3.12.2011   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 320/1

3.12.2011   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 320/2

(1)

In May 2003 the European Commission adopted a Communication to the European Parliament and to the Council entitled ‘Forest law enforcement, governance and trade (FLEGT): proposal for an EU action plan’ which called for measures to address illegal logging through the development of voluntary partnership agreements with timber-producing countries. Council conclusions on that Action Plan were adopted in October 2003 (1) and the European Parliament adopted a resolution on the subject on 11 July 2005 (2).

(2)

On 5 December 2005 the Council authorised the Commission to open negotiations on partnership agreements to implement the FLEGT.

(3)

On 20 December 2005 the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 2173/2005 (3) which established a FLEGT licensing scheme for imports of timber into the Union from countries with which the Union has concluded voluntary partnership agreements.

(4)

The negotiations with the Central African Republic have been concluded, and the Voluntary Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Central African Republic on forest law enforcement, governance and trade in timber and derived products to the European Union (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Agreement’) was initialled on 21 December 2010.

(5)

The Agreement should be signed subject to its conclusion,

3.12.2011   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 320/3

(1)

Article 43(3) of the Treaty provides that the Council, on a proposal from the Commission, is to adopt measures on the fixing and allocation of fishing opportunities.

(2)

Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy (1) requires that measures governing access to waters and resources and the sustainable pursuit of fishing activities be established taking into account available scientific, technical and economic advice and, in particular, the report drawn up by the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF), as well as in the light of any advice received from Regional Advisory Councils.

(3)

It is incumbent upon the Council to adopt measures on the fixing and allocation of fishing opportunities by fishery or group of fisheries, including certain conditions functionally linked thereto, as appropriate. Fishing opportunities should be distributed among Member States in such a way as to assure each Member State relative stability of fishing activities for each stock or fishery and having due regard to the objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy established in Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002.

(4)

The total allowable catches (TACs) should be established on the basis of available scientific advice, taking into account biological and socioeconomic aspects whilst ensuring fair treatment between fishing sectors, as well as in light of the opinions expressed during the consultation of stakeholders, in particular at the meetings with the Advisory Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture and the Regional Advisory Councils concerned.

(5)

For stocks subject to specific multiannual plans, the fishing opportunities should be established in accordance with the rules laid down in those plans. Consequently, catch limits and fishing effort limits for the cod stocks in the Baltic Sea should be established in accordance with the rules laid down in Council Regulation (EC) No 1098/2007 of 18 September 2007 establishing a multiannual plan for the cod stocks in the Baltic Sea and the fisheries exploiting those stocks (2) (‘the Baltic Sea Cod Plan’).

(6)

In the light of the most recent scientific advice, flexibility in the management of the fishing effort for cod stocks in the Baltic Sea can be introduced without jeopardising the objectives of the Baltic Sea Cod Plan and without resulting in an increase in fishing mortality. Such flexibility would allow for a more efficient management of the fishing effort where quotas are not allocated equally among the fleet of a Member State and would facilitate swift reactions to quota exchanges. A Member State should, therefore, be allowed to allocate to vessels flying its flag additional days absent from port where an equal amount of days absent from port is withdrawn from other vessels flying the flag of that Member State.

(7)

In the light of the most recent scientific advice, it is appropriate to introduce such flexibility in the management of the fishing effort for cod stocks in the Baltic Sea already in 2011. Consequently, Annex II to Council Regulation (EU) No 1124/2010 of 29 November 2010 fixing for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks applicable in the Baltic Sea (3) should be amended accordingly.

(8)

The use of fishing opportunities set out in this Regulation should be subject to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (4) and in particular to Articles 33 and 34 thereof concerning respectively the recording of catches and fishing effort and the information on data on the exhaustion of fishing opportunities. It is therefore necessary to specify the codes relating to landings of stocks subject to this Regulation which are to be used by the Member States when sending data to the Commission.

(9)

In accordance with Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 847/96 of 6 May 1996 introducing additional conditions for year-to-year management of TACs and quotas (5), the stocks that are subject to the various measures referred to therein must be identified.

(10)

In order to avoid the interruption of fishing activities and to ensure the livelihood of Union fishermen, it is important to open those fisheries on 1 January 2012. However, since Regulation (EU) No 1124/2010 applies from 1 January 2011, the provisions of the present Regulation allowing flexibility in the management of the fishing effort for cod stocks in the Baltic Sea should apply from 1 January 2011. For reasons of urgency, this Regulation should enter into force immediately after its publication,

(a)

International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) zones are the geographical areas specified in Annex I to Council Regulation (EC) No 2187/2005 of 21 December 2005 for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures in the Baltic Sea, the Belts and the Sound (6);

(b)

‘Baltic Sea’ means ICES Subdivisions 22-32;

(c)

‘EU vessel’ means a fishing vessel flying the flag of a Member State and registered in the Union;

(d)

‘total allowable catch’ (TAC) means the quantity that can be taken from each stock each year;

(e)

‘quota’ means a proportion of the TAC allocated to the Union, a Member State or a third country;

(f)

‘day absent from port’ means any continuous period of 24 hours or part thereof during which the vessel is absent from port.

(a)

exchanges made pursuant to Article 20(5) of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002;

(b)

reallocations made pursuant to Article 37 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009;

(c)

additional landings allowed under Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 847/96;

(d)

quantities withheld in accordance with Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 847/96;

(e)

deductions made pursuant to Articles 37, 105, 106 and 107 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009.

(a)

the catches have been taken by vessels of a Member State having a quota and that quota is not exhausted; or

(b)

the catches consist of a share in a Union quota which has not been allocated by quota among Member States, and that Union quota has not been exhausted.

3.12.2011   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 320/12

(1)

Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 810/2008 (2) opened yearly tariff quotas for high-quality fresh, chilled or frozen meat of bovine animals covered by CN codes 0201 and 0202, for products covered by CN codes 0206 10 95 and 0206 29 91 and for frozen boneless buffalo meat covered by CN code 0202 30 90.

(2)

Article 2(a) of Regulation (EC) No 810/2008 allocates 28 000 tonnes of boneless beef covered by CN codes 0201 30 00 and 0206 10 95 to selected beef cuts meeting a precise definition.

(3)

The Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and Argentina pursuant to Article XXIV:6 and Article XXVIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 relating to the modification of concessions in the schedules of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania in the course of their accession to the European Union (3) approved by Council Decision 2011/769/EU (4), provides for an addition of 1 500 tonnes in the country allocated (Argentina) EU tariff quota ‘boneless meat of bovine animals, fresh or chilled’. For the four first years of implementation the increase is to be 2 000 tonnes annually. That Agreement also provides for the creation of a country allocation (Argentina) of 200 tonnes under the EU tariff quota ‘Boneless buffalo meat, frozen’, the allocation of Argentina also covering ‘fresh and chilled’.

