20.12.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 346/1

(1)

According to the Protocol concerning the conditions and arrangements for admission of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union (2), Bulgaria committed itself to the closure of units 1 and 2 and units 3 and 4 of the Kozloduy nuclear power plant by 31 December 2002 and 31 December 2006 respectively, and to the subsequent decommissioning of those units. In line with its obligations, Bulgaria shut down all units concerned within the respective deadlines.

(2)

According to Protocol No 9 on unit 1 and unit 2 of the Bohunice V1 nuclear power plant in Slovakia (3) attached to the 2003 Act of Accession, Slovakia committed itself to the closure of unit 1 and unit 2 of the Bohunice V1 nuclear power plant by 31 December 2006 and 31 December 2008 respectively, and to the subsequent decommissioning of those units. In line with its obligations, Slovakia shut down all units concerned within the respective deadlines.

(3)

In line with their obligations under the Accession Treaty and with Union assistance, Bulgaria and Slovakia have closed the Kozloduy and Bohunice V1 nuclear power plants and have made significant progress towards their decommissioning. Further work is necessary in order to continue the progress with the actual decontamination, dismantling, management of spent fuel and radioactive waste operations and to implement the steady process towards the decommissioning end state in accordance with the respective decommissioning plans, whilst ensuring that the highest safety standards are applied. Based on the available estimates, completion of the decommissioning work will require substantial additional financial resources.

(4)

The premature shutdown and consequent decommissioning of the Bohunice VI nuclear power plant with two WWER 440 V 230 type units with an overall capacity of 880 MW has resulted, besides social and energy implications, in a significant financial burden of direct and indirect costs for Slovakia.

(5)

The premature shutdown and consequent decommissioning of four WWER 440 V 230 type units of the Kozloduy nuclear power plant with an overall capacity of 1 760 MW has imposed a heavy long-term burden on Bulgarian citizens in terms of energy, economic, environmental and social implications.

(6)

The Union has committed to assist Bulgaria and Slovakia in addressing the exceptional financial burden imposed by the decommissioning process. Since the pre-accession period, Bulgaria and Slovakia have received substantial financial support from the Union, notably through the Kozloduy and Bohunice programmes established for the period 2007 - 2013. The Union financial support under those programmes will end in 2013.

(7)

Following the request for further funding from Bulgaria, Lithuania and Slovakia, provision has been made in the Commission proposal for the next multi-annual financial framework for the period 2014-2020: ‘A Budget for Europe 2020’ for an amount of EUR 700 million from the general budget of the Union for nuclear safety and decommissioning. From this, the amount of EUR 500 million in 2011 prices, which is approximately EUR 553 million in current prices, is foreseen for a new programme to further support the decommissioning of the Bohunice V1 units 1 and 2, the Ignalina units 1 and 2 and the Kozloduy units 1 to 4 for the period from 2014 to 2020.

(8)

The amount of the appropriations allocated to the Kozloduy and Bohunice programmes, as well as the programming period and the distribution of funds amongst the Kozloduy, Bohunice and Ignalina programmes may be reviewed based on the results of the mid-term and the final evaluation reports.

(9)

The support pursuant to this Regulation should ensure the seamless continuation of decommissioning and concentrate on measures to implement the steady process towards the decommissioning end state, whilst ensuring that the highest safety standards are applied, as such measures bring the greatest Union added value, while the ultimate responsibility for nuclear safety remains with the Member States concerned. This Regulation does not prejudge the outcome of any future State aid procedures that may be undertaken in accordance with Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).

(10)

This Regulation is without prejudice to the rights and obligations of the Member States concerned under the Accession Treaties, in particular under the Protocols referred to in recitals 1 and 2.

(11)

The decommissioning of the nuclear power plants covered by this Regulation should be carried out with recourse to the best available technical expertise, and with due regard to the nature and technological specifications of the units to be shut down, in order to ensure the highest possible efficiency, thus taking into account international best practices.

(12)

The activities covered by this Regulation and the operations which they support should comply with applicable Union and national law. The decommissioning of the nuclear power plants covered by this Regulation should be carried out in accordance with the legislation on nuclear safety, namely Council Directive 2009/71/Euratom (4), waste management, namely Council Directive 2011/70/Euratom (5), and the environment, in particular Directive 2009/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (6) and Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (7).

(13)

The activities covered by this Regulation and the operations which they support should be based on an up–to–date decommissioning plan covering the decommissioning activities, their associated schedule, costs and required human resources. The costs should be established according to internationally recognised standards for the estimation of decommissioning costs, such as, for example, the International Structure for Decommissioning Costing jointly published by the Nuclear Energy Agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency and the European Commission.

(14)

An effective control of the evolution of the decommissioning process should be ensured by the Commission in order to assure the highest Union added value of the funding allocated under this Regulation, although the final responsibility for the decommissioning rests with the Member States concerned. This includes the measurement of effective performance and the assessment of corrective measures during the programme concerned.

(15)

The financial interests of the Union should be protected through proportionate measures throughout the expenditure cycle, including the prevention, detection and investigation of irregularities, the recovery of funds lost, wrongly paid or incorrectly used and, where appropriate, penalties.

(16)

Since the objectives of this Regulation, in particular as regards the provisions for adequate financial resources for the continuation of safe decommissioning, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States but can rather, by reason of the scale or effects of the action, be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality as set out in that Article, this Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives.

(17)

Certain measures under the Kozloduy and Bohunice programmes may require a high level of financing from the Union, which may, in well–founded exceptional cases, amount to the full amount of the funding. However, every effort should be made to continue the co-financing practice established under the pre-accession assistance and the assistance provided over the period 2007-2013 for the decommissioning efforts of Bulgaria and Slovakia, as well as to attract co-financing from other sources as appropriate.

(18)

In order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of this Regulation, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission as regards the adoption of annual work programmes and detailed implementation procedures. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council (8).

(19)

Council Regulation (Euratom) No 549/2007 (9) and Council Regulation (Euratom) No 647/2010 (10) should be repealed.

(20)

Due account was taken of the Court of Auditors' Special report No 16/2011 on EU financial assistance for the decommissioning of nuclear plants in Bulgaria, Lithuania and Slovakia, its recommendations and the reply from the Commission,

(a)

in respect of the Kozloduy programme:

(b)

in respect of the Bohunice programme:

(a)

EUR 208 503 000 for the Kozloduy programme for the period from 2014 to 2020;

(b)

EUR 114 815 000 for the Bohunice programme for the period from 2014 to 2020.

(a)

comply with the Euratom Treaty's acquis in the area of nuclear safety, in particular regarding the transposition into national law of Directives 2009/71/Euratom and 2011/70/Euratom;

(b)

establish, in a national framework, a financing plan identifying the full costs and the envisaged funding sources required for the safe completion of decommissioning of the nuclear reactor units, including management of spent fuel and radioactive waste, in accordance with this Regulation.

(c)

submit to the Commission a revised detailed decommissioning plan, broken down to detail the level of decommissioning activities, including a schedule and corresponding costs structure based on internationally recognised standards for the estimation of decommissioning costs.

20.12.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 346/7

(1)

According to Protocol No 4 on the Ignalina nuclear power plant in Lithuania (1) attached to the 2003 Act of Accession (‘Protocol No 4’), acknowledging in 2004 the readiness of the Union to provide adequate additional Union assistance to the efforts by Lithuania to decommission the Ignalina nuclear power plant and highlighting this expression of solidarity, Lithuania committed to the closure of unit 1 of the Ignalina nuclear power plant before 2005 and of unit 2 of that plant by 31 December 2009 at the latest, and to the subsequent decommissioning of those units. In line with its obligations, Lithuania shut down both units concerned within the respective deadlines.

(2)

In line with its obligations under the Accession Treaty and with Union assistance, Lithuania has closed the Ignalina nuclear power plant and made significant progress towards its decommissioning. Further work is necessary in order to continue the progress with the actual decontamination, dismantling, management of spent fuel and radioactive waste operations and to implement the steady process towards the decommissioning end state in accordance with the decommissioning plan, whilst ensuring that the highest safety standards are applied. Based on the available estimates, completion of decommissioning work will require substantial additional financial resources.

(3)

Recognising that the premature shutdown and consequent decommissioning of the Ignalina nuclear power plant with two 1 500 MW RBMK type reactor units inherited from the Soviet Union is of an unprecedented nature and represents for Lithuania an exceptional financial burden not commensurate with the size and economic strength of the country, Protocol No 4 states that the Union assistance under the Ignalina programme will be seamlessly continued and extended beyond 2006, for the period of next financial perspectives.

