8.12.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 322/1

(1)

Council Regulation (EC) No 920/2005 (1) granted Irish the status of official language and working language of the institutions of the Union.

(2)

Council Regulation (EU) No 1257/2010 (2) extended the derogation provided for in the first paragraph of Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 920/2005 for a period of five years until 31 December 2016.

(3)

Regulation (EC) No 920/2005 provides that, for practical reasons and on a transitional basis, the institutions of the Union are not to be bound by the obligation to draft or translate all acts, including judgments of the Court of Justice, in the Irish language, with the exception of Regulations adopted jointly by the European Parliament and the Council. It is for the Council to determine, not later than four years from the date of application of Regulation (EC) No 920/2005 and at five-yearly intervals thereafter, whether to put an end to that derogation.

(4)

While it is considered necessary to further extend the derogation provided for in the first paragraph of Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 920/2005 for a period of five years from 1 January 2017, the institutions of the Union should continue their proactive approach to increasing the availability of information in Irish on the activities of the Union. The scope of the derogation should therefore be gradually reduced, with a view to ending the derogation at the end of the current period of five years.

(5)

In order to prevent delays in the Union's legislative process, the reduction of the scope of the derogation should be closely monitored and reviewed in light of the available translation capacity. The Irish authorities and the Commission, in collaboration with the other Union institutions, should meet regularly to monitor the progress of relevant recruitment to the Union institutions, the capacity of external service providers and the increased collaboration on language resources, as well as on issues related to the availability of the acquis,

8.12.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 322/4

(1)

Union supplies of certain fishery products currently depend on imports from third countries. In the last 18 years, the Union has become more dependent on imports to meet its consumption of fishery products. In order not to jeopardise the Union production of fishery products and to ensure an adequate supply to the Union processing industry, import duties should be reduced or suspended for a number of fishery products within tariff quotas of an appropriate volume. To guarantee a level playing field for the Union producers, the sensitivity of individual fishery products on the Union market should also be taken into consideration.

(2)

Council Regulation (EU) No 1220/2012 (1) opened and provided for the management of autonomous Union tariff quotas for certain fishery products for the period 2013-2015. Given that the period of application of that Regulation expires on 31 December 2015, it is important that the relevant rules contained therein be reflected in the period 2016-2018.

(3)

Equal and uninterrupted access to the tariff quotas provided for in this Regulation should be ensured for all Union importers, and the rates laid down for the tariff quotas should be applied without interruption to all imports of the fishery products concerned into all Member States until the tariff quotas have been used up.

(4)

Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 (2) provides for a system of tariff-quota management which follows the chronological order of the dates of acceptance of the declarations for release for free circulation. The tariff quotas opened by this Regulation should be managed by the Commission and the Member States in accordance with that system.

(5)

The application of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between the European Union and Canada will alter the available preferential access to the Union market for shrimps and prawns of the species Pandalus borealis covered by a tariff quota provided for in this Regulation. That quota should therefore be adapted to ensure the same level of preferential supply to the Union market as before the entry into force or provisional application of that Agreement.

(6)

The application of the additional protocol to the agreement between the European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Norway that was negotiated in parallel to the EEA Financial Mechanism 2014-2021 will alter the available preferential access to the Union market for herrings covered by two tariff quotas provided for in this Regulation. Those quotas should therefore be adapted to ensure the same level of preferential supply to the Union market as before the entry into force or provisional application of that additional protocol.

(7)

It is important to provide the fishery processing industry with security of supply of raw fishery materials to permit continued growth and investment, and, most importantly, to enable it to adapt to the replacement of suspensions by quotas without any disruption of supply. It is therefore appropriate to provide, in respect of certain fishery products to which suspensions have applied, for a system which triggers an automatic increase of the applicable tariff quotas under certain conditions.

(8)

To ensure the efficiency of a common management of the tariff quotas, Member States should be permitted to draw from the tariff quota amount the necessary quantities corresponding to their actual imports. Since that method of management requires close cooperation between the Member States and the Commission, the Commission should be able to monitor the rate at which the tariff quotas are used up and should inform the Member States accordingly,

8.12.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 322/12

(1)

Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, France's application to register the name ‘Asperges du Blayais’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union  (2).

(2)

As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Asperges du Blayais’ should therefore be entered in the register,

8.12.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 322/13

(1)

Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Italy's application to register the name ‘Pampapato di Ferrara’/‘Pampepato di Ferrara’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union  (2).

(2)

As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Pampapato di Ferrara’/‘Pampepato di Ferrara’ should therefore be entered in the register,

8.12.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 322/14

(1)

Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Croatia's application to register the name ‘Drniški pršut’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union  (2).

(2)

As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Drniški pršut’ should therefore be entered in the register,

8.12.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 322/15

(1)

Council Regulation (EU) 2015/104 (2) lays down quotas for 2015.

(2)

According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2015.

(3)

It is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,

8.12.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 322/17

(1)

Council Regulation (EU) 2015/104 (2) lays down quotas for 2015.

(2)

According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2015.

(3)

It is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,

8.12.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 322/19

(1)

Council Regulation (EU) 2015/104 (2) lays down quotas for 2015.

(2)

According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2015.

(3)

It is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,

8.12.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 322/21

(1)

Following an anti-dumping investigation (‘the original investigation’) in accordance with Article 5 of the basic Regulation, the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron and steel (‘SPT’) originating in the People's Republic of China (‘the PRC’, by Regulation (EC) No 926/2009 (2) (the ‘original measures’). The original measures were based on a finding of a threat of injury and were annulled by a judgment of the General Court (3) as far as the exports of products produced by Hubei Xinyegang Steel Co. Ltd were concerned. The judgment is currently subject to appeal before the Court of Justice (4).

(2)

The imposed measures took the form of the following ad valorem duty rates: 17,7 % for the company Shandong Luxing Steel Pipe Co. Ltd, 27,2 % (other cooperating companies) and 39,2 % (all other companies).

(3)

Anti-dumping measures are currently in force on imports of SPT originating in Russia and Ukraine (5). The anti-dumping measures against Croatia were terminated on 26 June 2012 (6).

(4)

Following the publication of a notice of impending expiry (7) of the anti-dumping measures in force, the Commission received a request for the initiation of an expiry review of these measures pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation.

(5)

The request was lodged by the Defence Committee of the Seamless Steel Tubes Industry of the European Union (‘the applicant’) on behalf of producers representing more than 25 % of the total Union production of seamless pipes and tubes.

(6)

The request was based on the grounds that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in a continuation of dumping and a continuation or recurrence injury to the Union industry.

(7)

On 3 October 2014, the Commission initiated an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation. It published a notice in the Official Journal of the European Union  (8) (‘Notice of Initiation’).

(8)

In the Notice of Initiation, the Commission invited interested parties to contact it in order to participate in the investigation. In addition, the Commission specifically informed the applicant, other known Union producers, exporting producers, importers and users in the Union known to be concerned, and the Chinese authorities of the initiation of the expiry review and invited them to participate.

(9)

The Commission also informed producers in the United States of America (the ‘USA’) about the initiation of the investigation and invited them to participate. In the Notice of Initiation, the Commission informed interested parties that it envisaged the USA as a third market economy country (‘analogue country’) within the meaning of Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation.