(4)

For the sake of clarity it is appropriate to specify the country where the buffalo meat is originating in.

(5)

Article 2(e) of Regulation (EC) No 810/2008 allocates 1 300 tonnes of meat covered by CN codes 0201 20 90, 0201 30, 0202 20 90, 0202 30, 0206 10 95 and 0206 29 91 to high quality beef cuts meeting a precise definition.

(6)

The Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and New Zealand pursuant to Article XXIV:6 and Article XXVIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 relating to the modification of concessions in the schedules of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania in the course of their accession to the European Union (5) approved by Council Decision 2011/767/EU (6), provides for a change in the definition of the EU tariff quota of 1 300 tonnes ‘high quality beef’.

(7)

Regulation (EC) No 810/2008 should be amended accordingly.

(8)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,

(1)

in Article 1, paragraph 1 is amended as follows:

(2)

Article 2 is amended as follows:

(3)

in Article 8, paragraph 1, is replaced by the following:

‘1.   Imports of the quantities set out in Article 1(1)(b) and (c) and in Article 2(a) to (e) and (g) shall be subject to presentation, on release for free circulation, of import licences issued in accordance with Article 4(a) and (b) and paragraph 2 of this Article.’;

(4)

in Article 10, the second paragraph, is replaced by the following:

‘For quantities referred to in Article 1(1)(b) and (c) and in Article 2(a) to (e) and (g) of this Regulation, the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 376/2008, Chapter III of Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 and Regulation (EC) No 382/2008 shall apply, save as otherwise provided for in this Regulation.’;

(5)

Article 11 is amended as follows:

(6)

in Annex I, the definition is replaced by the following:

‘High quality beef originating in …

(appropriate definition)

or Buffalo meat originating in Australia

or Buffalo meat originating in Argentina.’;

(7)

in Annex II, the first indent is replaced by the following:

(8)

in Annexes IV, V and VI the following order number and country of origin are added:

‘09.4004’

‘Argentina’.

3.12.2011   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 320/15

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 of 19 December 2006 setting maximum levels for certain contaminants in foodstuffs (2) sets maximum levels for nitrates in certain leafy vegetables.

(2)

In some cases, despite developments in good agricultural practice, the maximum levels are exceeded and therefore a temporary derogation was granted to certain Member States for the placing on the market of certain leafy vegetables, grown and intended for consumption in their territory with nitrate levels higher than the established maximum levels.

(3)

Since the application of the maximum levels of nitrates in lettuce and spinach, many investigations have been performed on the factors involved in the presence of nitrates in lettuce and spinach and on the measures to be taken to reduce the presence of nitrates in lettuce and spinach as much as possible. Despite the progress achieved in the good agricultural practice to reduce the presence of nitrates in lettuce and spinach and a strict application of this good agricultural practice, it is not possible to achieve in a consistent way nitrate levels in lettuce and fresh spinach below the current maximum levels in certain regions of the Union. The reason is that the climate and in particular the light conditions are the main determinant factor in the presence of nitrates in lettuce and spinach. These climate conditions cannot be managed or changed by the producer.

(4)

To provide an up-to-date scientific basis for the longer-term strategy for managing the risk arising from nitrates in vegetables, a scientific risk assessment by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), taking into account new information, was needed. Such assessment had to take into account any relevant considerations on risks and benefits, for example, weighing the possible negative impact of nitrate versus the possible positive effects of eating vegetables, such as antioxidant activities or other properties that might in some way counteract or provide a balance to the risks arising from nitrates and the resulting nitroso-compounds.

(5)

On request of the Commission, the Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain (the Panel) adopted on 10 April 2008 a Scientific opinion on nitrate in vegetables (3). The Panel compared the risk and benefits of exposure to nitrate from vegetables. Overall, the estimated exposures to nitrate from vegetables are unlikely to result in appreciable health risks, therefore, the recognised beneficial effects of consumption of vegetables prevail. The Panel recognised that there are occasional circumstances (e.g. unfavourable local/home production conditions) for vegetables which constitute a large part of the diet, or individuals with a diet high in vegetables such as rucola which need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

(6)

Following discussion on appropriate measures and concerns expressed as regards possible risks for infants and young children following acute dietary intake exposure, the Commission asked EFSA for a complementary scientific statement on nitrates in vegetables, whereby the possible risks for infants and young children related to the presence of nitrates in fresh vegetables are assessed in more detail, also considering the acute dietary intake, taking into account recent occurrence data on the presence of nitrates in vegetables, more detailed consumption data of vegetables by infants and young children and the possibility of the establishment of slightly higher than the current maximum levels for nitrates in leafy vegetables. The Panel adopted on 1 December 2010 a Statement on possible public health risks for infants and young children from the presence of nitrates in leafy vegetables (4).

(7)

In that statement the Panel concluded that exposure to nitrate at the current or envisaged maximum levels in spinach cooked from fresh spinach is unlikely to be a health concern, although a risk for some infants eating more than one spinach meal per day cannot be excluded. EFSA noted that it did not take into account possible changes of the nitrate content due to processing of the food commodities, such as washing, peeling and/or cooking, as this could not be considered due to lack of representative data. The non-consideration of the quantitative impact of food processing on nitrate levels may consequently lead to an overestimation of the exposure. It was furthermore concluded that levels of nitrate in lettuce are not a health concern for children. Enforcing the current maximum levels for nitrate in lettuce and spinach, or envisaged maximum levels at 500 mg/kg higher than the current maximum levels, would have a minor impact.

(8)

In order to provide legal security for the producer in all regions of the European Union which applies strictly the good agricultural practices to reduce the presence of nitrates in spinach and lettuce as much as possible, it is therefore appropriate to slightly increase the maximum level for nitrates in fresh spinach and lettuce without endangering public health.

(9)

Given the sometimes very high levels of nitrates found in rucola, it is appropriate to set a maximum level for rucola. The maximum level for rucola should be reviewed in 2 years in view of a reduction of the levels after having identified the factors involved in the presence of nitrate in rucola and the full implementation of good agricultural practice in rucola to minimise the nitrate content.

(10)

Given that EFSA has been mandated by the Commission to compile all occurrence data on contaminants, including nitrates, in food into one database, it is appropriate to communicate the results directly to EFSA.