(4)

The Union has committed to assist Lithuania in addressing the exceptional financial burden imposed by the decommissioning process. Since the pre-accession period, Lithuania has received substantial financial support from the Union, notably through the Ignalina programme established for the period 2007 - 2013. The Union financial support under that programme will end in 2013.

(5)

Acknowledging the Union's commitment under Protocol No. 4 and following the request for further funding from Bulgaria, Lithuania and Slovakia, provision has been made in the Commission proposal for the next multi-annual financial framework for the period 2014-2020: ‘A Budget for Europe 2020’ for an amount of EUR 700 million from the general budget of the Union for nuclear safety and decommissioning. From this, the amount of EUR 500 million in 2011 prices which is approximately EUR 553 million in current prices, is foreseen for a new programme to further support the decommissioning of the Bohunice V1 units 1 and 2, the Ignalina units 1 and 2 and the Kozloduy units 1 to 4 for the period from 2014 to 2020.

(6)

The amount of the appropriations allocated to the Kozloduy, Ignalina and Bohunice programmes, as well as the programming period and the distribution of funds amongst those programmes may be reviewed based on the results of the mid-term and the final evaluation reports.

(7)

The support pursuant to this Regulation should ensure the seamless continuation of decommissioning and concentrate on measures to implement the steady process towards the decommissioning end state, whilst ensuring that the highest safety standards are applied, as such measures bring the greatest Union added value, while the ultimate responsibility for nuclear safety remains with the Member State concerned. This Regulation does not prejudge the outcome of any future State aid procedures that may be undertaken in accordance with Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).

(8)

This Regulation is without prejudice to the rights and obligations of the Member State concerned under the Accession Treaty, in particular under Protocol No 4.

(9)

The decommissioning of the nuclear power plant covered by this Regulation should be carried out with recourse to the best available technical expertise, and with due regard to the nature and technological specifications of the units to be shut down, in order to ensure the highest possible efficiency, thus taking into account international best practices.

(10)

The activities covered by this Regulation and the operations which they support should comply with applicable Union and national law. The decommissioning of the nuclear power plant covered by this Regulation should be carried out in accordance with the legislation on nuclear safety, namely Council Directive 2009/71/Euratom (2), waste management, namely Council Directive 2011/70/Euratom (3), and the environment, in particular Directive 2009/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (4) and Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (5).

(11)

The activities covered by this Regulation and the operations which they support should be based on an up–to–date decommissioning plan covering the decommissioning activities, their associated schedule, costs and required human resources. The costs should be established according to internationally recognised standards for the estimation of decommissioning costs, such as, for example, the International Structure for Decommissioning Costing jointly published by the Nuclear Energy Agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency and the European Commission.

(12)

An effective control of the evolution of the decommissioning process should be ensured by the Commission in order to assure the highest Union added value of the funding allocated under this Regulation, although the final responsibility for the decommissioning rests with the Member State concerned. This includes the measurement of effective performance and the assessment of corrective measures during the Ignalina programme.

(13)

The financial interests of the Union should be protected through proportionate measures throughout the expenditure cycle, including the prevention, detection and investigation of irregularities, the recovery of funds lost, wrongly paid or incorrectly used and, where appropriate, penalties.

(14)

Since the objectives of this Regulation, in particular as regards the provisions for adequate financial resources for the continuation of safe decommissioning, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States but can rather, by reason of the scale or effects of the action, be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality as set out in that Article, this Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives.

(15)

Certain measures under the Ignalina programme may require a high level of financing from the Union, which may, in well–founded exceptional cases, amount to the full amount of the funding. However, every effort should be made to continue the co-financing practice established under the pre-accession assistance and the assistance provided over the period 2007-2013 for the decommissioning efforts of Lithuania, as well as to attract co-financing from other sources as appropriate.

(16)

In order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of this Regulation, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission as regards the adoption of annual work programmes and detailed implementation procedures. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council (6).

(17)

Council Regulation (EC) No 1990/2006 (7) should be repealed.

(18)

Due account was taken of the Court of Auditors' Special report No 16/2011 on EU financial assistance for the decommissioning of nuclear plants in Bulgaria, Lithuania and Slovakia, its recommendations and the reply from the Commission,

(a)

defueling of the reactor core of unit 2 and the reactor fuel ponds of units 1 and 2 into the dry spent fuel storage facility, to be measured by the number of unloaded fuel assemblies;

(b)

safely maintaining the reactor units, to be measured by the number of registered incidents;

(c)

performing dismantling in the turbine hall and other auxiliary buildings and safely managing the decommissioning waste in accordance with a detailed waste management plan, to be measured by the type and number of auxiliary systems dismantled, and the quantity and type of safely conditioned waste.

(a)

comply with the Euratom Treaty's acquis in the area of nuclear safety, in particular regarding the transposition into national law of Directive 2009/71/Euratom and Directive 2011/70/Euratom;

(b)

establish, in a national framework, a financing plan identifying the full costs and the envisaged funding sources required for the safe completion of decommissioning of the nuclear reactor units, including management of spent fuel and radioactive waste, in accordance with this Regulation;

(c)

submit to the Commission a revised detailed decommissioning plan, broken down to detail the level of decommissioning activities, including a schedule and corresponding costs structure based on internationally recognised standards for the estimation of decommissioning costs.

20.12.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 346/12

(1)

The Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions entitled ‘The CAP towards 2020: Meeting the food, natural resources and territorial challenges of the future’ sets out potential challenges, objectives and orientations for the Common Agricultural Policy (‘the CAP’) after 2013. In the light of the debate on that Communication, the CAP should be reformed with effect from 1 January 2014. That reform should cover all the main instruments of the CAP, including Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 (1). In the context of the reformed regulatory framework, measures on fixing prices, levies, aid and quantitative limitations should be taken.

(2)

For the sake of clarity and transparency, the provisions on public intervention should be made subject to a common structure, whilst maintaining the policy pursued in each sector. For that purpose, it is appropriate to distinguish between reference thresholds laid down in Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) on the one hand and intervention prices on the other hand, and to define the latter. Only intervention prices for public intervention correspond to the applied administered prices referred to in the first sentence of paragraph 8 of Annex 3 to the WTO Agreement on Agriculture (i.e. market price support). In this context, it should be understood that market intervention can take the form of public intervention as well as other forms of intervention that do not use ex ante established price indications.

(3)

The level of the public intervention price at which buying-in is carried out at a fixed price or under a tendering procedure should be provided for, including the cases for which an adjustment of the public intervention prices may be necessary. Equally, measures on quantitative limitations for carrying out the buying-in at a fixed price need to be taken. In both cases, the prices and quantitative limitation should reflect the practice and experience acquired under previous common market organisations.

(4)

Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 provides for the granting of aid for private storage as a market intervention measure. Measures on the fixing of the aid amounts need to be provided for. In view of the practice and experience acquired under previous common market organisations, it is appropriate to provide for the fixing of the aid amounts both in advance and by a tendering procedure, and for certain elements to be taken into account when the aid is fixed in advance.

(5)

In order to ensure a sound budgetary management of the school fruit and vegetables scheme, a fixed ceiling of Union aid and maximum co-financing rates should be provided for. In order to allow all Member States to implement a cost-effective school fruit and vegetables scheme, a specified minimum amount of Union aid should be set.

(6)

To ensure the proper functioning of the aid for the supply of milk and milk products to children in educational establishments and to ensure flexibility in the administration of such a scheme, a maximum quantity of milk eligible for aid, as well as the amount of Union aid, should be fixed.

(7)

Pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, several measures in the sugar sector will expire at the end of the 2016/2017 marketing year for sugar when the system of quotas is abolished.

(8)

Measures on the fixing of the production charge to be levied on the sugar quota, isoglucose quota and inulin syrup quota provided for in the sugar sector should be provided for in this Regulation in line with the prolongation of the quota system until 30 September 2017.

(9)

To ensure an efficient production refund system for certain products of the sugar sector, appropriate conditions should be laid down to fix the amount of the production refund.

(10)

A minimum price should be fixed for quota beet corresponding to a standard quality which should be defined, in order to ensure a fair standard of living for the Union growers of sugar beet and sugar cane.

(11)

To avoid a threat to the sugar market situation due to the accumulation of quantities of sugar, isoglucose and inulin syrup for which the applicable conditions are not met, provision should be made for a surplus levy.

(12)

A mechanism to ensure a sufficient and balanced supply of sugar to the Union markets has been set up in Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, allowing the Commission to take the appropriate measures to achieve this. As the market management instruments putting this mechanism into practice are the temporary adjustments of the import duty payable on imported raw sugar as well as the temporary application of a levy on out of quota production released onto the internal market for the purposes of adjusting supply to demand, a specific provision enabling the Commission to apply such a levy and to fix its amount should be included in this Regulation.