(10)

All interested parties had the opportunity to comment on the initiation of the review and to request a hearing with the Commission and/or the Hearing Officer in trade proceedings.

(11)

In the Notice of Initiation, the Commission stated that it might sample interested parties, in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation.

(12)

In the Notice of Initiation, the Commission stated that it had provisionally selected a sample of Union producers and invited interested parties to comment. The sample was selected on the basis of sales volumes of the like product during the review investigation period in the Union whilst ensuring a geographical spread. The sample consisted of six companies in the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy, Romania and Slovakia, representing about 55 % of the total sales to unrelated customers in the Union. No comments were received and thus the provisionally selected companies were retained in the final sample.

(13)

To decide whether sampling was necessary and, if so, to select a sample, the Commission requested all unrelated importers to provide the information specified in the Notice of Initiation.

(14)

Given that only four unrelated importers came forward by providing the information requested in the Notice of Initiation, sampling was not necessary. However, out of the four unrelated importers only one cooperated in the investigation and submitted a reply to the questionnaire sent.

(15)

In view of the apparent large number of exporting producers in the PRC, sampling was envisaged in the Notice of Initiation.

(16)

To decide whether sampling was necessary and, if so, to select a sample, the Commission asked all exporting producers in the PRC to provide the information specified in the Notice of initiation. In addition, the Commission requested the Mission of the PRC to the European Union to identify and/or contact other exporting producers, if any, that could be interested in participating in the investigation.

(17)

Given that only three exporting producers in the PRC provided the Commission with the information requested, sampling was not considered necessary.

(18)

The Commission sought and verified all the information it deemed necessary for the determination of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and resulting injury and for the determination of the Union interest.

(19)

Questionnaires were sent to the three Chinese exporting producers that came forward in the sampling exercise, to the six sampled Union producers, to the four unrelated importers that came forward in the sampling exercise and to seven users. Twenty-two potential analogue producers in six countries, namely Argentina, Brazil, Japan, Mexico, Ukraine and the USA were identified and received questionnaires.

(20)

Questionnaire replies were received from one Chinese exporting producer, three analogue country producers in the USA, the six sampled Union producers, one importer and three users.

(21)

Verification visits were carried out at the premises of the following companies:

(22)

The investigation of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping covered the period from 1 July 2013 to 30 June 2014 (the ‘review investigation period’). The examination of the trends relevant for the assessment of the likelihood of a continuation or recurrence of injury covered the period from 1 January 2011 to the end of the review investigation period (the ‘period considered’).

(23)

All interested parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to maintain the definitive anti-dumping measures in force. The parties were also granted a period within which they could make representations subsequent to this disclosure. Only the applicant submitted comments after disclosure.

(24)

The product concerned is the same as in the original investigation referred to in recital 1, i.e. seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or steel, of circular cross section, of an external diameter not exceeding 406,4 mm with a Carbon Equivalent Value (CEV) not exceeding 0,86 according to the International Institute of Welding (IIW) formula and chemical analysis (9), originating in the PRC, currently falling within CN codes ex 7304 19 10, ex 7304 19 30, ex 7304 23 00, ex 7304 29 10, ex 7304 29 30, ex 7304 31 20, ex 7304 31 80, ex 7304 39 10, ex 7304 39 52, ex 7304 39 58, ex 7304 39 92, ex 7304 39 93, ex 7304 51 81, ex 7304 51 89, ex 7304 59 10, ex 7304 59 92 and ex 7304 59 93.

(25)

The investigation showed that the following products have the same basic physical and chemical characteristics as well as the same basic uses:

(26)

The Commission concluded that these products are like products within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.

(27)

In accordance with Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, it was examined whether dumping was taking place and whether the expiry of existing measures would be likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping.

(28)

As mentioned above three Chinese exporting producers came forward after the initiation and received a questionnaire. However, only one reply was received. The cooperating exporting producer accounted for more than 25 % of the Chinese imports in the Union and its imports were considered to be representative of total imports from the PRC into the Union. Therefore the findings in relation to the likelihood of a continuation or recurrence of dumping set out below were based on data of the cooperating exporting producer.

(29)

According to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, normal value was determined on the basis of the price or constructed value in a market economy third country. For this purpose, a market economy third country had to be selected (‘the analogue country’).

(30)

The Commission informed interested parties in the Notice of Initiation that it envisaged the USA, as in the original investigation, as a possible analogue country and invited parties to comment. No comments were received.

(31)

The Commission nevertheless contacted a number of other potential analogue countries (Argentina, Brazil, India, Japan, Republic of Korea, Mexico, Russian Federation and Ukraine) to seek their cooperation and to provide information.

(32)

Three producers from the USA cooperated and submitted a questionnaire reply.

(33)

The level of competition on the US market was found to be high, with a large number of producers selling domestically and with significant import levels (despite the existing anti-dumping duties against the PRC). The quantities sold in the US market were substantial and the latter was comparable to the Chinese market also in terms of product range. In addition, the raw materials used and production process of the cooperating producers in an analogue country were found to be similar to the ones on the Chinese market. Therefore, and in view of the cooperation received, the USA were considered to be an appropriate analogue country under Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation.

(34)

The information received from the cooperating producers in the USA was used as a basis for the determination of the normal value applicable to exporting producers in the PRC.

(35)

In accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation, the Commission first examined whether the total volume of domestic sales for the cooperating producers in the USA was representative during the review investigation period. The domestic sales were considered representative if the total domestic sales volume of the like product to independent customers on the domestic market represented at least 5 % of the total Chinese export sales volume of the product concerned to the Union during the review investigation period. On this basis the domestic sales in the USA were representative.

(36)

The Commission further examined whether the domestic sales of the like product could be regarded as having been made in the ordinary course of trade pursuant to Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation. The examination was made by establishing the proportion of the profitable sales to the independent customers of the product type in question. In cases where the domestic sales of the particular product type were made in sufficient quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, normal value was based on the actual domestic price, calculated as a weighted average of all the domestic sales of that type made during the review investigation period.

(37)

For those product types where more than 80 % by volume of sales on the domestic market of the product type were above cost and the weighted average sales price of that type was equal to or above the unit cost of production, normal value, by product type, was calculated as the weighted average of the actual domestic prices of all sales of the type in question, irrespective of whether those sales were profitable or not.

(38)

Where the volume of profitable sales of a product type represented 80 % or less of the total sales volume of that type, or where the weighted average price of that type was below the unit cost of production, normal value was based on the actual domestic price, which was calculated as a weighted average price of only the profitable domestic sales of that type made during the review investigation period.

(39)

The cooperating exporting producer exported to the Union directly to independent customers. The export price was the price actually paid or payable for the product under review when sold for export to the Union, in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation.

(40)

The Commission compared the normal value and the export price on an ex-works basis. Where justified for the purpose of a fair comparison, the export price and normal value were adjusted for differences affecting prices and price comparability in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation. Adjustments were made for transport costs (domestic and ocean freight), insurance costs, bank charges and commissions.

(41)

The Commission compared the weighted average normal value of each type of the like product in the analogue country with the weighted average export price of the corresponding type of the product concerned for the cooperating exporting producer, in accordance with Article 2(11) and (12) of the basic Regulation. On this basis, the weighted average dumping margin for the cooperating exporting producer expressed as a percentage of the cost, insurance, freight (‘CIF’) Union frontier price, duty unpaid, was 158,3 %.