(11)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and neither the European Parliament nor the Council have opposed them,

(1)

in Article 7, paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 are deleted;

(2)

in Article 9, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:

‘1.   Member States shall monitor nitrate levels in vegetables which may contain significant levels, in particular green leaf vegetables, and communicate the result to EFSA on a regular basis.’;

(3)

in the Annex, Section 1: Nitrate is replaced by the Section in the Annex to this Regulation.

3.12.2011   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 320/18

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 of 19 December 2006 setting maximum levels for certain contaminants in foodstuffs (2) sets maximum levels for dioxins and dioxin-like PCBs in a range of foodstuffs.

(2)

Dioxins belong to a group of 75 polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin (PCDD) congeners and 135 polychlorinated dibenzofuran (PCDF) congeners, of which 17 are of toxicological concern. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are a group of 209 different congeners which can be divided into two groups according to their toxicological properties: 12 congeners exhibit toxicological properties similar to dioxins and are therefore often referred to as ‘dioxin-like PCBs’ (DL-PCB). The other PCBs do not exhibit dioxin-like toxicity but have a different toxicological profile and are referred to as ‘non dioxin-like PCB’ (NDL-PCB).

(3)

Each congener of dioxins or DL-PCBs exhibits a different level of toxicity. In order to be able to sum up the toxicity of these different congeners, the concept of toxic equivalency factors (TEFs) was introduced to facilitate risk assessment and regulatory control. As a result the analytical results relating to all the individual dioxin and dioxin-like PCB congeners of toxicological concern are expressed in terms of a quantifiable unit, namely the TCDD toxic equivalent (TEQ).

(4)

The World Health Organisation (WHO) held an expert workshop on 28 to 30 June 2005 concerning the TEF values, agreed by WHO in 1998. A number of TEF values were changed, notably for PCBs, octachlorinated congeners and pentachlorinated furans. The data on the effect of the new TEF values and the recent occurrence are compiled in the European Food Safety Authority’s (EFSA) scientific report ‘Results of the monitoring of dioxin levels in food and feed’ (3). Therefore, it is appropriate to review the maximum levels of PCBs taking into account these new data.

(5)

The Scientific Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain of the EFSA on a request from the Commission has adopted an opinion on the presence of NDL-PCBs in feed and food (4).

(6)

The sum of the six marker or indicator PCBs (PCB 28, 52, 101, 138, 153 and 180) comprises about half of the amount of total NDL-PCB present in feed and food. That sum is considered as an appropriate marker for occurrence and human exposure to NDL-PCB and therefore should be set as a maximum level.

(7)

Maximum levels have been established taking into account recent occurrence data compiled in the EFSA scientific report ‘Results of the monitoring of non dioxin-like PCBs in food and feed’ (5). Although it is possible to achieve lower limits of quantification (LOQ), it can be observed that a considerable number of laboratories apply an LOQ of 1 μg/kg fat or even 2 μg/kg fat. Expressing the analytical result as an upperbound level would result in some cases in a level close to the maximum level if very strict maximum levels would be established, even if no PCBs have been quantified. It was also acknowledged that for certain food categories the data were not very extensive. Therefore, it would be appropriate to review the maximum levels in 3 years time, based upon a more extensive database obtained with a method of analysis with sufficient sensitivity for quantifying low levels.

(8)

Derogations have been granted to Finland and Sweden to place on the market fish originating in the Baltic region and intended for consumption in their territory with dioxin levels higher than the maximum levels established for dioxins and the sum of dioxins and DL-PCBs in fish. Those Member States have fulfilled the conditions as regards the provision of information to consumers on dietary recommendations. Every year they communicate to the Commission the results of their monitoring of the levels of dioxins in fish from the Baltic region and the measures to reduce human exposure to dioxins from the Baltic region.

(9)

On the basis of the results of monitoring of levels of dioxins and DL-PCBs carried out by Finland and Sweden, the derogation granted could be limited to certain fish species. Given the persistent presence of dioxins and PCBs in the environment and consequently in fish it is appropriate to grant this derogation without a time limit.

(10)

As regards wild caught salmon, Latvia has requested a similar derogation as that granted to Finland and Sweden. To that end, Latvia has demonstrated that human exposure to dioxins and DL-PCBs in its territory is not higher than the highest average level in any of the Member States and that it has a system in place to ensure that consumers are fully informed of dietary recommendations with regard to restrictions on the consumption of fish from the Baltic region by identified vulnerable sections of the population in order to avoid potential health risks. Furthermore, monitoring of the levels of dioxins and DL-PCBs in fish from the Baltic region should be carried out and the results and measures that have been taken to reduce human exposure to dioxins and DL-PCBs from fish from the Baltic region should be reported to the Commission. The necessary measures have been put in place ensuring that fish and fish products not complying with EU maximum levels for PCBs are not marketed in other Member States.

(11)

Given that the contamination pattern of NDL-PCBs in fish from the Baltic region show similarities with the contamination of dioxins and DL-PCBs and given that also NDL-PCBs are very persistent in the environment, it is appropriate to grant a similar derogation as regards the presence of NDL-PCBs as for dioxins and DL-PCBs in fish from the Baltic region.

(12)

EFSA has been requested to provide scientific opinion as regards the presence of dioxins and dioxin-like PCBs in sheep and deer liver and the appropriateness to establish maximum levels for dioxins and PCBs in liver and derived products on product basis rather than on a fat basis, as is currently the case. Therefore, the provisions on liver and derived products should be reviewed in particular the provisions as regards sheep and deer liver once the EFSA opinion is available. In the meantime it is appropriate to set the maximum level for dioxins and PCBs on a fat basis.

(13)

Foods with less than 1 % fat were until now excluded from the maximum level for dioxins and DL-PCBs, given that those foods are generally minor contributors to the human exposure. However, there have been cases with food containing less than 1 % fat but with very high levels of dioxins and DL-PCBs in the fat. Therefore, it is appropriate to apply the maximum level to such foods, but on a product basis. Taking into account that a maximum level is established on product basis for certain low fat containing foods, it is appropriate to apply a maximum level on product basis for foods containing less than 2 % fat.

(14)

In the light of the monitoring data for dioxins and DL-PCBs in foods for infants and young children it is appropriate to set specific lower maximum levels for dioxins and DL-PCBs in foods for infants and young children. The Federal Institute for Risk Assessment from Germany has addressed to EFSA a specific request to assess the risk for infants and young children of the presence of dioxins and dioxin-like PCBs in foods for infants and young children. Therefore, the provisions on foods for infants and young children should be reviewed once the EFSA opinion is available.

(15)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and neither the European Parliament nor the Council have opposed them,

(1)

Article 7 is amended as follows:

(2)

the Annex is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.