(13)

To ensure the proper functioning of the export refund system, appropriate measures should be provided for to fix the amount of the refunds. In addition, in the cereals and rice sectors, appropriate measures should be set to fix the corrective amounts and to provide for the adjustment of the refund amount in line with any changes in the level of the intervention price.

(14)

To ensure an efficient day-to-day management of the CAP, the measures on fixing aid, refunds and prices set out in this Regulation should be limited to the broad conditions allowing concrete amounts to be laid down in the specific circumstances of each case. In order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of this Regulation, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission to lay down those amounts. Those implementing powers should be exercised with the assistance of the Committee for the Common Organisation of the Agricultural Markets and in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3). Furthermore, to ensure a swift response to fast changing market situations, the Commission should be empowered to fix new refund levels and, in the cereals and rice sectors, to adapt the corrective amount without applying Regulation (EU) No 182/2011,

(a)

for common wheat, durum wheat, barley, maize, paddy rice and skimmed milk powder shall be equal to the respective reference threshold set out in Article 7 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 in the case of buying-in at a fixed price and shall not exceed the respective reference threshold in the case of buying-in by tendering;

(b)

for butter shall be equal to 90 % of the reference threshold set out in Article 7 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 in the case of buying-in at a fixed price and shall not exceed 90 % of that reference threshold in the case of buying-in by tendering;

(c)

for beef and veal shall not exceed the level referred to in point (c) of Article 13(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013.

(a)

for common wheat, 3 million tonnes;

(b)

for butter, 50 000 tonnes;

(c)

for skimmed milk powder, 109 000 tonnes.

(a)

for common wheat, butter and skimmed milk powder beyond the quantitative limitations referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article; and

(b)

for durum wheat, barley, maize, paddy rice and beef and veal,

(a)

restricting tendering procedures to a Member State or to a region of a Member State, or

(b)

subject to Article 2(1), determining the buying-in prices for public intervention, per Member State or per region of a Member State on the basis of recorded average market prices.

(a)

respect the intervention limitations set out in paragraph 1 of this Article; and

(b)

apply the tendering procedure referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article for common wheat, butter and skimmed milk powder beyond the quantitative limitations set out in paragraph 1 of this Article.

(a)

where a tendering procedure applies, establishing the maximum amount of aid for private storage;

(b)

where the aid is fixed in advance, fixing the amount of aid based on the storage costs and/or other relevant market elements.

(a)

exceed any of the following limits:

(b)

cover costs other than the costs of supply and related costs referred to in Article 23(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013.

(a)

the costs arising from the use of imported sugar that the industry would have to bear in the event of supply from the world market; and

(b)

the price of surplus sugar available on the Union market or, if there is no surplus sugar on that market, the reference threshold for sugar fixed in point (c) of Article 7(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013.

(a)

at regular intervals, for products from the list in Article 196(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013;

(b)

by tendering procedures for cereals, rice, sugar and milk and milk products.

(a)

the existing situation and future trends with regard to:

(b)

the aims of the common market organisation, which are to ensure equilibrium and the natural development of prices and trade on that market;

(c)

the need to avoid disturbances likely to cause a prolonged imbalance between supply and demand on the Union market;

(d)

the economic aspect of the proposed exports;

(e)

the limits resulting from international agreements concluded in accordance with the Treaty;

(f)

the need to establish a balance between the use of Union basic products in the manufacture of processed goods for export to third countries and the use of third country products brought in under processing arrangements;

(g)

the most favourable marketing costs and transport costs from Union markets to Union ports or other places of export together with forwarding costs to the countries of destination;

(h)

demand on the Union market;

(i)

in respect of the pigmeat, eggs and poultrymeat sectors, the difference between prices within the Union and prices on the world market for the quantity of feed grain input required for the production in the Union of products of those sectors.

20.12.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 346/20

(1)

By Implementing Regulation (EU) No 791/2011 (2) (‘the original Regulation’) the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty of 62,9 % on imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres originating in the People's Republic of China (‘the PRC’) for all other companies than the ones mentioned in Article 1(2) and Annex 1 of that Regulation. Those measures are the measures in force and the investigation that led to the measures is the original investigation.

(2)

The measures in force were previously extended to Malaysia, by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 672/2012 (3), and to Taiwan and Thailand, by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 21/2013 (4).

(3)

On 25 February 2013, the European Commission (‘the Commission’) received a request under Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of the basic Regulation to investigate the possible circumvention of the anti-dumping measures imposed on imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres originating in the PRC and to make imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres consigned from India and Indonesia, whether declared as originating in India and Indonesia or not, subject to registration.

(4)

The request was lodged by Saint-Gobain Adfors CZ s.r.o., Tolnatext Fonalfeldolgozo es Muszakiszovet-gyarto Bt., Valmieras ‘Stikla Skiedra’ AS and Vitrulan Technical Textiles GmbH, four Union producers of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres.

(5)

The request contained sufficient prima facie evidence that following the imposition of the measures in force, a significant change in the pattern of trade involving exports from the PRC, India and Indonesia to the Union occurred, for which there was insufficient due cause or economic justification other than the imposition of the measures in force. This change in the pattern of trade stemmed allegedly from consignment of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres originating in the PRC via India and Indonesia and/or false declaration of origin of the Chinese products.

(6)

Furthermore, the evidence pointed to the fact that the remedial effects of the measures in force were being undermined both in terms of quantity and price. The evidence showed that the increased imports from India and Indonesia were made at prices below the non-injurious price established in the original investigation.

(7)

Finally, there was evidence that prices of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres consigned from India and Indonesia were dumped in relation to the normal value established for the like product during the original investigation.

(8)

Having determined, after consulting the Advisory Committee, that sufficient prima facie evidence existed for the initiation of an investigation under Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of the basic Regulation, the Commission initiated an investigation by Commission Regulation (EU) No 322/2013 (5) (‘the initiating Regulation’). Pursuant to Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of the basic Regulation the Commission, by the initiating Regulation, also directed the customs authorities to register imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres consigned from India and Indonesia.

(9)

The Commission officially advised the authorities of the PRC, India and Indonesia, the producers/exporters in those countries, the importers in the Union known to be concerned and the Union industry of the initiation of the investigation. Questionnaires were sent to the producers/exporters in the PRC, India and Indonesia known to the Commission or which made themselves known within the deadlines specified in recital 15 of the initiating Regulation. Questionnaires were also sent to importers in the Union. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set in the initiating Regulation. All parties were informed that non-cooperation might lead to the application of Article 18 of the basic Regulation and to findings being based on the facts available.

(10)

Two exporting producers in India and one unrelated importer in the Union made themselves known and submitted replies to the questionnaires. Later the Union importer informed the Commission that it imported other products and it did not import any product under investigation in the past. No exporting producer in Indonesia submitted a reply. The following exporting producers in India submitted an exemption form reply:

(11)

Subsequently, Urja Products Pvt.Ltd. informed the Commission that it does not produce the product under investigation and its products have different technical characteristics and different use (falling within other CN codes). Therefore, a verification visit was carried out only at the premises of Montex.

(12)

The investigation period covered the period from 1 April 2009 to 31 March 2013 (‘the IP’). Data were collected for the IP to investigate, inter alia, the alleged change in the pattern of trade. More detailed data were collected for the reporting period from 1 April 2012 to 31 March 2013 (‘the RP’) in order to examine the possible undermining of the remedial effect of the measures in force and existence of dumping.

(13)

In accordance with Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation, the assessment of the existence of circumvention was made by analysing successively whether there was a change in the pattern of trade between the PRC, India, Indonesia and the Union; if that change stemmed from a practice, process or work for which there was insufficient due cause or economic justification other than the imposition of the duty; if there was evidence of injury or that the remedial effects of the duty were being undermined in terms of the prices and/or quantities of the product under investigation; and whether there was evidence of dumping in relation to the normal values previously established for the product concerned, if necessary in accordance with the provisions of Article 2 of the basic Regulation.

(14)

The product concerned is as defined in the original investigation: Open mesh fabrics of glass fibres, of a cell size of more than 1,8 mm both in length and in width and weighing more than 35 g/m2, excluding fibreglass discs, originating in the PRC, currently falling within CN codes ex 7019 51 00 and ex 7019 59 00.

(15)

The product under investigation is the same as that defined in the previous recital, but consigned from India and Indonesia, whether declared as originating in India and Indonesia or not.

(16)

The investigation showed that open mesh fabrics of glass fibres, as defined above, exported from the PRC to the Union and those consigned from India and Indonesia to the Union have the same basic physical and technical characteristics and have the same uses, and are therefore to be considered as like products within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.