(42)

The Commission analysed whether there was a likelihood of continuation of dumping should the measures lapse. The following elements were analysed: export price to other destinations, the production capacity and spare capacity in the PRC and the attractiveness of the Union market.

(43)

According to the Chinese Export Statistics Database, Chinese exports of SPT worldwide (124 countries excluding the Union) amounted to 4,6 million tonnes in 2013. The prices ranged between 400 EUR/ton and 4 500 EUR/ton. Chinese imports to the Union amounted to 68 000 tonnes in the review investigation period with an average price below 700 EUR/ton (based on Eurostat data). The Commission considered that such considerable differences in prices do not allow to draw any meaningful conclusion on Chinese export price behaviour to other third countries. However, the investigation found that the average export price of the cooperating exporting producer in the PRC to third markets (Chile, Iran, Korea, UEA and Turkey) was lower than the average Chinese export price to the Union. In addition, the quantities exported and the prices charged by the Chinese exporting producers in some important export markets like the Union, Canada, the USA, Colombia, Mexico, Brazil, Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan, are affected by the existing measures such as anti-dumping duties or safeguards.

(44)

The investigation established that the production capacity in the PRC grew significantly since the original investigation. Publically available data collected during the on the spot visit indicate a production capacity at a level of 32 million tonnes (10). The data provided by the applicant indicates even higher production capacity levels up to 43 million tonnes. Both sources confirm that since the original investigation, the production capacity of the Chinese producers increased significantly, i.e. by at least 60 %.

(45)

All information collected confirms the existence of overcapacity of the Chinese industry. No information was put forward indicating that the domestic consumption in the PRC would increase in the following years, in sufficient proportion to absorb the existing overcapacity in the PRC.

(46)

The investigation established that the production in the PRC was in the range of 30 million tonnes in the review investigation period thus leaving at least 2 million tonnes of spare capacity. That spare capacity constitutes more than 100 % of the Union consumption in the review investigation period and was therefore considered significant. There is therefore an important spare production capacity available in the PRC which will likely be used, in view of the conclusions with regard to the attractiveness of the Union market and of the difficulties, for the internal market, to absorb it, to increase export volumes to the Union market absent the measures.

(47)

According to Eurostat, imports from the PRC to the Union first decreased from over 78 000 tonnes in 2011 to over 47 000 tonnes in 2012 and increased again to nearly 68 000 tonnes in the review investigation period. The decrease of imports in 2012 coincided with a contraction in demand on the Union market. While the contraction in demand continued in the review investigation period, the volume of imports grew which translated in an increase in market share of the Chinese imports, reaching 3,6 % in the review investigation period.

(48)

As established in recital 41, the imports from the PRC were dumped during the review investigation period while measures were in force. The dumping margin established was even substantially higher than the dumping margin found during the original investigation. If the imports continued to be dumped in the presence of measures, then, there is no reason to believe that, absent the measures, the prices of imports from the PRC would increase, let alone to a level sufficient to eliminate the dumping.

(49)

As mentioned in recital 43, the existing measures on Chinese imports of SPT in a number of important export markets for Chinese SPT exporting producers greatly limit the possibility of expansion or continuation of the Chinese exports to these markets. At the same time, it was established that the export price to the Union of the cooperating Chinese exporting producer was higher than its export price in third markets, which indicates the attractiveness of the Union market despite the duties in force. It was further shown that the Union market would be an open target to absorb a significant part of the Chinese spare capacities that would most certainly be directed to the Union market at dumped prices in the absence of anti-dumping measures.

(50)

Furthermore, prior to the imposition of the measures in force in 2009 the Chinese exports to the Union amounted to 542 840 tonnes to the Union, i.e. nearly eight times more than in the review investigation period. This indicates that the Union market is attractive for Chinese imports in terms of market size and that there is a capacity in the Union market to absorb increased import volumes from PRC. The anti-dumping duties in place prevented Chinese exporting producers to increase their sales volumes to the Union, which will, most likely increase again should measures be allowed to lapse in particular considering the availability of significant spare capacities in PRC as outlined below.

(51)

In addition, even if the consumption on the Chinese market grew significantly since the original investigation, it is unlikely that the significant spare production capacity of the Chinese producers can be absorbed domestically, as explained in recital 45.

(52)

Therefore, should the current measures be allowed to lapse, the Chinese exporting producers are likely to significantly increase their exports to the Union market at dumped prices.

(53)

The investigation showed that Chinese sales of SPT to the Union were made at dumped prices in the review investigation period. In view of the significant spare capacity available in the PRC (exceeding the total Union consumption during the review investigation period), the measures in place against Chinese imports in other third markets and the attractiveness of the Union market, the Commission concluded that there is a very high likelihood of a continuation of dumping should measures be removed.

(54)

The Union industry did not undergo major structural changes since the original investigation. During the review investigation period, the like product was manufactured by around 20 known producers in the Union. They constitute the Union industry within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the basic Regulation.

(55)

The total Union production during the review investigation period was established on the basis of the information collected from the cooperating Union producers and on data submitted by the applicant.

(56)

As indicated under recital 12, due to the large number of Union producers, a sample of six Union producers was selected. The sample was considered representative for the Union industry, representing about 60 % of the total sales in the Union.

(57)

The Commission established the Union consumption on the basis of (i) the sales volumes of the Union industry on the Union market based on data provided by the applicant; and (ii) the import volumes from third countries on the Union market obtained from Eurostat statistics. The applicant collected and aggregated the sales data from sixteen Union producers and estimated the data for the rest.

(58)

On this basis, Union consumption developed as follows:

Table 1

Union consumption

(59)

Throughout the period considered the Union consumption decreased by 19 %. More specifically, the Union market for the product under review and like product decreased steadily until 2013 (by 22 %) and then slightly improved in the review investigation period (by 3,4 %).

(60)

The declining trend in the Union consumption can be mainly explained by the contraction in demand coming from the construction, industrial and power generation sectors, which did not recover to the pre-crisis levels, i.e. before the year 2009.

(61)

The volume of imports of the product under review from the PRC to the Union decreased by 13 % throughout the period considered, from around 78 000 tonnes in 2011 to 68 000 tonnes in the review investigation period. The import volume from the PRC dropped significantly in 2012 (by 40 %) and grew steadily ever since (by 18 % in 2013 as compared with 2012 and then by 22 % in the review investigation period as compared with 2013).

(62)

The imports of the product under review from the PRC into the Union decreased to a lesser extent than the Union consumption and this resulted in a marginal market share increase of the Chinese imports from 3,3 % in 2011 to 3,6 % in the review investigation period. More specifically, the market share decreased to 2,3 % in 2012 and increased after that to 3 % and 3,6 % in 2013 and the review investigation period respectively.

(63)

The table below shows the average price of imports from the PRC:

Table 3

Import prices

(64)

Between 2011 and the review investigation period, the average import price of the product under review originating in the PRC decreased by 14 % from 801 EUR/tonne in 2011 to 692 EUR/tonne in the review investigation period. More specifically, the Chinese import price increased by 3 % in 2012 and then decreased by more than 16 % in the review investigation period. The average import price of the cooperating exporting producer was in the same range as the average import prices from Eurostat and followed the same trend over the period considered.