3.12.2011   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 320/24

(1)

Taking into account that the availability of intervention stocks for the supply of the scheme for food distribution to the most deprived persons in the 2012 annual plan adopted by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 562/2011 (3) is substantially reduced as compared to the previous years, it is appropriate to extend the implementation period of the 2011 annual plan adopted by Commission Regulation (EU) No 945/2010 (4) in order to allow the Member States to complement the foodstuffs to be distributed to the final recipients under the 2012 annual plan with resources that could be saved under the 2011 annual plan.

(2)

As a result of appeals launched against tender procedures and delays in the relevant judicial procedures, Greece has been unable to complete payments for certain purchases of food products in the market and to withdraw a part of the allocated quantity of butter from Union intervention stocks. The Greek authorities submitted to the Commission a request for the extension of the deadline fixed by Article 3(3) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 807/2010 of 14 September 2010 laying down detailed rules for the supply of food from intervention stocks for the benefit of the most deprived persons in the Union (5), and of the deadline fixed by Article 4 of Regulation (EU) No 945/2010. Portugal presented a similar request relating to the deadline for payment operations fixed by Article 3(3) of Regulation (EU) No 807/2010. In view of the difficult financial situation faced by these Member States, it is appropriate to allow them to complete payment operations for products mobilised on the market and to allow the withdrawal of the remaining quantities of intervention stocks, so that these allocations remain available to increase the quantity of food products distributed to the most deprived people. It is, therefore, necessary to grant an extension of those two deadlines. In order to ensure equal treatment of Member States, the derogations should cover all payment operations for products mobilised on the market and all withdrawals of dairy products from intervention stocks under the 2011 annual plan. As the deadline for the payment operations for products mobilised on the market was set at 1 September and for the withdrawal of dairy products from Union intervention stocks at 30 September, these two derogations should apply retroactively.

(3)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,

(1)

the following Article 3a is inserted:

‘Article 3a

By way of derogation from Article 3(1) of Regulation (EU) No 807/2010, the implementation period of the 2011 annual distribution plan shall finish on 29 February 2012.’;

(2)

in Article 4, the first paragraph is replaced by the following:

‘By way of derogation from the first and third subparagraphs of Article 3(2) of Regulation (EU) No 807/2010, for the 2011 distribution plan, withdrawal of butter and skimmed milk powder from intervention stocks shall take place from 1 June to 31 December 2011. The expenses arising from keeping the allocated quantities of butter and skimmed milk powder in intervention stocks between 30 September and the date of the actual withdrawal from intervention storage shall be born by the Member State to which the products are allocated under the 2011 distribution plan.’;

(3)

the following Article 5a is inserted:

‘Article 5a

By way of derogation from Article 3(3) of Regulation (EU) No 807/2010, for the 2011 annual distribution plan, payment operations for products to be supplied by the operator shall, in case of products to be mobilised on the market under Article 2(3)(a)(iii) and (iv) of Regulation (EU) No 807/2010, be closed before 31 December 2011.’.

3.12.2011   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 320/26

3.12.2011   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 320/28

(1)

Article 136(1)(a) TFEU foresees the possibility of adopting measures specific to the Member States whose currency is the euro with a view to strengthening the coordination and surveillance of their budgetary discipline.

(2)

Article 126 TFEU establishes that Member States are to avoid excessive government deficits and sets out the excessive deficit procedure to that effect. The Stability and Growth Pact, which in its corrective arm implements the excessive deficit procedure, provides the framework supporting government policies for a prompt return to sound budgetary positions taking account of the economic situation.

(3)

On 27 April 2009, the Council decided, in accordance with Article 104(6) of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC), that an excessive deficit existed in Greece.

(4)

On 10 May 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/320/EU (1) addressed to Greece under Article 126(9) and Article 136 with a view to reinforcing and deepening the fiscal surveillance and giving notice to take measures for the deficit reduction judged necessary to remedy the situation of excessive deficit at the latest by the deadline of 2014. The Council established the following adjustment path for the deficit correction: government deficits not exceeding EUR 18 508 million in 2010, EUR 17 065 million in 2011, EUR 14 916 million in 2012, EUR 11 399 million in 2013 and EUR 6 385 million in 2014.

(5)

Decision 2010/320/EU had been substantially amended several times (2). Since further amendments were to be made, it was recast, on 12 July 2011, by means of Council Decision 2011/734/EU (3) in the interests of clarity.

(6)

In September 2011, it became evident that, taking into account budgetary execution until that September, with unchanged policies, the 2011 target for the deficit would be missed by a significant amount which would jeopardise the overall credibility of the programme. In October 2011, the Greek government announced measures aimed at minimising the slippage in the 2011 budget and presented a draft budget for 2012 aimed at respecting the ceiling for 2012 established by Decision 2010/320/EU. These measures will become law by the end of October 2011. Extensive discussions on these measures have taken place between the Hellenic authorities and the Commission’s services.

(7)

In the light of the above considerations, it appears appropriate to amend Decision 2011/734/EU in a number of respects, while keeping unchanged the deadline for the correction of the excessive deficit,

(1)

the following paragraph is inserted:

‘6a.   Greece shall adopt and implement the following measures without delay:

(2)

paragraph 7 is amended as follows:

(3)

in paragraph 8, the following points are added:

(4)

the following paragraph is added:

‘(9)   Greece shall adopt the following measures by the end of June 2012:

3.12.2011   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 320/32

(1)

Pursuant to Article 6(1) of Joint Action 2008/851/CFSP, the Council authorised the Political and Security Committee (PSC) to take decisions on the appointment of the EU Force Commander.

(2)

On 5 July 2011, the PSC adopted Decision Atalanta/3/2011 (2) appointing Rear Admiral Thomas JUGEL as EU Force Commander for the European Union military operation to contribute to the deterrence, prevention and repression of acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast.

(3)

The EU Operation Commander has recommended the appointment of Captain Jorge MANSO as the new EU Force Commander for the European Union military operation to contribute to the deterrence, prevention and repression of acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast.

(4)

The EU Military Committee supports that recommendation.

(5)

In accordance with Article 5 of the Protocol (No 22) on the position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark does not participate in the elaboration and the implementation of decisions and actions of the Union which have defence implications,

3.12.2011   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 320/33

(1)

The Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on trade in agricultural products (2) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Agreement’) entered into force on 1 June 2002.

(2)

Article 6 of the Agreement sets up a Joint Committee on Agriculture (hereinafter ‘the Committee’) to be responsible for the administration of the Agreement and ensure its proper functioning.