(17)

As stated in recital 10 above, only two Indian companies submitted an exemption form reply. As one of them, Urja Products Pvt.Ltd., was found not to be a producer of the product under investigation, there was only one cooperating company, Montex. The company represented only 1 % of the exports from India to the Union in the RP, compared to overall exports from India. This led to the application of Article 18 of the basic Regulation and findings with regard to India were based on facts available.

(18)

As stated in recital (10), no Indonesian companies submitted a questionnaire reply. There was no cooperation from Indonesian companies. This led to the application of Article 18 of the basic Regulation and findings with regard to Indonesia were based on facts available.

(19)

There was no cooperation from the Chinese exporting producers. This led to the application of Article 18 of the basic Regulation and findings with regard to the PRC were based on facts available.

(20)

To determine whether there was a change in the pattern of trade, imports of the product under investigation from India and Indonesia into the Union and exports of the product under investigation from the PRC to India and Indonesia were assessed. Those imports were established on the basis of facts available under Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation given the relatively low or no cooperation of Indian, Indonesian and Chinese companies (see Section 2.3 above).

(21)

To that end, COMEXT statistics (6), trade statistics from India and Indonesia received from the respective national authorities and Global Trade Information Services (7) statistics were used for the analysis. Accounting years starting on 1 April and finishing 31 March were used in order to use 12-month periods.

(22)

The import volume recorded in COMEXT statistics covers a larger product group than the product concerned and the product under investigation. However, based on estimates provided by the Union industry, it could be established that a significant part of that import volume covered the product concerned and the product under investigation. Accordingly, those data could be used to establish a change in the pattern of trade.

(23)

COMEXT statistics show a significant change in the pattern of trade over the IP (see Table 1 below).

Table 1

(24)

According to COMEXT statistics imports of the product concerned from the PRC to the Union dropped dramatically subsequent to the imposition of the provisional measures in February 2011 (9) and of the definitive measures in August 2011 (10). Table 1 above shows that between 2010/2011 and 2011/2012 the imports to the Union from the PRC dropped from 385,85 million m2 to 110,30 million m2 (by approximately 70 %) and between 2010/2011 and 2012/2013 (by approximately 80 %) further to 85,9 million m2.

(25)

According to COMEXT statistics, in the financial year 2009/2010 the quantities imported from India to the Union accounted for 0,35 million m2, in the financial year 2010/2011 it was 0,28 million m2 and it increased sharply between 2011/2012 and 2012/2013, reaching 13,13 million m2 in the financial year 2012/2013.

(26)

As stated in recital 17 above, the company Montex exported a very small quantity to the Union of the product under investigation in the IP – compared to overall exports from India it represents 1 % of the exports from India to the Union in the period of 2012/2013. Moreover, it was found that Montex exports the product under investigation under an incorrect CN code – 7019 52. Its exports had therefore to be added to the COMEXT statistics as shown in Table 1 above.

(27)

According to COMEXT statistics, in the financial year 2009/2010 the quantities imported from Indonesia to the Union market accounted for 0,004 million m2, in 2010/2011 they amounted to 0,16 million m2 and they increased sharply between 2011/2012 and 2012/2013, from 3,22 million m2 to 33,31 million m2 respectively.

(28)

A dramatic increase of exports can also be observed from the PRC to India and Indonesia in the same period.

Table 2

(29)

According to the Chinese customs statistics, imports from the PRC to India of the product under investigation increased from 4,8 million m2 in the financial year 2009/2010 to 29,3 million m2 in the financial year 2012/2013.

(30)

According to the Chinese customs statistics, imports from the PRC to Indonesia of the product under investigation increased from 5,78 million m2 in the financial year 2009/2010 to 11,54 million m2 in the financial year 2012/2013.

(31)

The overall decrease of the exports from the PRC to the Union and the parallel increase of both exports from India and Indonesia to the Union and exports from the PRC to India and Indonesia, following the imposition of provisional measures in February 2011 and of definitive measures in August 2011, constitutes a change in the pattern of trade between the abovementioned countries, on the one hand, and of the exports of those countries to the Union, on the other hand.

(32)

Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation requires that the change in the pattern of trade stems from a practice, process or work for which there is insufficient due cause or economic justification other than the imposition of the duty. The practice, process or work includes, inter alia, the consignment of the product subject to measures in force via third countries in accordance with Article 13(2) of the basic Regulation.

(33)

During the investigation, evidence was found of transhipment practices via Indonesia and India and/or incorrect certificates of origin. For instance, some of the imports of the product concerned to the Union were transhipped through Dubai or Singapore with certificates of origin of Indonesia/India and a part of the imports to the Union was transhipped through an Indian company which did not cooperate in the investigation. The lack of cooperation by any of the producers of the product under investigation, except Montex, is also an indication that there is no genuine production in Indonesia and India that could justify the export levels from Indonesia and India to the Union. It is reasonable to expect that if there are genuine producers, they would try to distinguish themselves from circumvention practices by participating in this investigation in the first place. In addition, the investigation did not reveal evidence of genuine production in the two contries concerned, other than that of Montex. Furthermore, the surge in imports from those two countries indicates that the Chinese products are transhipped to the Union through India and Indonesia and/or with incorrect certificates of origin.

(34)

The existence of transhipment of Chinese-origin products via India and Indonesia is therefore confirmed.

(35)

The investigation did not bring to light any due cause or economic justification for the transhipment other than the avoidance of the measures in force on the product concerned. No elements were found, other than the duty, which could be considered as a compensation for the costs of transhipment, in particular regarding transport and reloading, of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres originating in the PRC from the PRC via India and Indonesia.

(36)

Next, it was assessed whether the imports of the product under investigation into the Union had undermined the remedial effects of the measures in force in terms of quantities and prices. COMEXT data was used as the best data available concerning quantities and prices of exports by the non-cooperating companies in India and Indonesia. The prices so determined were compared to the injury elimination level established for the Union industry in recital (74) of the original Regulation.

(37)

The increase of imports from India to the Union from 0,35 million m2 in 2009/2010 to 13,10 million m2 in the RP was significant in terms of quantities, compared to (very low) volumes of imports from India before the imposition of the provisional measures in 2009/2010. Also, the increase of imports from Indonesia to the Union from 0,04 m2 in 2009/2010 to 33,31 million m2 in the RP was considered to be substantial in terms of quantities, compared to (very low) volumes of imports from Indonesia before the imposition of the provisionnal measures in 2009/2010.

(38)

To assess whether the remedial effects of the measures in force are undermined in terms of prices, the prices of the imports from Indonesia and India were compared with the injury elimination level as established in the original Regulation. The injury elimination level as established in the original Regulation was adjusted for inflation. The weighted average export price of exports from India and Indonesia was adjusted for post importation costs and quality adjustments as established in the original investigation for imports from PRC. The comparison showed significantly lower export prices for exports from the countries concerned to the Union. It was therefore concluded that the remedial effects of the measures in force are also being undermined in terms of both quantities and prices.

(39)

Finally, in accordance with Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation it was examined whether there was evidence of dumping.

(40)

In the original Regulation the normal value was established on the basis of prices in Canada, which in that investigation was found to be an appropriate market economy analogue country for the PRC. In line with Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation the normal value as established in the original investigation was used.

(41)

The export prices from India and Indonesia were based on facts available under Article 18 of the basic Regulation. The export price was the average export price of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres from each of the two contries concerned during the RP as reported in COMEXT. The exports of the Indian company Montex were not reflected in the statistics due to the misclassification of their products (see recital 25 above), and were not used for the calculation of the dumping margin.

(42)

For the purpose of a fair comparison between the normal value and the export price, due allowance, in the form of adjustments, was made for differences which affect prices and price comparability in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation. Accordingly, adjustments were made for differences in transport, insurance and packing costs. Given that data available did not allow to establish the level of the adjustments to be made, the adjustments had to be established on the basis of the best facts available. Thus, the adjustment for these allowances was based on a percentage calculated as the proportion of the total transport, insurance and packing costs over the value of the Union sales transactions with CIF delivery terms provided by the cooperating Chinese exporting producers in the original investigation.

(43)

In accordance with Articles 2(11) and 2(12) of the basic Regulation, dumping was calculated by comparing the weighted average normal value as established in the original Regulation and the corresponding weighted average export prices of the two countries concerned during this investigation's RP, expressed as a percentage of the CIF price at the Union frontier duty unpaid.

(44)

The comparison of the weighted average normal value and the weighted average export price as established showed dumping.

(45)

In view of the above, it is concluded that the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres originating in the PRC was circumvented by transhipment via India and Indonesia within the meaning of Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation.