(65)

The Commission determined the price undercutting during the review investigation period by comparing the weighted average sales price of the sampled Union producers charged on the Union market, adjusted to an ex-works level and the average price of the imports from the country concerned to the first independent customer on the Union market, established at a cost, insurance, freight (CIF) level on the basis of the verified data from the cooperating Chinese exporting producer.

(66)

For the purposes of calculating price undercutting, information from all sampled Union producers for the review investigation period was used. The comparison showed that, during the review investigation period, the weighted average price undercutting margin, expressed as a percentage of the Union industry's sales prices was 28,4 %. Should the anti-dumping duty of 17,7 % applicable to the cooperating Chinese exporting producer be deducted, the undercutting margin would amount to 39,2 %.

(67)

The volume, market share and prices of imports from other third countries developed as follows:

Table 4

Imports from other third countries

(68)

In the period considered, import volumes from Ukraine increased by 34 %, to reach 59 656 tonnes in the review investigation period, while import volumes from Japan, Russia and Belarus decreased by 59 %, 58 % and 12 % respectively and were 21 426 tonnes, 7 977 tonnes and 29 600 tonnes in the same period. The import volumes from other third countries increased by 31 % from 43 230 tonnes to 56 509 tonnes. In terms of market share, Ukraine and other third countries had around 3 % of the Union market while Japan and Belarus had around 1 % and 2 % respectively. Russia's market share was marginal at 0,4 % in the review investigation period.

(69)

Import prices from Ukraine, Belarus and Russia showed a downward trend throughout the period considered while import prices Japan and other third countries showed an increasing trend. In the review investigation period, the import price of SPT was around 780 EUR/tonne for Belarus and Ukraine while for Japan and other third countries it was around 2 330 EUR/tonne and 1 327 EUR/tonne. The import price for Russia was around 900 EUR/tonne in the review investigation period. Current anti-dumping measures exist on imports of SPT from Ukraine and Russia.

(70)

In accordance with Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation, the examination of the impact of the dumped imports on the Union industry included an evaluation of all economic indicators having a bearing on the state of the Union industry during the period considered.

(71)

For the injury analysis, the Commission distinguished between macroeconomic and microeconomic injury indicators. The Commission evaluated the macroeconomic indicators on the basis of the data submitted by the applicant, which consisted of data relating to 16 Union producers, and of estimations for the rest as mentioned in recital 57; the data relate to all known Union producers. The Commission evaluated the microeconomic indicators on the basis of data related to the sampled Union producers.

(72)

The macroeconomic indicators are: production, production capacity, capacity utilisation, sales volume, market share, growth, employment, productivity, magnitude of the dumping margin, and recovery from past dumping.

(73)

The microeconomic indicators are: average unit prices, unit cost, labour costs, inventories, profitability, cash flow, investments, return on investments, and ability to raise capital.

(74)

The total Union production, production capacity and capacity utilisation developed over the period considered as follows:

Table 5

Production, production capacity and capacity utilisation

(75)

The Union industry's production decreased by 10 % during the period considered from a level of 3 746 432 tonnes in 2011 to a level of 3 361 226 tonnes in the review investigation period. More specifically, it first decreased by 12 % until 2013 and then increased marginally by 2 % in the review investigation period.

(76)

The production capacity remained overall stable in the period considered and was around 5 million tonnes in the review investigation period.

(77)

As a result of the decrease in production volume and stable production capacity, the capacity utilisation developed in line with the production volume, namely it decreased to 65 % until 2013 and then improved slightly to 67 % in the review investigation period. Overall, capacity utilisation decreased from 73 % in 2011 to 67 % in the review investigation period.

(78)

The Union industry's sales volume and market share in the Union developed over the period considered as follows:

Table 6

Sales volume and market share

(79)

The total sales volume of the Union industry reported in Table 6 includes sales to unrelated and related customers which were found to be made at arm's length.

(80)

Total sales of the Union industry on the Union market declined by 20 % during the period considered. The sales of the Union industry gradually dropped by 22 % until 2013 and then improved marginally to reach over 1,6 million tonnes in the review investigation period. The decrease in the Union industry sales is mainly a consequence of the contraction of the Union demand for SPT (see recital 60). As a consequence, the Union industry lost 2 percentage points of market share during the period considered, reaching 87 % in the review investigation period.

(81)

While Union consumption decreased by 19 % over the period considered, the sales volume of the Union industry decreased by 20 %, which translated in a loss of market share of 2 percentage points.

(82)

Employment and productivity developed over the period considered as follows:

Table 7

Employment and productivity

(83)

Employment of the Union industry diminished by 2 % in the period considered and was 20 768 employees in the review investigation period.

(84)

Productivity decreased by 9 % over the period considered due to a slower decrease in Union employment than in Union production. Indeed, under normal economic conditions it takes longer for the Union industry to adapt to the contraction in demand and therefore there is usually a lagged effect between the decrease in production and the reduction of the number of employees.

(85)

The dumping margin established for the PRC was well above the de minimis level, while the import volumes from PRC remained low throughout the period considered. The investigation established that imports of SPT from PRC continued to enter the Union market at dumped prices and that the situation of the Union industry deteriorated significantly as concluded in recitals 99 to 102.

(86)

The average sales prices of the Union industry to unrelated customers in the Union developed over the period considered as follows:

Table 8

Average sales prices

(87)

The Union industry's average unit selling price to unrelated customers in the Union decreased by 10 % over the period considered to reach 1 170 EUR/tonne in the review investigation period. The decrease in price can be seen as a consequence of the efforts made by the Union industry to cut costs and also of the price pressure of the low-priced Chinese imports.

(88)

Likewise, the average cost of production of the Union industry dropped by 10 % over the period considered, from 1 257 EUR/tonne in 2011 to 1 128 EUR/tonne in the review investigation period. The cuts in cost of production could be explained mainly by more efficient production process and equipment.

(89)

The average labour costs of the Union industry developed over the period considered as follows:

Table 9

Average labour costs per employee

(90)

The average labour costs per employee remained relatively stable over the period considered with marginal decrease of 1 % over the period considered. Specifically, the average labour costs decreased by 1 % in 2012, then increased by 0,5 % and then decreased again by 1 %.

(91)

Stock levels of the sampled Union producers developed over the period considered as follows:

Table 10

Inventories

(92)

Overall closing stocks increased by 6 % over the period considered. From 2011 to 2012 the closing stocks decreased following a decrease in production volume and an increase in export sales volume. From 2012 to 2013 stocks increased due to a decrease in the total sales of the Union industry. From 2013 to the review investigation period closing stocks decreased again mainly because of an increase in the sales of the Union industry both outside and on the Union market.

(93)

The investigation showed that, in this industry, the production is executed mainly on the basis of customers' short-term orders and therefore the stocks represent a relatively low percentage of the production. Closing stocks as a percentage of production followed the trend of the closing stocks and increased marginally from 3,9 % in 2011 to 4,6 % in the review investigation period mainly due to the decrease in the total Union sales. More specifically, it decreased by 0,3 percentage points from 2011 to 2012 and then it increased by 1,5 percentage points in 2013 for the reasons explained in recital 92.