(3)

In accordance with Article 6(4) and (7) of the Agreement, on 21 October 2003 the Committee adopted its Rules of Procedure (3) and set up the working groups needed to administer the Annexes to the Agreement (4).

(4)

The bilateral Working Group on Organic Products met to examine, in particular, the scope of Annex 9, the import rules applied by the two Parties and the exchanges of information between them to make recommendations on this to the Committee with a view to adapting Annex 9 to the Agreement.

(5)

Pursuant to Article 11 of the Agreement, the Committee may decide to amend the Annexes to the Agreement.

(6)

The Head of the European Union Delegation within the Joint Committee on Agriculture expresses the European Union’s support for the final version of the draft Decision of the Joint Committee.

(7)

The measures provided for by this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee set up by Article 37 of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 (5),

3.12.2011   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 320/37

(1)

In accordance with Article 75 of the Financial Regulation and Article 90(1) of the Implementing Rules, the commitment of expenditure from the Union budget shall be preceded by a financing decision setting out the essential elements of the action involving expenditure and adopted by the institution or the authorities to which powers have been delegated by the institution.

(2)

Decision 2009/470/EC lays down the procedures governing the financial contribution from the Union towards specific veterinary measures, including emergency measures. With a view to helping to eradicate avian influenza as rapidly as possible the Union should contribute financially to eligible expenditure borne by the Member States. Article 4(3), first and second indents, of that Decision lays down rules on the percentage that must be applied to the costs incurred by the Member Sates.

(3)

Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 349/2005 of 28 February 2005 laying down rules on the Community financing of emergency measures and of the campaign to combat certain animal diseases under Council Decision 90/424/EEC (2) sets rules on the expenditure eligible for Union financial support.

(4)

Commission Implementing Decision 2011/204/EU of 31 March 2011 on a financial contribution from the Union towards emergency measures to combat avian influenza in Denmark and the Netherlands in 2010 (3) granted, amongst others, a financial contribution by the Union towards emergency measures to combat avian influenza in the Netherlands in 2010. An official request for reimbursement was submitted by the Netherlands on 20 May 2011, as set out in Article 7(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005.

(5)

The payment of the financial contribution from the Union is to be subject to the condition that the planned activities were actually implemented and that the authorities provided all the necessary information within the set deadlines.

(6)

The Netherlands has, in accordance with Article 3(4) of Decision 2009/470/EC, without delay informed the Commission and the other Member States of the measures applied in accordance with Union legislation on notification and eradication and the results thereof. The request for reimbursement was, as required in Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005, accompanied by a financial report, supporting documents, an epidemiological report on each holding where the animals have been slaughtered or destroyed, and the results of respective audits.

(7)

The Commission’s observations, method of calculating the eligible expenditure and final conclusions were communicated to the Netherlands on 8 August 2011. The Netherlands agreed by e-mail dated 16 August 2011.

(8)

Consequently the total amount of the financial support from the Union to the eligible expenditure incurred in connection with the eradication of avian influenza in the Netherlands in 2010 can now be fixed.

(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,

3.12.2011   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 320/39

(1)

In accordance with Article 75 of the Financial Regulation and Article 90(1) of the Implementing Rules, the commitment of expenditure from the Union budget shall be preceded by a financing decision setting out the essential elements of the action involving expenditure and adopted by the institution or the authorities to which powers have been delegated by the institution.

(2)

Decision 2009/470/EC lays down the procedures governing the financial contribution from the Union towards specific veterinary measures, including emergency measures. With a view to helping to eradicate swine vesicular disease as rapidly as possible the Union should contribute financially to eligible expenditure borne by the Member States. Article 3(6) first indent of that Decision lays down rules on the percentage that must be applied to the costs incurred by the Member States.

(3)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 349/2005 (2) lays down rules on the Community financing of emergency measures and of the campaign to combat certain animal diseases under Council Decision 90/424/EEC. Article 3 of that Regulation lays down rules on the expenditure eligible for Union financial support.

(4)

Commission Decision 2010/143/EU of 5 March 2010 on a financial contribution from the Union towards emergency measures to combat swine vesicular disease in Italy in 2009 (3) granted a financial contribution from the Union to Italy towards the costs incurred for the eradication of swine vesicular disease.

(5)

On 3 and 4 May 2010, Italy submitted an official request for reimbursement as set out in Article 7(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005. The Commission’s final conclusions were communicated to Italy by e-mail dated 29 June 2011. Italy agreed by e-mail dated 23 August 2011.

(6)

The payment of the financial contribution from the Union must be subject to the condition that the planned activities were actually implemented and that the authorities provided all the necessary information within the set deadlines.

(7)

The Italian authorities have fully complied with their technical and administrative obligations as set out in Article 3(4) of Decision 2009/470/EC and Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005.

(8)

In view of the above considerations, the total amount of the financial contribution from the Union to the eligible expenditure incurred associated with the eradication of swine vesicular disease in Italy in 2009 should now be fixed.

(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,

3.12.2011   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 320/41

(1)

In accordance with Article 75 of the Financial Regulation and Article 90(1) of the Implementing Rules, the commitment of expenditure from the Union budget shall be preceded by a financing decision setting out the essential elements of the action involving expenditure and adopted by the institution or the authorities to which powers have been delegated by the institution.

(2)

Decision 2009/470/EC lays down the procedures governing the financial contribution from the Union towards specific veterinary measures, including emergency measures. With a view to eradicate avian influenza as rapidly as possible the Union should contribute financially to eligible expenditure borne by the Member States. Article 4(3), first and second indents, of that Decision identifies the percentage of Union financial contributions that can be paid to compensate the costs incurred by the Member States.

(3)

Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 349/2005 of 28 February 2005 laying down rules on the Community financing of emergency measures and of the campaign to combat certain animal diseases under Council Decision 90/424/EEC (2) sets rules on the expenditure eligible for Union financial support.

(4)

Commission Decision 2009/581/EC of 29 July 2009 on a financial contribution from the Community towards emergency measures to combat avian influenza in Cloppenburg, Germany in December 2008 and January 2009 (3) provided for a financial contribution by the Union towards emergency measures to combat avian influenza in Germany in December 2008 and January 2009.

(5)

Germany submitted an official request for reimbursement on 3 September 2009, as set out in Article 7(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005.

(6)

Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005 makes the payment of that financial contribution from the Union subject to the condition that the planned activities were actually implemented and that the authorities provided all the necessary information within the set deadlines.

(7)

Decision 2009/581/EC provided that a first tranche of EUR 2 000 000 should be paid as part of the Union’s financial contribution.

(8)

An audit according to Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005 carried out by the Commission’s services did reveal only minor financial issues.