(46)

In accordance with the first sentence of Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation, the measures in force on imports of the product concerned, should be extended to imports of the same product but consigned from India and Indonesia, whether declared as originating in India and Indonesia or not.

(47)

The measures to be extended should be the measures established in Article 1(2) of Regulation (EU) No 791/2011 for ‘all other companies’, which is a definitive anti-dumping duty of 62,9 % applicable to the net, free-at-Union-frontier price, before duty.

(48)

In accordance with Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of the basic Regulation, which provides that any extended measure should apply to imports which entered the Union under registration imposed by the initiating Regulation, duties should be collected on those registered imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres consigned from India and Indonesia.

(49)

As stated in recital (10) two exporting producers came forward following initiation and submitted questionnaire replies and requested exemption in accordance with Article 13(4) of the basic Regulation – Montex and Urja Products.

(50)

As stated in recital (11), it was found that one of the two companies, Urja Products does not produce the product under investigation. The exemption under Article 13(4) of the basic Regulation is not applicable to that company.

(51)

Montex was found not to be engaged in the circumvention practices subject to this investigation. The company demostrated that it is a genuine producer whose production capacity exceeds the volume of exports of the product under investigation to the Union. The company submitted a complete set of data and was verified on the spot. The verified data relating to the setting-up of the company, purchase of machinery, production process, capacity, stocks, purchases of raw material and cost of production support this conclusion. Furthermore, this producer could demonstrate that it is not related to any of the Chinese producers/exporters subject to the existing measures or to companies involved in the circumvention practices. Therefore, the exemption from the extended duties could be granted to this company.

(52)

As stated in recital (10) no exporting producer in Indonesia submitted a request for exemption under Article 13(4) of the basic Regulation. The investigation did not reveal any genuine producer of the product under investigation in Indonesia.

(53)

Producers in India and Indonesia which did not participate in this investigation and/or did not export the product under investigation to the Union in the RP may request an exemption from the extended anti-dumping duty under Articles 11(3), 11(4) and 13(4) of the basic Regulation. They will be asked to complete a questionnaire in order to enable the Commission to determine whether an exemption may be warranted. Such exemption may be granted after the assessment of the market situation of the product concerned, production capacity and capacity utilisation, procurement and sales and the likelihood of a continuation of practices for which there is insufficient due cause or economic justification and the evidence of dumping. The Commission would normally also carry out an on-the-spot verification visit. The request should be addressed to the Commission, with all relevant information, in particular any modification in the company's activities linked to the production and sales.

(54)

Where an exemption is warranted, the Commission will, after consultation of the Advisory Committee, propose the amendment of the extended measures in force accordingly. Subsequently, any exemption granted will be monitored to ensure compliance with the conditions.

(55)

All interested parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations leading to the above conclusions and were invited to comment. The oral and written comments submitted by the parties were considered. None of the arguments presented gave rise to a modification of the definitive findings,

European Commission

Directorate-General for Trade

Directorate H

Office: N-105 8/20

1049 Brussels

Belgium

Fax (32 2) 295 65 05

20.12.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 346/27

(1)

Requests were made by the Member States to the Administrative Commission for the Coordination of Social Security Systems to amend Annexes VIII and XI to Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 and Annexes 1 and 5 to Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 in order to bring those annexes in line with developments in their national legislation or to simplify the application of those Regulations.

(2)

The Annexes to Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 aim at giving an overview of Member States that do not apply the pro rata calculation for old-age and survivors’ pensions and of special provisions regarding the application of the legislation of the Member States.

(3)

The Annexes to Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 aim at giving an overview of the implementing provisions for bilateral agreements that remain or enter into force and of the Member States which determine the maximum amount of reimbursement of unemployment benefits on the basis of the average amount of unemployment benefits provided under their legislation in the preceding calendar year.

(4)

The Administrative Commission for the Coordination of Social Security Systems has agreed to the requested amendments and has made relevant proposals to the Commission for the technical adaptations of the Annexes to Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 and Regulation (EC) No 883/2004.

(5)

The Commission can agree to include the proposals for the technical adaptations of the Annexes mentioned in recital 4.

(6)

Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 and Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 should therefore be amended accordingly,

(1)

in Annex VIII, Part 2 is amended as follows:

(2)

in Annex XI, in the section ‘NETHERLANDS’, the following point (fa) is inserted after point (f):

(1)

Annex 1 is amended as follows:

(2)

in Annex 5, a new section ‘NETHERLANDS’ is added after section ‘GERMANY’.

20.12.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 346/29

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1518/2003 of 28 August 2003 laying down detailed rules for implementing the system of export licences in the pigmeat sector (2) has been substantially amended several times (3). In the interests of clarity and rationality the said Regulation should be codified.

(2)

Specific implementing rules should be laid down for export licences in the pigmeat sector which should in particular include provisions for the submission of applications and the information which is to appear on the applications and licences, in addition to those contained in Commission Regulation (EC) No 376/2008 of 23 April 2008 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of import and export licences and advance fixing certificates for agricultural products (4).

(3)

In order to assure the proper administration of the system of export licences, the rate of the security for export licences under that system should be fixed. In view of the risk of speculation inherent in the system in the pigmeat sector, export licences should not be transferable and precise conditions governing access by operators to the said system should be laid down.

(4)

In accordance with Article 169 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 compliance with the obligations arising from agreements concluded under Article 218 of the Treaty regarding the export volume is to be ensured on the basis of the export licences. Therefore, a detailed schedule for the lodging of applications and for the issuing of licences should be laid down.

(5)

In addition, the decision regarding applications for export licences should be notified only after a period of consideration. This period should allow the Commission to assess the quantities applied for as well as the expenditure involved and, if appropriate, to take special measures applicable in particular to the applications which are pending. It is in the interest of operators to allow the licence application to be withdrawn after the acceptance coefficient has been fixed.

(6)

The Commission should have precise information concerning applications for licences and the use of licences issued, in order to be able to manage the licence system. In the interests of efficient administration, Member States should use the information systems in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 792/2009 of 31 August 2009 laying down detailed rules for the Member States’ notification to the Commission of information and documents in implementation of the common organisation of the markets, the direct payments’ regime, the promotion of agricultural products and the regimes applicable to the outermost regions and the smaller Aegean islands (5).

(7)

In the case of applications concerning quantities equal to or less than 25 tonnes, the export licence should be issued immediately if the operators requests it. In this case, the licences should not be subject to any special measures taken by the Commission.

(8)

In order to ensure an exact follow up of the quantities to be exported, a derogation from the rules regarding the tolerances laid down in Regulation (EC) No 376/2008 should be laid down.

(9)

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

(a)

set a single percentage of acceptance for the quantities applied for;

(b)

reject applications for which licences have not yet been granted;

(c)

suspend the lodging of licence applications for a maximum period of five working days, extendable by the procedure referred to in Article 195(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.

(a)

either withdraw his application, in which case the security shall be released immediately; or

(b)

request the immediate issuing of the licence, in which case the competent authority shall issue it without delay but no sooner than the normal issue date for the relevant week.

(a)

the applications for export licences as referred to in Article 1 lodged from Monday to Friday of the same week, stating whether or not they fall within the scope of Article 4;

(b)

the quantities covered by export licences issued on the preceding Wednesday, not including those issued immediately under Article 4;

(c)

the quantities covered by export licence applications withdrawn pursuant to Article 3(7) during the preceding week.

(a)

the quantity in product weight for each category referred to in Article 2(3);

(b)

the breakdown by destination of the quantity for each category in the case where the rate of refund varies according to the destination;

(c)

the rate of refund applicable;

(d)

the total amount of refund fixed in advance in euro per category.

20.12.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 346/38

(1)

By Commission Regulation (EC) No 1126/2008 (2) certain international standards and interpretations that were in existence at 15 October 2008 were adopted.

(2)

On 29 May 2013 the International Accounting Standards Board published amendments to International Accounting Standard (IAS) 36 Impairment of Assets. The objective of the amendments is to clarify that the scope of the disclosures of information about the recoverable amount of assets, where that amount is based on fair value less costs of disposal, is limited to impaired assets.

(3)

The consultation with the Technical Expert Group of the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group confirms that the amendments to IAS 36 meet the technical criteria for adoption set out in Article 3(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1606/2002.

(4)

Regulation (EC) No 1126/2008 should therefore be amended accordingly.

(5)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Accounting Regulatory Committee,

20.12.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 346/42

(1)

By Commission Regulation (EC) No 1126/2008 (2) certain international standards and interpretations that were in existence at 15 October 2008 were adopted.