(94)

Profitability, cash flow, investments and return on investments of the sampled Union producers developed over the period considered as follows:

Table 11

Profitability, cash flow, investments and return on investments

(95)

The Commission established the profitability of the Union industry by expressing the pre-tax net profit of the sales of the like product to unrelated customers in the Union as a percentage of the turnover of those sales. The profitability of the Union industry fluctuated from one year to another depending on the market conditions and, overall, increased from 2,9 % to 3,6 % during the period considered mainly due to the product mix sold, i.e. the Union industry sold more products with relatively higher profit margin. In particular, the profitability of the Union industry increased to 5,7 % in 2012 then dropped to 1,7 % in 2013 and increased again to 3,6 % in the review investigation period.

(96)

The net cash flow is the Union industry's ability to self-finance their activities. The net cash flow increased more than four times during the period considered. The substantial increase in cash flow is mainly explained by changes in the working capital.

(97)

The investments increased marginally, by 3 %, over the period considered. They mainly represented investments necessary for the replacement of production equipment.

(98)

The return on investments is the profit in percentage of the net book value of investments. The return on investment from the production and sale of the like product increased from 3,7 % to 7,6 % during the period considered. Like the profit, the trend of the return on investment was unstable as it first increased to 8,2 % in 2012, then decreased to 5,9 % in 2013 and then increased again to 7,6 % in the review investigation period.

(99)

A number of indicators, in particular the financial indicators, improved over the period considered. The profitability increased marginally from 2,9 % to 3,6 %, which is slightly above the target profit of 3 % established in the original investigation. The return on investment improved from 3,7 % to 7,6 % while the cash flow level increased more than four fold. These developments suggest that the anti-dumping measures in place were effective since the Union industry was sheltered from the potential injurious effect of the dumped Chinese imports of SPT.

(100)

On the other hand, some of the main injury indicators, in particular the macroeconomic indicators, still experienced a negative development during the period considered. Thus the production volume decreased by 10 %, the sales volume to unrelated customers in the Union decreased by 20 %, the capacity utilisation decreased to 67 %, the Union's market share decreased by 2 percentage points and employment by 2 %. In the context of a decreasing demand for SPT, the Union industry produced and sold less on the Union market resulting in relatively low capacity utilisation levels, which negatively impacted on the fixed costs of the Union industry. To be noted that the capacity utilisation level dropped significantly from the original investigation, specifically from 90 % in the original investigation to 67 % in the review investigation period.

(101)

Therefore, the picture of the Union industry was mixed. Some of the main injury indicators such as sales, production volumes and market share showed negative trends in the period considered. At the same time, other factors such as profitability, return on investment and the cash flow showed positive trends in the same period. However, the investigation has established that despite these positive trends observed for some injury factors, overall, the Union industry is in a situation where it would not be able to cope with a surge of dumped imports from PRC. More importantly, the situation of the Union industry overall showed in fact a significant deterioration when compared to the investigation period of the original investigation. Thus, even though the Union industry was profitable during the period considered, the profit levels were much lower as compared to the original investigation (3,6 % in the review investigation period as compared with 15,4 % in the investigation period of the original investigation) and also varied greatly from one year to another according to the SPT market conditions (e.g. from 5,7 % in 2012 to 1,7 % in 2013 and then to 3,6 % in the review investigation period).

(102)

On the basis of the above, the Commission concluded that in the review investigation period, the Union industry did not suffer material injury within the meaning of Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation and was not exposed to a threat of injury within the meaning of Article 3(9) of the basic Regulation, mainly due to the fact that the anti-dumping measures in force shielded it from the injurious effect of the Chinese dumped imports. Nevertheless, the situation of the Union industry strongly deteriorated as compared to the original investigation with instable profit levels and low capacity utilisation rates.

(103)

As concluded in recitals 99 to 102, the Union industry did not suffer material injury during the review investigation period, but its situation strongly deteriorated as compared to the original investigation. As outlined in recital 41, Chinese imports were made at dumped price levels during the review investigation period and, as concluded in recital 53, there is a very high likelihood of a continuation of dumping should the measures be allowed to lapse.

(104)

The original investigation determined the existence of a threat of injury in accordance with Article 3(9) of the basic Regulation. In the current investigation it was determined that there exists a likelihood of a recurrence of a threat of injury should the measures be allowed to lapse. This determination is based on the assessment of the following factors: (a) the likely development of the volume of dumped imports; (b) the availability of spare capacity of the exporters; (c) the level of prices of the Chinese imports and the likely demand for further imports; and (d) the level of inventories.

(105)

As mentioned in recital 50, the Chinese imports of SPT into the Union amounted to 542 840 tonnes in the original investigation and dropped to 68 000 tonnes (i.e. eight times less) in the review investigation period. It is likely that, due to their low prices, the Chinese dumped imports of SPT could reach the level of imports in the original investigation (542 840 tonnes) should the measures be allowed to lapse. In the context of a decreasing Union demand of SPT (from 3,2 million tonnes in the original investigation to 1,9 million tonnes in the review investigation period), this likely increase in Chinese dumped imports of SPT would likely translate into a Chinese market share increase from the current 3,6 % to around 30 %. Indeed, the investigation revealed that the Union customers will relatively easy switch their short-term orders from the Union producers to the Chinese exporting producers should the measures be allowed to lapse. This will negatively impact the Union producers since fewer orders imply lower production levels and thus working at economically unsustainable capacity utilisation levels. For the reasons outlined and taking into account that Chinese production capacity of SPT has grown significantly (by around 60 %) since the original investigation, it is likely that the dumped Chinese imports of SPT will imminently flood the Union market and gain substantial market share at the expense of the Union industry should the measures be allowed to lapse.

(106)

As established in recital 46, the total spare capacity of SPT in the PRC was estimated at around 2 million tonnes in the review investigation period. This amount exceeded the total Union consumption of SPT during the same period. Therefore, the PRC would be able to export significant additional volumes to the Union market. Furthermore, Canada, the USA, Colombia, Mexico and Brazil have anti-dumping and safeguard measures in place on Chinese SPT, while Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan provisionally imposed measures on the unfairly priced Chinese imports. These countries were important export markets for the Chinese exporting producers before the imposition of measures (11). Furthermore, the evidence collected indicates that the significant Chinese overcapacity and the recent downturn of the Chinese economy exert strong pressure on the Chinese SPT producers to produce at high capacity utilisation rates. In view of these elements, the investigation has established that there is a strong likelihood that, should the measures be lifted, the Chinese exporting producers would direct their production to the Union market, which remains an attractive market as established in recitals 47 to 52.

(107)

As explained in recitals 64 to 66, the current Chinese prices are substantially below the Union industry's sale prices, with an average undercutting margin of 28,4 % during the review investigation period. As established in recital 52, Chinese imports of SPT will likely continue to enter the Union market at dumped prices should the measures be repealed. In addition, as mentioned in recital 66, without the anti-dumping measures the Chinese imports would undercut the Union industry's sales prices by 39,2 %. Should the measures be repealed, this will, in all likelihood, create a significant price pressure on the Union market, which will be accentuated by the likely imminent surge of SPT imports from the PRC. The investigation revealed that the Union producers cannot decrease their prices to compete with the dumped priced Chinese imports. The prices are usually agreed with the customers on the basis of the product type and quantity ordered. As explained in recitals 92 and 93, the Union producers mainly produce on the basis of short-term orders. This makes it relatively easy for the customers to switch to the cheaper Chinese imports of SPT. Therefore, the likely negative effect would be twofold: (a) on the one hand, the significant price differential is likely to cause a shift towards the low priced dumped imports from the PRC. There is no indication that the Union consumption will increase in the short to medium term. Therefore, the increased dumped imports from the PRC are likely to gain a significant market share on the Union market to the detriment of the Union industry. This would also result in an even lower capacity utilisation by the Union industry, which is one of the crucial elements that is contributing to the current overall negative situation of the Union industry; (b) on the other hand, the low-priced dumped Chinese imports will exert significant price pressure on the Union market and will force the Union industry to further lower its sales prices to economically unsustainable levels, which will ultimately lead to losses.

