapporteur Member State, it has been found to be necessary to request further information from the applicant and to have the rapporteur Member State examine that information and submit its assessment. Therefore, the examination of the dossier is still ongoing and it will not be possible to complete the evaluation within the timeframe provided for in Directive 91/414/EEC, read in conjunction with Commission Decision 2008/564/EC (3).

(5)

As the evaluation so far has not identified any reason for immediate concern, Member States should be given the possibility of prolonging provisional authorisations granted for plant protection products containing the active substance concerned for a period of 24 months in accordance with the provisions of Article 8 of Directive 91/414/EEC so as to enable the examination of the dossier to continue. It is expected that the evaluation and decision-making process with respect to a decision on a possible inclusion in Annex I to that Directive for profoxydim will have been completed within 24 months.

(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,