(2)

On 27 June 2013 the International Accounting Standards Board published amendments to International Accounting Standard (IAS) 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement entitled Novation of Derivatives and Continuation of Hedge Accounting. The objective of the amendments is to provide relief in situations where a derivative, which has been designated as a hedging instrument, is novated from one counterparty to a central counterparty as a consequence of laws or regulations. Such a relief means that hedge accounting can continue irrespective of the novation which, without the amendment, would not be permitted.

(3)

Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) requires central clearing of certain classes of OTC derivatives. As a consequence, counterparties of certain hedging instruments should agree to replace their original counterparty of the hedging transaction by a central counterparty that is compliant with the requirements of that Regulation.

(4)

In order to avoid a financial reporting burden arising from the novation of OTC derivatives to a central counterparty as a consequence of laws or regulations or the introduction of laws or regulations, it is necessary to provide for an exception to the existing requirements for discontinuation of hedge accounting in IAS 39.

(5)

The consultation with the Technical Expert Group of the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group confirms that the amendments to IAS 39 meet the technical criteria for adoption set out in Article 3(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1606/2002.

(6)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1126/2008 should therefore be amended accordingly.

(7)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Accounting Regulatory Committee,

20.12.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 346/47

(1)

Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations, the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products and periods stipulated in Annex XVI, Part A thereto.

(2)

The standard import value is calculated each working day, in accordance with Article 136(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011, taking into account variable daily data. Therefore this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union,

20.12.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 346/49

20.12.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 346/51

(1)

Regulation (EC) No 533/2007 opened tariff quotas for imports of poultrymeat products.

(2)

The applications for import licences lodged during the first seven days of December 2013 for the subperiod from 1 January to 31 March 2014 relate, for some quotas, to quantities exceeding those available. The extent to which import licences may be issued should therefore be determined by establishing the allocation coefficient to be applied to the quantities requested,

20.12.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 346/53

(1)

Pursuant to Article 5(1) of Decision 2010/96/CFSP, the Council authorised the Political and Security Committee (PSC) to take decisions on the appointment of the EU Mission Commander for the European Union military mission to contribute to the training of Somali security forces (EUTM Somalia).

(2)

On 22 January 2013, the Council adopted Decision 2013/44/CFSP (2) amending and extending Decision 2010/96/CFSP and appointing Brigadier General Gerald AHERNE as EU Mission Commander.

(3)

The Italian Republic has proposed the appointment of Brigadier General Massimo MINGIARDI as the new EU Mission Commander to succeed Brigadier General Gerald AHERNE.

(4)

The EU Military Committee supports that proposal.

(5)

In accordance with Article 5 of 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. Consequently, Denmark is not participating in the adoption of this Decision and is neither bound by it nor subject to its application,

20.12.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 346/54

(1)

Regulation (EC) No 58/2003 empowers the Commission to delegate powers to the executive agencies to implement all or part of a Union programme or project, on its behalf and under its responsibility.

(2)

The purpose of entrusting the executive agencies with programme implementation tasks is to enable the Commission to focus on its core activities and functions which cannot be outsourced, without relinquishing control over, and ultimate responsibility for, activities managed by those executive agencies.

(3)

The delegation of tasks related to programme implementation to an executive agency requires a clear separation between the programming stages involving a large measure of discretion in making choices driven by policy considerations, this being carried out by the Commission, and programme implementation, which should be entrusted to the executive agency.

(4)

By Decision 2008/46/EC (2), the Commission created the Research Executive Agency (hereinafter referred to as the Agency) and entrusted it with the management of Community actions in the field of research with a view of performance of tasks linked to the implementation of the specific programme ‘People’ implementing the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007 to 2013) (3), specific programme ‘Capacities’ implementing the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007 to 2013) (4) and specific programme ‘Cooperation’ implementing the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007 to 2013) (5) of the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) (6) (hereinafter referred to as the Seventh Framework Programme).

(5)

The Agency has demonstrated that delegating tasks to an executive agency is a fully relevant solution to improve cost-effectiveness, thereby enabling the Commission to manage an increasing budget with a less than proportional increase in the overall number of staff. Separating the policymaking tasks of the Commission from programme implementation tasks in the Agency has enabled both parties to perform better on their core duties. The external evaluation of the Agency carried out in accordance with Article 25 of Regulation (EC) No 58/2003 has shown that it has been efficient and effective in managing the SME-related actions under the Capacities Specific Programme, the Marie Curie Actions under the People Specific Programme, the Space and Security research actions under the Cooperation Specific Programme and in providing administrative and logistical support services to all programme areas of the People, Capacities and Cooperation Specific Programmes. Savings resulting from the delegation of tasks to the Agency have been estimated at some EUR 106 million over the period 2009-2013.

(6)

In its Communication of 29 June 2011‘A budget for Europe 2020’ (7), the Commission proposed to use the option of more extensive recourse to existing executive agencies for the implementation of Union programmes in the 2014-2020 multiannual financial framework (hereinafter referred to as the MFF).

(7)

The cost-benefit analysis carried out in accordance with Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 58/2003 has shown that the efficiency of the Agency’s operations is higher in comparison with the Commission’s. The new delegated programmes are thematically in line with the current mandate and mission of the Agency and represent the continuation of the Agency’s existing activities. The Agency has already built-up competence, skills and capacities, which are directly relevant for these programmes. The Agency is well placed to continue managing research programmes under the 2014-2020 MFF. Delegation of programme management to the Agency would ensure the business continuity for the programmes’ beneficiaries, given that the Agency has built up relevant competence and capacity focussing on the research community. Delegation of programme management to the Agency is estimated to deliver efficiency gains of EUR 158 million over the period 2014-2024 when compared to the management by the Commission services.

(8)

In order to give executive agencies a coherent identity, the Commission has, as far as possible, grouped work by thematic policy area in establishing their new mandates.

(9)

The Agency should be entrusted with the management of the following parts of the Specific Programme Implementing Horizon 2020 — The Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020) (8):

(10)

The Agency should continue with the implementation of the parts of the Seventh Framework Programme already delegated to it under the 2007-2013 MFF.

(11)

The Agency should be responsible for the provision of administrative and logistical support services in particular where centralisation of those support services would result in additional cost-efficiency gains and economies of scale.

(12)

In order to ensure a consistent implementation in time of this Decision and of the programmes concerned, it is necessary to ensure that the Agency shall exercise its tasks linked to the implementation of those programmes subject to and from the date on which those programmes enter into force.

(13)

The Research Executive Agency should be established. It should replace and succeed the executive agency established by Decision 2008/46/EC. It should operate in accordance with the general statute laid down by Regulation (EC) No 58/2003.

(14)

Decision 2008/46/EC should therefore be repealed and transitional provisions should be set out.

(15)

The measures provided for by this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for Executive Agencies,

(a)

Part I ‘Excellent science’;

(b)

Part II ‘Industrial leadership’;

(c)

Part III ‘Societal challenges’;

(d)

Part IIIa ‘Spreading excellence and widening participation’;

(e)

Part IIIb ‘Science with and for society’.

(a)

the activities ‘Research for SMEs’ and ‘Research for SME associations’ of the Capacities Specific Programme;

(b)

the ‘Space’ and ‘Security’ themes of the Cooperation Specific Programme;

(c)

the People Specific Programme.

(a)

managing some stages of programme implementation and some phases in the lifetime of specific projects on the basis of the relevant work programmes adopted by the Commission, where the Commission has empowered it to do so in the instrument of delegation;

(b)

adopting the instruments of budget execution for revenue and expenditure and carrying out all the operations necessary for the management of the programme, where the Commission has empowered it to do so in the instrument of delegation;

(c)

providing support in programme implementation where the Commission has empowered it to do so in the instrument of delegation.

20.12.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 346/58

(1)

Regulation (EC) No 58/2003 empowers the Commission to delegate powers to the executive agencies to implement all or part of a Union programme or project, on its behalf and under its responsibility.

(2)

The purpose of entrusting the executive agencies with programme implementation tasks is to enable the Commission to focus on its core activities and functions which cannot be outsourced, without relinquishing control over, or ultimate responsibility for, activities managed by those executive agencies.

(3)

In accordance with Article 6 of the Specific Programme implementing Horizon 2020 — the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020) (2) (hereinafter referred to as the Specific Programme implementing Horizon 2020), the Commission is to establish a European Research Council (hereinafter referred to as the ERC). The ERC is to succeed the European Research Council which was set up by Commission Decision 2007/134/EC (3) in order to implement Council Decision 2006/972/EC (4) (hereinafter referred to as the Specific Programme Ideas). The ERC is to be composed of an independent Scientific Council (hereinafter referred to as the ERC Scientific Council) and a dedicated implementation structure in the form of an executive agency.