(9)

Germany has thus to this point complied with its technical and administrative obligations as set out in Article 3(4) of Decision 2009/470/EC and Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005.

(10)

In view of the above considerations, a second tranche of the financial support from the Union to the eligible expenditure incurred in association with the eradication of avian influenza in Cloppenburg, Germany in December 2008 and January 2009 should now be fixed.

(11)

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

3.12.2011   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 320/43

(1)

In accordance with Article 75 of the Financial Regulation and Article 90(1) of the Implementing Rules, the commitment of expenditure from the Union budget shall be preceded by a financing decision setting out the essential elements of the action involving expenditure and adopted by the institution or the authorities to which powers have been delegated by the institution.

(2)

Decision 2009/470/EC lays down the procedures governing the financial contribution from the Union towards specific veterinary measures, including emergency measures. With a view to helping to eradicate Newcastle disease as rapidly as possible the Union should contribute financially to eligible expenditure borne by the Member States. Article 3(6), first indent, of that Decision lays down rules on the percentage that must be applied to the costs incurred by the Member States.

(3)

Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 349/2005 of 28 February 2005 laying down rules on the Community financing of emergency measures and of the campaign to combat certain animal diseases under Council Decision 90/424/EEC (2) sets rules on the expenditure eligible for Union financial support.

(4)

Commission Implementing Decision 2011/208/EU of 1 April 2011 on a financial contribution from the Union towards emergency measures to combat Newcastle disease in Spain in 2009 (3) granted, amongst others, a financial contribution by the Union towards emergency measures to combat Newcastle disease in Spain in 2009. An official request for reimbursement was submitted by Spain on 31 May 2011, as set out in Article 7(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005.

(5)

The payment of the financial contribution from the Union is to be subject to the condition that the planned activities were actually implemented and that the authorities provided all the necessary information within the set deadlines.

(6)

Spain has in accordance with Article 3(4) of Decision 2009/470/EC without delay informed the Commission and the other Member States of the measures applied in accordance with Union legislation on notification and eradication and the results thereof. The request for reimbursement was, as required in Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005, accompanied by a financial report, supporting documents, an epidemiological report on each holding where the animals have been slaughtered or destroyed, and the results of respective audits.

(7)

The Commission’s observations, method of calculating the eligible expenditure and final conclusions were communicated to Spain on 20 October 2011. Spain agreed by e-mail dated 20 October 2011.

(8)

Consequently the total amount of the financial support from the Union to the eligible expenditure incurred in connection with the eradication of Newcastle disease in Spain in 2009 can now be fixed.

(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,

3.12.2011   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 320/45

(1)

In accordance with Article 75 of the Financial Regulation and Article 90(1) of the Implementing Rules, the commitment of expenditure from the Union budget shall be preceded by a financing decision setting out the essential elements of the action involving expenditure and adopted by the institution or the authorities to which powers have been delegated by the institution.

(2)

Decision 2009/470/EC lays down the procedures governing the financial contribution from the Union towards specific veterinary measures, including emergency measures. With a view to eradicate avian influenza as rapidly as possible the Union should contribute financially to eligible expenditure borne by the Member States. Article 4(3), first and second indents, of that Decision identifies the percentage of Union financial contributions that can be paid to compensate the costs incurred by the Member States.

(3)

Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 349/2005 of 28 February 2005 laying down rules on the Community financing of emergency measures and of the campaign to combat certain animal diseases under Council Decision 90/424/EEC (2) sets rules on the expenditure eligible for Union financial support.

(4)

Commission Decision 2010/148/EU of 5 March 2010 on a financial contribution from the Union towards emergency measures to combat avian influenza in the Czech Republic, Germany, Spain, France and Italy in 2009 (3) provided for a financial contribution by the Union towards emergency measures to combat avian influenza, amongst others, in Spain in 2009.

(5)

Spain submitted an official request for reimbursement on 3 May 2010 as set out in Article 7(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005.

(6)

Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005 makes the payment of that financial contribution from the Union subject to the condition that the planned activities were actually implemented and that the authorities provided all the necessary information within the set deadlines.

(7)

An audit according to Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005 carried out by the Commission’s services did reveal only minor financial issues.

(8)

Spain has thus to this point complied with its technical and administrative obligations as set out in Article 3(4) of Decision 2009/470/EC and Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005.

(9)

In view of the above considerations, a first tranche of the financial support from the Union to Spain to the eligible expenditure incurred in association with the eradication of avian influenza in 2009 should now be fixed.

(10)

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

3.12.2011   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 320/47

(1)

In accordance with Article 75 of the Financial Regulation and Article 90(1) of the Implementing Rules, the commitment of expenditure from the Union budget shall be preceded by a financing decision setting out the essential elements of the action involving expenditure and adopted by the institution or the authorities to which powers have been delegated by the institution.

(2)

Decision 2009/470/EC lays down the procedures governing the financial contribution from the Union towards specific veterinary measures, including emergency measures. With a view to eradicate avian influenza as rapidly as possible the Union should contribute financially to eligible expenditure borne by the Member States. Article 4(3) first and second indents of that Decision identifies the percentage of Union financial contributions can be paid to compensate the costs incurred by the Member States.

(3)

Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 349/2005 of 28 February 2005 laying down rules on the Community financing of emergency measures and of the campaign to combat certain animal diseases under Council Decision 90/424/EEC (2) sets rules on the expenditure eligible for Union financial support.

(4)

Commission Decision 2008/557/EC of 27 June 2008 on a financial contribution from the Community towards emergency measures to combat avian influenza in Poland in 2007 (3) provided for a financial contribution by the Union towards emergency measures to combat avian influenza in Poland in 2007.

(5)

Poland submitted an official request for reimbursement on 13 March 2008 as set out in Article 7(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005.

(6)

Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005 makes the payment of that financial contribution from the Union subject to the condition that the planned activities were actually implemented and that the authorities provided all the necessary information within the set deadlines.

(7)

Decision 2008/557/EC provided that a first tranche of EUR 845 000 should be paid as part of the Union’s financial contribution.

(8)

An audit according to Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005 carried out by the Commission’s services did reveal only minor financial issues.

(9)

Poland has thus to this point complied with its technical and administrative obligations as set out in Article 3(4) of Decision 2009/470/EC and Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005.

(10)

In view of the above considerations, a second tranche of the financial support from the Union to Poland to the eligible expenditure incurred in association with the eradication of avian influenza in 2007 should now be fixed.

(11)

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

3.12.2011   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 320/49

(1)

In accordance with Article 75 of the Financial Regulation and Article 90(1) of the Implementing Rules, the commitment of expenditure from the Union budget shall be preceded by a financing decision setting out the essential elements of the action involving expenditure and adopted by the institution or the authorities to which powers have been delegated by the institution.