(108)

Therefore, there is a strong likelihood that, as a consequence of the significant Chinese spare capacity, the existing anti-dumping and safeguard measures on Chinese imports of the product under review in some of its important export markets for SPT, and of the attractiveness of the Union market as described in recitals 47 to 52, significantly increased quantities of low priced Chinese dumped imports into the Union would be imminent should the measures be allowed to lapse.

(109)

As explained in recitals 92 and 93 the level of inventories is not of any particular significance for the analysis because the Union producers mainly produce on the basis of short-term orders from customers and the inventories represent an insignificant percentage of the Union producers' production.

(110)

In view of the findings of the investigation, namely the significant spare capacity in the PRC, the attractiveness of the Union market, the situation in other main export markets, the likely imminent increase of significant quantities of Chinese dumped imports and the expected price levels of these dumped imports, while also taking into consideration the overall deterioration of the Union industry since the imposition of the original measures and the shrinking of the Union market for SPT, it is considered that the repeal of the measures would in all likelihood lead to a recurrence of a threat of injury.

(111)

It is therefore concluded that the repeal of the existing measures would be likely to lead to a continuation of dumping and to a recurrence of a threat of injury.

(112)

In accordance with Article 21 of the basic Regulation, the Commission examined whether maintaining the existing anti-dumping measures against the PRC would be against the interest of the Union as a whole. The determination of the Union interest was based on an appreciation of all the various interests involved, including those of the Union industry, importers and users.

(113)

All interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known pursuant to Article 21(2) of the basic Regulation.

(114)

On this basis, the Commission examined whether, despite the conclusions on the likelihood of a continuation of dumping and recurrence of a threat of injury, compelling reasons existed which would lead to the conclusion that it was not in the Union interest to maintain the existing measures.

(115)

The investigation established that the Union industry was in a vulnerable position during the review investigation period. As mentioned in recital 60 the contraction in the Union demand together with instable profit margins and low capacity utilisation levels of the Union industry indicate that the Union industry would not be able to cope with unfairly priced Chinese imports. The investigation also established that there was a likelihood of recurrence of a threat of injury should measures against Chinese imports be allowed to lapse. In particular, it is expected that the Union industry suffer material injury and possibly disappear should Chinese imports of SPT resume on the Union market at dumped prices due to the fact that any lost sale would increase the fixed costs.

(116)

Should measures be maintained it is expected that the Union industry will be able to fully benefit from the effects of the measures imposed, namely it will be able to maintain its market share on the Union market and improve capacity utilisation levels. Eventually it should be able to keep the profit levels on the positive side.

(117)

It was therefore concluded that maintaining the measures in force against the PRC would be in the interest of the Union industry.

(118)

Out of the four importers that came forward following the publication of the Notice of Initiation, only one unrelated importer submitted a reply to the questionnaire.

(119)

The analysis of the verified data showed that SPT constitutes only about 5 % to 10 % of their total sales. The cooperating importer was profitable in the period under review. Profitability of the cooperating importer of the business related to SPT was between 1 % and 7 % in the review investigation period. On this basis, should the measures be maintained, it is likely that they would not significantly affect the activity of this cooperating importer. Furthermore, given the non-cooperation of other importers, there are no factors suggesting that the rest of importers would be disproportionately affected if measures were to be extended.

(120)

Three users co-operated in the investigation. Two out of the three cooperating users purchased SPT from the Union producers and the third one purchased Chinese SPT from a trader. None of the three users put forward any argument against the maintenance of the measures in force. On the basis of the information submitted and in line with the conclusions drawn in the original investigation, it is expected that the continuation of measures will not have a significant negative impact on users. To the contrary, it is expected that the continuation of the measures will ensure competition in the EU market giving the possibility to choose among different suppliers, including European and other third country suppliers.

(121)

In view of the above, the Commission concluded that there are no compelling reasons of Union interest against the maintenance of the current anti-dumping measures on imports from the PRC.

(122)

It follows from the above considerations that, under Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes originating in the PRC, imposed by Regulation (EC) No 926/2009 should be maintained.

(123)

This regulation is in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 15(1) Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009,

8.12.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 322/42

(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,

8.12.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 322/44

(1)

On 18 March 2013, the Council adopted Decision 2013/133/CFSP (1) appointing Mr Michel Dominique REVEYRAND — DE MENTHON as the European Union Special Representative (EUSR) for the Sahel. The EUSR's mandate expired on 31 October 2015.

(2)

A new EUSR for the Sahel should be appointed for the period from 1 November 2015 to 28 February 2017.

(3)

The EUSR will implement the EUSR's mandate in the context of a situation which may deteriorate and could impede the achievement of the objectives of the Union's external action as set out in Article 21 of the Treaty,

(a)

actively contribute to the implementation of the Strategy and its RAP and to coordinate and further develop the Union's comprehensive approach to the regional crisis, with a view to enhancing the overall coherence and effectiveness of Union activities in the Sahel;

(b)

engage with all relevant stakeholders of the region, governments, regional organisations, in particular G5 Sahel, international organisations, civil society and diasporas, including with the countries of the Maghreb and Lake Chad Basin, with a view to furthering the Union's objectives and contribute to a better understanding of the role of the Union in the Sahel;

(c)

represent and promote the interests of the Union in relevant regional and international fora, including participation in the Comité de Suivi of the Mali Peace Agreement, and ensure visibility for Union support to crisis management and conflict prevention, including EUTM Mali, EUCAP Sahel Mali and EUCAP Sahel Niger;

(d)

maintain close cooperation with the United Nations (UN), in particular the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for West Africa, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Mali, and the Special Envoy of the Secretary General for the Sahel, the African Union (AU), in particular the AU High Representative for Mali and the Sahel, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), the G5 Sahel, the Lake Chad Basin Commission and other leading national, regional and international stakeholders including other Special Envoys for the Sahel, as well as with the relevant bodies in the Maghreb area;

(e)

closely follow the regional and trans-boundary dimensions of the challenges in the Sahel, including terrorism, organised crime, arms smuggling, human trafficking, and smuggling, drug trafficking, refugee and migration flows and related financial flows; in close cooperation with the EU Counter-Terrorism Coordinator, contribute to the further implementation of the EU Counter-Terrorism Strategy;

(f)

closely follow the humanitarian, political, security and development consequences of large scale refugee and migration flows and related illicit financial flows across the region; upon request, engage in dialogues on migration with relevant stakeholders and contribute more generally to Union policy on migration and refugees with respect to the region, in line with the Union's political priorities, in order to increase cooperation including on return and readmission; work with countries of the Sahel to follow up action agreed at the Valletta Summit in November 2015;