(4)

The delegation of tasks related to programme implementation to an executive agency requires clear separation between the programming stages, this being established by the ERC Scientific Council and adopted by the Commission, and programme implementation according to the principles and methodology established by the ERC Scientific Council, which should be entrusted to the executive agency.

(5)

By Decision 2008/37/EC (5), the Commission created the European Research Council Executive Agency (hereinafter referred to as the Agency) and entrusted it with the management of Community actions in the field of frontier research with a view to perform the task of implementing the Specific Programme Ideas.

(6)

The Agency set up by Decision 2008/37/EC has demonstrated that it has attained a significant reputation within the scientific community across Europe and worldwide. It has established itself as an essential component of the Union’s research funding landscape with good visibility and external perception by stakeholders. The external evaluation of the Agency carried out in accordance with Article 25 of Regulation (EC) No 58/2003 has shown that the setting up of the Agency has been beneficial as a result of its scientific specialisation and ability to provide a better service in terms of being close to the beneficiaries, improving the communication and visibility of programmes and ensuring quicker payment to beneficiaries. Savings resulting from the delegation of tasks to the Agency have been estimated at some EUR 45 million over the period 2009-2012.

(7)

In its Communication of 29 June 2011‘A budget for Europe 2020’ (6), the Commission proposed to use the option of more extensive recourse to existing executive agencies for the implementation of Union programmes in the 2014-2020 multiannual financial framework.

(8)

The cost-benefit analysis carried out in accordance with Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 58/2003 has shown that the Commission should entrust the Agency with the implementation of the specific objective ‘strengthening frontier research through the activities of the European Research Council’ of Part I ‘Excellent science’ of the Specific Programme implementing Horizon 2020. The Agency has high quality programme management and service delivery, visibility and existing communication outreach channels which have proved effective. The specific objective ‘strengthening frontier research through the activities of the European Research Council’ is in line with the current objectives and tasks of the Agency. Making use of the accumulated experience and expertise of the Agency would lead to efficiency gains. Moreover, the Commission has never managed this programme internally and consequently there would be an interruption in business continuity and a lack of know-how. In addition, efficiency gains of EUR 79 million over the period 2014-2024 are to be expected by implementing the agency scenario compared to the in-house scenario where the programme would be managed by the Commission.

(9)

The Agency should be entrusted with the management of the specific objective ‘strengthening frontier research through the activities of the European Research Council’ of Part I ‘Excellent science’ of the Specific Programme implementing Horizon 2020, pursuing similar activities which under the 2007-2013 multiannual financial framework are already managed by the Agency and which are characterised by projects which do not entail political decision-making and require a high level of scientific and financial expertise throughout the project cycle.

(10)

The Agency should continue the implementation of the Specific Programme Ideas which was delegated to it under the 2007-2013 multiannual financial framework.

(11)

In order to ensure a consistent implementation in time of this Decision and of the programmes concerned, it is necessary to ensure that the Agency shall exercise its tasks linked to the implementation of those programmes subject to and from the date on which those programmes enter into force.

(12)

The Agency should be established. It should replace and succeed the executive agency established by Decision 2008/37/EC. It should operate in accordance with the general statute laid down by Regulation (EC) No 58/2003.

(13)

Decision 2008/37/EC should therefore be repealed and transitional provisions should be set out.

(14)

The measures provided for by this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for Executive Agencies,

(a)

managing programme implementation and specific projects on the basis of the relevant work programmes established by the Scientific Council of the European Research Council (hereinafter referred to as the ERC Scientific Council) and adopted by the Commission, where the Commission has empowered it to do so in the instrument of delegation;

(b)

adopting the instruments of budget execution for revenue and expenditure and carrying out all the operations necessary for the management of the programme, where the Commission has empowered it to do so in the instrument of delegation;

(c)

providing support in programme implementation where the Commission has empowered it to do so in the instrument of delegation;

(d)

providing support to the ERC Scientific Council in the conduct of all of its tasks.

20.12.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 346/61

(1)

Directive 2000/29/EC provides for protective measures against the introduction into the Union from third countries of organisms that are harmful to plants or plant products.

(2)

Bark-free sawn wood of Quercus L., Platanus L. and Acer saccharum Marsh. originating in the United States of America and covered by one of the CN codes and the descriptions set out in Section I(6) of Part B of Annex V to Directive 2000/29/EC may not be introduced into the Union unless accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate as provided for in Article 13(1)(ii) of that Directive.

(3)

Directive 2000/29/EC allows for derogations from Article 13(1)(ii) in the case of wood, if equivalent safeguards are ensured by means of alternative documentation or marking.

(4)

The Commission has noted on the basis of information supplied by the United States of America that an official programme, the Kiln Drying Sawn Hardwood Lumber Certification Program, has been approved by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, US Department of Agriculture and will be operated by the US National Hardwood Lumber Association (NHLA).

(5)

The Kiln Drying Sawn Hardwood Lumber Certification Program ensures that approved hardwood facilities in the US operate under the Kiln Drying Sawn Hardwood Standard. That Standard ensures that all parts of sawn hardwood lumber exported under that Program are kiln dried to less than 20 % moisture by weight as per kiln drying schedules and are bark-free.

(6)

That Standard also ensures that all kiln dried hardwood bundles are attached with an NHLA steel ID clip stamped with ‘NHLA — KD’ along with a unique number assigned to each bundle. Each number is listed on the corresponding Kiln Drying Hardwood Lumber Certificate (‘Certificate of Kiln Drying’).

(7)

Member States should therefore be authorised to allow for bark-free sawn wood of Quercus L., Platanus L. and Acer saccharum Marsh. originating in the United States of America to be introduced into their territory when accompanied by a Certificate of Kiln Drying as an alternative to a phytosanitary certificate, provided that certain conditions are fulfilled.

(8)

The Commission should ensure that the United States of America makes available all technical information necessary to assess the functioning of the Program. In addition, Member States should continually assess the use of the NHLA ID clips and associated Certificate of Kiln Drying.

(9)

The derogation provided for in this Decision should be terminated if it is established that the specific conditions laid down in this Decision are not sufficient to prevent the introduction of harmful organisms into the Union or have not been complied with or there is evidence which could indicate that the Program is not functioning effectively.

(10)

The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plant Health,

20.12.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 346/65

(1)

If the amount of manure that a Member State intends to apply per hectare each year is different from those specified in the first sentence of the second subparagraph of paragraph 2 of Annex III to Directive 91/676/EEC and in point (a) of that subparagraph, that amount is to be fixed so as not to prejudice the achievement of the objectives specified in Article 1 of that Directive and it has to be justified on the basis of objective criteria, such as long growing seasons and crops with high nitrogen uptake.

(2)

On 29 May 2009, the Commission adopted Decision 2009/431/EC granting a derogation requested by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland with regard to England, Scotland and Wales pursuant to Council Directive 91/676/EEC concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources (2), allowing the application of livestock manure up to a limit of 250 kg nitrogen per hectare per year, under certain conditions, within the framework of the Action Programmes in England (Regulation 2008 No 2349), Scotland (Regulation 2008 No 298, as amended) and Wales (Regulation 2008 No 3143) and which has an expiration date of 31 December 2012.

(3)

The derogation granted by Decision 2009/431/EC concerned 433 farms in 2010 (425 in England, 6 in Scotland and 2 in Wales), 404 farms in 2011 (396 in England, 7 in Scotland and 1 in Wales), and 390 farms in 2012 (385 in England, 4 in Scotland and 1 in Wales). The derogation granted by Decision 2009/431/EC, in the years 2009-2012 concerned approximately 110 000 livestock units (corresponding to 0,9 % of the total), 45 000 hectares of grassland (corresponding to 0,4 % of the total) and 5 000 hectares of arable land (corresponding to 0,1 % of the total), in Great Britain.

(4)

On 20 December 2012, the United Kingdom submitted to the Commission a request for renewal of the derogation under the third subparagraph of paragraph 2 of Annex III to Directive 91/676/EEC, subject to the same conditions as those laid down in Decision 2009/431/EC.

(5)

The United Kingdom has established Action Programmes for the period 2013-2016, in accordance with Article 5 of Directive 91/676/EEC, by means of the following regulations: the Nitrate Pollution Prevention Regulations 2008 (SI 2008/2349) and amending regulations SI 2009/3160, SI 2012/1849, SI 2013/1001 and SI 2013/2619 in England; the Action Programme for Nitrate Vulnerable Zones Regulations 2008 (Scottish SI 2008/298) and amending regulations Scottish SI 2013/123 in Scotland; the Nitrate Pollution Prevention (Wales) Regulations 2013 (SI 2013/2506 (W. 245)) in Wales.