(2)

Decision 2009/470/EC lays down the procedures governing the financial contribution from the Union towards specific veterinary measures, including emergency measures. With a view to eradicate bluetongue as rapidly as possible the Union should contribute financially to eligible expenditure borne by the Member States. Article 3(6) first indent of that Decision identifies the percentage of Union financial contributions can be paid to compensate the costs incurred by the Member States.

(3)

Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 349/2005 of 28 February 2005 laying down rules on the Community financing of emergency measures and of the campaign to combat certain animal diseases under Council Decision 90/424/EEC (2) sets rules on the expenditure eligible for Union financial support.

(4)

Commission Decision 2008/444/EC of 5 June 2008 on a financial contribution from the Community towards emergency measures to combat bluetongue in Germany in 2007 (3) provided for a financial contribution by the Union towards emergency measures to combat bluetongue in Germany in 2007.

(5)

Germany submitted an official request for reimbursement on 6 June 2008 as set out in Article 7(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005.

(6)

Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005 makes the payment of that financial contribution from the Union subject to the condition that the planned activities were actually implemented and that the authorities provided all the necessary information within the set deadlines.

(7)

Decision 2008/444/EC provided that a first tranche of EUR 950 000,00 should be paid as part of the Union’s financial contribution.

(8)

An audit according to Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005 carried out by the Commission’s services did reveal only minor financial issues.

(9)

Germany has thus to this point complied with its technical and administrative obligations as set out in Article 3(4) of Decision 2009/470/EC and Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005.

(10)

In view of the above considerations, a second tranche of the financial support from the Union to the eligible expenditure incurred in association with the eradication of bluetongue in Germany in 2007 should now be fixed.

(11)

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

3.12.2011   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 320/50

(1)

In accordance with Article 75 of the Financial Regulation and Article 90(1) of the Implementing Rules, the commitment of expenditure from the Union budget shall be preceded by a financing decision setting out the essential elements of the action involving expenditure and adopted by the institution or the authorities to which powers have been delegated by the institution.

(2)

Decision 2009/470/EC lays down the procedures governing the financial contribution from the Union towards specific veterinary measures, including emergency measures. With a view to helping to eradicate bluetongue as rapidly as possible the Union should contribute financially to eligible expenditure borne by the Member States. The second indent of Article 3(6) of that Decision lays down rules on the percentage that must be applied to the costs incurred by the Member States.

(3)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 349/2005 (2) lays down rules on the Community financing of emergency measures and of the campaign to combat certain animal diseases under Council Decision 90/424/EEC. Article 3 of that Regulation lays down rules on the expenditure eligible for Union financial support.

(4)

Commission Decision 2008/655/EC (3) as modified by Decision 2009/19/EC (4) granted a financial contribution by the Union towards emergency measures to combat bluetongue in France in 2007 and 2008.

(5)

On 31 March 2009, France submitted an official request for reimbursement as set out in Article 7(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005.

(6)

An FVO inspection was carried out in France from 24 to 28 November 2008, which has noted some technical shortcomings. Nevertheless these shortcomings had not compromised the overall implementation of the programme nor caused additional expenditures for the Union budget.

(7)

A financial control was carried out in France from 1 to 4 December 2009 which has concluded that the expenditures presented by France were eligible.

(8)

The Commission's observations, method of calculating the eligible expenditure and final conclusions were communicated to France in a letter dated 14 July 2011.

(9)

In view of the above considerations, the total amount of the financial support from the Union to the eligible expenditure incurred associated with the eradication of bluetongue in France in 2007 and 2008 should now be fixed according to Article 3(2) of Decision 2008/655/EC.

(10)

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

3.12.2011   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 320/52

(1)

In accordance with Article 75 of the Financial Regulation and Article 90(1) of the Implementing Rules, the commitment of expenditure from the Union budget shall be preceded by a financing decision setting out the essential elements of the action involving expenditure and adopted by the institution or the authorities to which powers have been delegated by the institution.

(2)

Decision 2009/470/EC lays down the procedures governing the financial contribution from the Union towards specific veterinary measures, including emergency measures. With a view to helping to eradicate bluetongue as rapidly as possible the Union should contribute financially to eligible expenditure borne by the Member States. The second indent of Article 3(6) of that Decision lays down rules on the percentage that must be applied to the costs incurred by the Member States.

(3)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 349/2005 (2) lays down rules on the Community financing of emergency measures and of the campaign to combat certain animal diseases under Council Decision 90/424/EEC. Article 3 of that Regulation lays down rules on the expenditure eligible for Union financial support.

(4)

Commission Decision 2008/655/EC (3) as modified by Decision 2009/19/EC (4) granted a financial contribution by the Union towards emergency measures to combat bluetongue in Italy in 2007 and 2008.

(5)

On 12 March 2009, Italy submitted an official request for reimbursement as set out in Article 7(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005. The Commission’s observations, method of calculating the eligible expenditure and final conclusions were communicated to Italy in a letter dated 28 March 2011.

(6)

The payment of the financial contribution from the Union must be subject to the condition that the planned activities were actually implemented and that the authorities provided all the necessary information within the set deadlines.

(7)

The Italian authorities have fully complied with their technical and administrative obligations as set out in Article 3(4) of Decision 2009/470/EC and Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005.

(8)

In view of the above considerations, the total amount of the financial support from the Union to the eligible expenditure incurred associated with the eradication of bluetongue in Italy in 2007 and 2008 should now be fixed according to Article 3(2) of Decision 2008/655/EC.

(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,

3.12.2011   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 320/54

(1)

In accordance with Article 75 of the Financial Regulation and Article 90(1) of the Implementing Rules, the commitment of expenditure from the Union budget shall be preceded by a financing decision setting out the essential elements of the action involving expenditure and adopted by the institution or the authorities to which powers have been delegated by the institution.

(2)

Decision 2009/470/EC lays down the procedures governing the financial contribution from the Union towards specific veterinary measures, including emergency measures. With a view to helping to eradicate bluetongue as rapidly as possible the Union should contribute financially to eligible expenditure borne by the Member States. The second indent of Article 3(6) of that Decision lays down rules on the percentage that must be applied to the costs incurred by the Member States.

(3)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 349/2005 (2) lays down rules on the Community financing of emergency measures and of the campaign to combat certain animal diseases under Council Decision 90/424/EEC. Article 3 of that Regulation lays down rules on the expenditure eligible for Union financial support.