(g)

maintain regular high level political contacts with the countries in the region affected by terrorism and international crime in order to ensure a coherent and comprehensive approach and to ensure the Union's key role in the international efforts to fight terrorism and international crime. This includes the Union's active support to regional capacity-building in the security sector, and ensuring that the root causes of terrorism and international crime in the Sahel are adequately addressed;

(h)

closely follow the political, security and development consequences of humanitarian crises in the region;

(i)

with regard to Mali, contribute to the stabilisation of the country, in particular a full return to constitutional normalcy and governance throughout the territory and a credible national inclusive dialogue in the overall framework of the Mali peace Agreement. This also includes promoting institution building, security sector reform and long-term peace building and reconciliation and fighting against corruption and impunity in Mali;

(j)

contribute to the implementation of the Union's human rights policy in the region in cooperation with the EUSR for Human Rights, including the EU Guidelines on human rights, in particular the EU Guidelines on Children and Armed Conflict, as well as on violence against women and girls and combating all forms of discrimination against them, and the Union's policy on Women, Peace and Security, and promote inclusiveness and gender equality in the state building process, in line with the UN Security Council Resolution 1325 (2000) and subsequent resolutions on Women, Peace and Security, including Resolution 2242 (2015). The contribution will include monitoring and reporting on developments, as well as formulating recommendations in this regard and maintain regular contacts with the relevant authorities in Mali and in the region, the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the human rights defenders and observers in the region.

(k)

follow up and report on compliance with relevant resolutions of the UN Security Council (UNSCRs), in particular UNSCRs 2056 (2012), 2071 (2012), 2085 (2012), 2100 (2013) and 2227 (2015).

(a)

advise and report on the formulation of Union positions in regional and international fora, as appropriate, in order to proactively promote and strengthen the Union's comprehensive approach towards the crisis in the Sahel;

(b)

maintain an overview of all activities of the Union and cooperate closely with relevant Union delegations.

(a)

establishing a specific security plan based on guidance from the EEAS, including specific physical, organisational and procedural security measures, governing the management of the secure movement of personnel to, and within, the area of responsibility, as well as the management of security incidents and including a contingency and evacuation plan;

(b)

ensuring that all personnel deployed outside the Union are covered by high-risk insurance as required by the conditions in the area of responsibility;

(c)

ensuring that all members of the EUSR's team to be deployed outside the Union, including locally contracted personnel, have received appropriate security training before or upon arriving in the area of responsibility, based on the risk ratings assigned to that area by the EEAS;

(d)

ensuring that all agreed recommendations made following regular security assessments are implemented and providing the Council, the HR and the Commission with written reports on their implementation and on other security issues within the framework of the progress report and with the mandate implementation report.

8.12.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 322/50

(1)

On 16 July 2012, the Council adopted Decision 2012/389/CFSP (1) on the European Union Mission on Regional Maritime Capacity Building in the Horn of Africa (EUCAP NESTOR).

(2)

On 22 July 2014, the Council adopted Decision 2014/485/CFSP (2) extending EUCAP NESTOR until 12 December 2016.

(3)

On 6 October 2015, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2015/1793 (3) extending the period covered by the financial reference amount until 15 December 2015.

(4)

Decision 2012/389/CFSP should be amended to provide for a financial reference amount for the period from 16 December 2015 to 12 December 2016,

8.12.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 322/51

(1)

On 22 May 2013, the Council adopted Decision 2013/233/CFSP (1) establishing the European Union Integrated Border Management Assistance Mission in Libya (EUBAM Libya).

(2)

On 21 May 2015, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2015/800 (2) amending and extending Decision 2013/233/CFSP, in particular by extending EUBAM Libya until 21 November 2015 and providing for a financial reference amount for the same period.

(3)

EUBAM Libya should be extended for a further period of three months, until 21 February 2016.

(4)

Decision 2013/233/CFSP should be amended accordingly.

(5)

EUBAM Libya will be conducted in the context of a situation which may deteriorate and could impede the achievement of the objectives of the Union's external action as set out in Article 21 of the Treaty,

(1)

In Article 13, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:

‘1.   The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to EUBAM Libya for the period from 22 May 2013 to 21 May 2014 shall be EUR 30 300 000.

The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to EUBAM Libya for the period from 22 May 2014 to 21 February 2016 shall be EUR 26 200 000.’.

(2)

In Article 16, the second paragraph is replaced by the following:

‘It shall apply until 21 February 2016.’.

8.12.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 322/53

(1)

Pursuant to Article 109(8) of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 Member States shall establish a national plan for the implementation of the validation system, allowing Member States to make priorities for the validation and cross-checks and subsequent follow up on inconsistencies based on risk management.

(2)

National plans of the Hellenic Republic (Greece) and the Republic of Croatia have been submitted to the Commission for approval. They are in line with Article 109 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 and Articles 143 to 145 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 404/2011 (2). They should therefore be approved.

(3)

This Decision constitutes the approval decision within the meaning of Article 109(8) of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009.

(4)

The Commission will monitor the application of the national plans with respect to their effective operation. If, on the basis of the findings of the verifications, inspections and audits carried out by the Commission within the framework of Title X of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009, amendments to the national validation plans will be deemed necessary, the Member States should amend the plan accordingly,

8.12.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 322/55

(1)

Directive 64/432/EEC lays down rules for trade within the Union in bovine animals, including the requirement that bovine animals covered by that act are to be accompanied during transportation by a health certificate conforming to model 1 set out in Annex F thereto (‘model 1’). Article 9 of that Directive provides that a Member State which has a compulsory national control programme for infectious bovine rhinotracheitis may submit its programme to the Commission for approval. Article 9 of Directive 64/432/EEC also provides for the definition of the additional guarantees which may be required in intra-Union trade.

(2)

In addition, Article 10 of Directive 64/432/EEC provides that where a Member State considers that its territory or part thereof is free from infectious bovine rhinotracheitis, it is to present appropriate supporting documentation to the Commission. That Article also provides for the definition of the additional guarantees which may be required in intra-Union trade.

(3)

Commission Decision 2004/558/EC (2) approves the programmes for the control and eradication of infection with bovine herpes virus type 1 (BHV1) presented by the Member States listed in Annex I thereto for the regions listed in that Annex and for which additional guarantees apply in accordance with Article 9 of Directive 64/432/EEC. In addition, Annex II to Decision 2004/558/EC lists the regions of the Member States that are considered free of BHV1 and for which additional guarantees apply in accordance with Article 10 of Directive 64/432/EEC. Articles 2 and 3 of Decision 2004/558/EC also specify the information which is to be inserted in model 1, as regards the references to that Decision.

(4)

Commission Implementing Decision 2014/798/EU (3) amended Directive 64/432/EEC, including model 1. As a consequence, it is necessary to amend the references to model 1 in Articles 2 and 3 of Decision 2004/558/EC.

(5)

The Federal States of Bremen, Hamburg, Hesse, Lower Saxony, North Rhine-Westphalia, Rhineland-Palatinate, Saarland and Schleswig-Holstein of Germany are currently listed in Annex I to Decision 2004/558/EC.