(6)

The designated vulnerable zones to which the action programmes apply, according to Regulation SI 2013/2619 for England, Scottish SI 2002 No 276 and Scottish SI 2002 No 546 for Scotland and Regulation SI 2013/2506 (W. 245) for Wales, cover 58 % of the total area of England, 14 % of the total area of Scotland and 2,3 % of the total area of Wales.

(7)

Water quality data submitted show that for groundwater in England 85 % of groundwater bodies have mean nitrate concentrations below 50 mg/l nitrate and 60 % concentrations below 25 mg/l nitrate. For Wales, 95 % of groundwater bodies have mean nitrate concentrations of less than 50 mg/l nitrate, and 87 % have concentrations below 25 mg/l. For Scotland over 87 % of groundwater bodies have mean nitrate concentrations of less than 50 mg/l nitrate, and 62 % have concentrations below 25 mg/l. For surface waters in England 59 % of monitoring sites have mean nitrate concentrations below 25 mg/l and 8 % have concentrations over 50 mg/l nitrate. For Scotland and Wales over 95 % of monitoring sites have mean nitrate concentrations below 25 mg/l. For Scotland no monitoring sites have mean nitrate concentrations over 50 mg/l nitrate and for Wales 1 % of monitoring sites have concentrations over 50 mg/l nitrate.

(8)

The Commission, after examination of the request of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and in the light of the experience gained from the derogation provided for in Decision 2009/431/EC considers that the amount of manure proposed by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, 250 kg nitrogen per hectare per year, will not prejudice the achievement of the objectives of Directive 91/676/EEC, subject to certain strict conditions being met.

(9)

The supporting documents presented by the United Kingdom show that the proposed amount of 250 kg per hectare per year nitrogen from grazing livestock manure in grassland farms is justified on the basis of objective criteria such as high net precipitation, long growing seasons and high yields of grass with high nitrogen uptake.

(10)

Decision 2009/431/EC has an expiration date of 31 December 2012. For the purpose of ensuring that the farmers concerned may continue to benefit from the derogation, it is appropriate to extend the validity of Decision 2009/431/EC.

(11)

The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Nitrates Committee set up pursuant to Article 9 of Directive 91/676/EEC,

(a)

‘grassland farms’ means holdings where 80 % or more of the agricultural area available for manure application is grass;

(b)

‘grazing livestock’ means cattle (with the exclusion of veal calves), sheep, deer, goats and horses;

(c)

‘grass’ means permanent grassland or temporary grassland (temporary implying leys of less than four years);

(d)

‘parcel’ means an individual field or a group of fields, homogeneous regarding cropping, soil type and fertilisation practices.

(a)

The crop rotation plan, which must specify the acreage of parcels with grass and parcels with other crops, including a sketch map indicating the location of individual parcels;

(b)

the number of livestock, a description of the housing and storage system, including the volume of manure storage available;

(c)

a calculation of manure nitrogen and phosphorus produced in the farm;

(d)

the amount, type and characteristics of manure delivered outside the farm or to the farm;

(e)

the foreseeable nitrogen and phosphorus crop requirements for each parcel;

(f)

results of soil analysis related to nitrogen and phosphorus soil status;

(g)

the nature of the fertilizer to be used;

(h)

a calculation of nitrogen and phosphorus application from manure over each parcel;

(i)

a calculation of nitrogen and phosphorus application from chemical and other fertilisers over each parcel.

(a)

temporary grassland on sandy soils shall be ploughed in spring;

(b)

ploughed grass on all soil types shall be followed immediately by a crop with high nitrogen demand;

(c)

crop rotation shall not include leguminous or other plants fixing atmospheric nitrogen.

(a)

maps showing the percentage of farms, percentage of livestock, percentage of agricultural land covered by individual derogation for each district, as well as maps on local land use, referred to in Article 7(1);

(b)

the results of ground and surface water monitoring, as regards nitrate concentrations, including information on water quality trends, both under derogation and non-derogation conditions as well as the impact of derogation on water quality, as referred to in Article 7(2);

(c)

the results of soil monitoring as regards nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations in soil water and on mineral nitrogen in soil profile, both under derogation and non-derogation conditions, as referred to in Article 7(2);

(d)

summary and evaluation of data obtained from the reinforced water monitoring referred to in Article 7(3);

(e)

results of the surveys on local land use, crop rotations and agricultural practices, referred to in Article 7(4);

(f)

results of model-based calculations of the magnitude of nitrate and phosphorus losses from farms benefitting from an individual derogation, referred to in Article 7(4);

(g)

evaluation of the implementation of the derogation conditions, on the basis of controls at farm level and information on non-compliant farms, on the basis of the results of the administrative controls and field inspections, referred to in Article 8(1) and (2).

20.12.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 346/69

(1)

Commission Decision 2002/757/EC (2) requires Member States to adopt measures to protect themselves against the introduction into and the spread within the Union of Phytophthora ramorum Werres, De Cock & Man in ’t Veld sp. nov., a harmful organism not listed in Annex I or Annex II to Directive 2000/29/EC.

(2)

Bark-free sawn wood of Acer macrophyllum Pursh and Quercus spp. L. originating in the United States of America may not be introduced into the Union unless accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate as referred to in Article 13(1)(ii) of Directive 2000/29/EC and in point 2 of the Annex to Decision 2002/757/EC.

(3)

The Commission has noted on the basis of information supplied by the United States of America that an official programme, the Kiln Drying Sawn Hardwood Lumber Certification Program, has been approved by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, US Department of Agriculture and will be operated by the US National Hardwood Lumber Association (NHLA).

(4)

The Kiln Drying Sawn Hardwood Lumber Certification Program ensures that approved hardwood facilities in the US operate under the Kiln Drying Sawn Hardwood Standard. That Standard ensures that all parts of sawn hardwood lumber exported under that Program are kiln-dried to less than 20 % moisture by weight as per kiln-drying schedules and are bark-free.

(5)

That Standard also ensures that all kiln-dried hardwood bundles are attached with an NHLA steel ID clip stamped with ‘NHLA — KD’ along with a unique number assigned to each bundle. Each number is listed on the corresponding Kiln Drying Hardwood Lumber Certificate (‘Certificate of Kiln Drying’).

(6)

Therefore, a derogation should be provided for allowing bark-free sawn wood of Acer macrophyllum Pursh and Quercus spp. L. originating in the United States of America to be introduced into the Union when accompanied by a Certificate of Kiln Drying as an alternative to a phytosanitary certificate provided that certain conditions are fulfilled.

(7)

The Commission should ensure that the United States of America makes available all technical information necessary to assess the functioning of the Program. In addition, Member States should continually assess the use of the NHLA ID clips and associated Certificate of Kiln Drying.

(8)

The derogation provided for in the second subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Decision 2002/757/EC as amended by this Decision should apply until 30 November 2016 in order to align it with the requirements of Commission Implementing Decision 2013/780/EU (3).

Decision 2002/757/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.

The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plant Health,

(1)

in Article 3, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:

‘1.   Susceptible plants and susceptible wood may only be introduced into the territory of the Union if they comply with the emergency phytosanitary measures laid down in points 1a and 2 of Annex I to this Decision, if the formalities referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 13(1) of Directive 2000/29/EC are completed and if, as a result of those formalities in respect of the presence of non-European isolates of the harmful organism, susceptible plants and susceptible wood are found free from the harmful organism.

By way of derogation from the first subparagraph, until 30 November 2016 bark-free sawn wood of Acer macrophyllum Pursh and Quercus spp. L., originating in the United States of America, may be introduced into the Union without complying with point 2 of Annex I to this Decision, provided it complies with the conditions set out in Annex II to this Decision.’;

(2)

in Article 3(2) and (3) and Article 5(1), the words ‘of the Annex to this Decision’ are replaced by ‘of Annex I to this Decision’ and any grammatical adjustments needed as a consequence of this replacement shall be made;

(3)

the following Article 6a is inserted:

‘Article 6a

1.   Member States shall inform the Commission and the other Member States in writing when they have made use of the derogation provided for in the second subparagraph of Article 3(1).

Member States that made use of the derogation shall provide the Commission and the other Member States before 15 July each year with information on the number of consignments imported in the previous year pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 3(1) of this Decision and with a detailed report of all cases of interceptions as referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article.

2.   Member States shall notify the Commission and the other Member States no later than two working days after the date of interception of each consignment introduced into their territory pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 3(1) which does not comply with the conditions set out in Annex II.

3.   The Commission shall request the United States of America to provide it with the technical information necessary to allow the Commission to assess the functioning of the Kiln Drying Sawn Hardwood Lumber Certification Program.’;

(4)

the Annex is renamed as Annex I;

(5)

an Annex II is added, the text of which is set out in the Annex to this Decision.