(4)

Commission Decision 2008/655/EC (3) as modified by Decision 2009/19/EC (4) granted a financial contribution by the Union towards emergency measures to combat bluetongue in Austria in 2007 and 2008.

(5)

On 31 March 2009, Austria submitted an official request for reimbursement as set out in Article 7(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005. The Commission’s observations, method of calculating the eligible expenditure and final conclusions were communicated to Austria in a letter dated 28 March 2011.

(6)

The payment of the financial contribution from the Union must be subject to the condition that the planned activities were actually implemented and that the authorities provided all the necessary information within the set deadlines.

(7)

The Austrian authorities have fully complied with their technical and administrative obligations as set out in Article 3(4) of Decision 2009/470/EC and Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005.

(8)

In view of the above considerations, the total amount of the financial support from the Union to the eligible expenditure incurred associated with the eradication of bluetongue in Austria in 2007 and 2008 should now be fixed according to Article 3(2) of Decision 2008/655/EC.

(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,

3.12.2011   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 320/56

(1)

In accordance with Article 75 of the Financial Regulation and Article 90(1) of the Implementing Rules, the commitment of expenditure from the Union budget shall be preceded by a financing decision setting out the essential elements of the action involving expenditure and adopted by the institution or the authorities to which powers have been delegated by the institution.

(2)

Decision 2009/470/EC lays down the procedures governing the financial contribution from the Union towards specific veterinary measures, including emergency measures. With a view to helping to eradicate bluetongue as rapidly as possible the Union should contribute financially to eligible expenditure borne by the Member States. The second indent of Article 3(6) of that Decision lays down rules on the percentage that must be applied to the costs incurred by the Member States.

(3)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 349/2005 (2) lays down rules on the Community financing of emergency measures and of the campaign to combat certain animal diseases under Council Decision 90/424/EEC. Article 3 of that Regulation lays down rules on the expenditure eligible for Union financial support.

(4)

Commission Decision 2008/655/EC (3) as modified by Decision 2009/19/EC (4) granted a financial contribution by the Union towards emergency measures to combat bluetongue in the Netherlands in 2007 and 2008.

(5)

On 26 March 2009, the Netherlands submitted an official request for reimbursement as set out in Article 7(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005. The Commission’s observations, method of calculating the eligible expenditure and final conclusions were communicated to the Netherlands in a letter dated 27 September 2010.

(6)

The payment of the financial contribution from the Union must be subject to the condition that the planned activities were actually implemented and that the authorities provided all the necessary information within the set deadlines.

(7)

The Netherlands authorities have fully complied with their technical and administrative obligations as set out in Article 3(4) of Decision 2009/470/EC and Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005.

(8)

In view of the above considerations, the total amount of the financial support from the Union to the eligible expenditure incurred associated with the eradication of bluetongue in the Netherlands in 2007 and 2008 should now be fixed according to Article 3(2) of Decision 2008/655/EC.

(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,

3.12.2011   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 320/58

(1)

In accordance with Article 75 of the Financial Regulation and Article 90(1) of the Implementing Rules, the commitment of expenditure from the Union budget shall be preceded by a financing decision setting out the essential elements of the action involving expenditure and adopted by the institution or the authorities to which powers have been delegated by the institution.

(2)

Decision 2009/470/EC lays down the procedures governing the financial contribution from the Union towards specific veterinary measures, including emergency measures. With a view to helping to eradicate bluetongue as rapidly as possible the Union should contribute financially to eligible expenditure borne by the Member States. The second indent of Article 3(6) of that Decision lays down rules on the percentage that must be applied to the costs incurred by the Member States.

(3)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 349/2005 (2) lays down rules on the Community financing of emergency measures and of the campaign to combat certain animal diseases under Council Decision 90/424/EEC. Article 3 of that Regulation lays down rules on the expenditure eligible for Union financial support.

(4)

Commission Decision 2008/655/EC (3) as modified by Decision 2009/19/EC (4) granted a financial contribution by the Union towards emergency measures to combat bluetongue in Sweden in 2007 and 2008.

(5)

On 30 March 2009, Sweden submitted an official request for reimbursement as set out in Article 7(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005. The Commission’s observations, method of calculating the eligible expenditure and final conclusions were communicated to Sweden in a letter dated 28 March 2011.

(6)

The payment of the financial contribution from the Union must be subject to the condition that the planned activities were actually implemented and that the authorities provided all the necessary information within the set deadlines.

(7)

The Swedish authorities have fully complied with their technical and administrative obligations as set out in Article 3(4) of Decision 2009/470/EC and Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005.

(8)

In view of the above considerations, the total amount of the financial support from the Union to the eligible expenditure incurred associated with the eradication of bluetongue in Sweden in 2007 and 2008 should now be fixed according to Article 3(2) of Decision 2008/655/EC.

(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,

3.12.2011   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 320/60

(1)

In accordance with Article 75 of the Financial Regulation and Article 90(1) of the Implementing Rules, the commitment of expenditure from the Union budget shall be preceded by a financing decision setting out the essential elements of the action involving expenditure and adopted by the institution or the authorities to which powers have been delegated by the institution.

(2)

Decision 2009/470/EC lays down the procedures governing the financial contribution from the Union towards specific veterinary measures, including emergency measures. With a view to helping to eradicate bluetongue as rapidly as possible the Union should contribute financially to eligible expenditure borne by the Member States. The second indent of Article 3(6) of that Decision lays down rules on the percentage that must be applied to the costs incurred by the Member States.

(3)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 349/2005 (2) lays down rules on the Community financing of emergency measures and of the campaign to combat certain animal diseases under Council Decision 90/424/EEC. Article 3 of that Regulation lays down rules on the expenditure eligible for Union financial support.

(4)

Commission Decision 2008/655/EC (3) as modified by Decision 2009/19/EC (4) granted a financial contribution by the Union towards emergency measures to combat bluetongue in Luxembourg in 2007 and 2008.

(5)

On 27 March 2009, Luxembourg submitted an official request for reimbursement as set out in Article 7(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005. The Commission’s observations, method of calculating the eligible expenditure and final conclusions were communicated to Luxembourg in a letter dated 30 March 2011.

(6)

The payment of the financial contribution from the Union must be subject to the condition that the planned activities were actually implemented and that the authorities provided all the necessary information within the set deadlines.

(7)

The Luxembourgish authorities have fully complied with their technical and administrative obligations as set out in Article 3(4) of Decision 2009/470/EC and Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005.

(8)

In view of the above considerations, the total amount of the financial support from the Union to the eligible expenditure incurred associated with the eradication of bluetongue in Luxembourg in 2007 and 2008 should now be fixed according to Article 3(2) of Decision 2008/655/EC.

(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,