(6)

Germany has submitted to the Commission supporting documentation for the Federal States of Bremen, Hesse and Lower Saxony to be considered free of BHV1 and for the additional guarantees in accordance with Article 10 of Directive 64/432/EEC to apply to them.

(7)

Following the evaluation of the supporting documentation submitted by Germany, the Federal States of Bremen, Hesse and Lower Saxony should no longer be listed in Annex I to Decision 2004/558/EC, but instead should be listed in Annex II thereto and the application of the additional guarantees in accordance with Article 10 of Directive 64/432/EEC should be extended to cover them. Annexes I and II to Decision 2004/558/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.

(8)

Decision 2004/558/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.

(9)

The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed,

(1)

In Article 2, paragraph 4 is replaced by the following:

‘4.   In point II.3.3 of Section C of the health certificate set out in model 1 of Annex F to Directive 64/432/EEC accompanying bovine animals as referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article, the appropiate Article, paragraph and point numbers of this Decision shall be indicated in the corresponding spaces to be filled in in that point.’

(2)

In Article 3, paragraph 3 is replaced by the following:

‘3.   In point II.3.3 of Section C of the health certificate set out in model 1 of Annex F to Directive 64/432/EEC accompanying bovine animals as referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article, the appropiate Article, paragraph and point numbers of this Decision shall be indicated in the corresponding spaces to be filled in in that point.’

(3)

Annexes I and II are replaced by the text in the Annex to this Decision.

8.12.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 322/58

(1)

On 17 May 2010, Monsanto Europe SA submitted to the competent authority of the Netherlands an application in accordance with Articles 5 and 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 for the placing on the market of foods, food ingredients, and feed containing, consisting of, or produced from NK603 × T25 maize (‘the application’).

(2)

The application also covers the placing on the market of genetically modified maize NK603 × T25 in products consisting of it or containing it for other uses than food and feed as any other maize, with the exception of cultivation.

(3)

In accordance with Articles 5(5) and 17(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, the application includes the data and information required by Annexes III and IV to Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) and information and conclusions about the risk assessment carried out in accordance with the principles set out in Annex II to that Directive. It also includes a monitoring plan for environmental effects conforming with Annex VII to Directive 2001/18/EC.

(4)

On 15 July 2015, the European Food Safety Authority (‘EFSA’) gave a favourable opinion in accordance with Articles 6 and 18 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003. It concluded that genetically modified maize NK603 × T25, as described in the application, is as safe as its non-genetically modified comparator and other non-genetically modified maize varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment in the context of its scope (3).

(5)

In its opinion, EFSA considered all the specific questions and concerns raised by the Member States in the context of the consultation of the national competent authorities as provided for by Articles 6(4) and 18(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003.

(6)

In its opinion, EFSA also concluded that the monitoring plan for environmental effects, consisting of a general surveillance plan, submitted by the applicant is in line with the intended uses of the products.

(7)

Taking into account these considerations, authorisation should be granted to the products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize NK603 × T25.

(8)

A unique identifier should be assigned to each genetically modified organism (hereinafter ‘GMO’) as provided for in Commission Regulation (EC) No 65/2004 (4).

(9)

On the basis of the EFSA opinion, no specific labelling requirements, other than those provided for in Articles 13(1) and 25(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, appear to be necessary for food, food ingredients and feed containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize NK603 × T25. However, in order to ensure the use of those products within the limits of the authorisation granted by this Decision, the labelling of the products containing or consisting of NK603 × T25 maize, with the exception of food products, should be complemented by a clear indication that the products in question are not intended for cultivation.

(10)

Regulation (EC) No 1830/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (5) lays down labelling requirements in Article 4(6) for products containing or consisting of GMOs. Traceability requirements for those products are laid down in paragraphs 1 to 5 of Article 4 and traceability requirements for food and feed produced from GMOs are laid down in Article 5 of that Regulation.

(11)

The authorisation holder should submit annual reports on the implementation and the results of the activities set out in the monitoring plan for environmental effects. Those results should be presented in accordance with Commission Decision 2009/770/EC (6). The EFSA opinion does not justify either the imposition of specific conditions or restrictions for the placing on the market and/or the use and handling of the food and feed, including post-market monitoring requirements or specific conditions for the protection of particular ecosystems/environment and/or geographical areas, as provided for in Articles 6(5)(e) and 18(5)(e) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003.

(12)

All relevant information on the authorisation of the products should be entered in the Community register of genetically modified food and feed provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003.

(13)

This Decision is to be notified through the Biosafety Clearing-House to the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity, pursuant to Articles 9(1) and 15(2)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1946/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (7).

(14)

The Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed has not delivered an opinion within the time-limit laid down by its Chairman. An implementing act was deemed to be necessary and the chair submitted the draft implementing act to the appeal committee for further deliberation. The appeal committee did not deliver an opinion,

(a)

foods and food ingredients containing, consisting of, or produced from MON-ØØ6Ø3-6 × ACS-ZMØØ3-2 maize;

(b)

feed containing, consisting of, or produced from MON-ØØ6Ø3-6 × ACS-ZMØØ3-2 maize;

(c)

MON-ØØ6Ø3-6 × ACS-ZMØØ3-2 maize in products containing it or consisting of it for any other use than those provided in points (a) and (b), with the exception of cultivation.

8.12.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 322/64

(1)

On 10 March 2015 the supplier DENSO Corporation (the ‘Applicant’) submitted an application for the approval of its second innovative technology: the DENSO efficient alternator of the output class of from 100 A to 250 A. The completeness of that application was assessed in accordance with Article 4 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011 (2). The application was found to be complete and the period granted to the Commission for its assessment of the application started on 11 March 2015, which was the day following the date of official receipt of the complete information.

(2)

The application has been assessed in accordance with Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009, Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011 and the Technical Guidelines for the preparation of applications for the approval of innovative technologies pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 (the ‘Technical Guidelines’, version February 2013) (3). The information provided in the application demonstrates that the conditions and criteria referred to in Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 and in Articles 2 and 4 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011 seem to have been met.

(3)

The Applicant has demonstrated that a high efficiency alternator of the kind described in this application did not exceed 3 % of the new passenger cars registered in the reference year 2009.

(4)

In order to determine the CO2 savings that the innovative technology will deliver when fitted to a vehicle, it is necessary to define the baseline vehicle against which the efficiency of the vehicle equipped with the innovative technology should be compared as provided for in Articles 5 and 8 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011. It is appropriate to consider an alternator with 67 % efficiency as an appropriate baseline technology in the case the innovative technology is fitted on a new vehicle type. Where the DENSO efficient alternator is fitted to an existing vehicle type, the baseline technology should be the alternator of the most recent version of that type placed on the market.

(5)

The Applicant has provided a methodology for testing the CO2 reductions which includes formulae that are consistent with the formulae described in the Technical Guidelines for the simplified approach with regard to efficient alternators. The Commission considers that the testing methodology will provide testing results that are verifiable, repeatable and comparable and that it is capable of demonstrating in a realistic manner the CO2 emissions benefits of the innovative technology with strong statistical significance in accordance with Article 6 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011.

(6)

As the Applicant's testing methodology and formulae to calculate the CO2 savings are in all respects identical to the methodology specified in the Annex to Commission Implementing Decision 2013/341/EU (4), for reasons of consistency, it is appropriate to use the methodology specified in Implementing Decision 2013/341/EU to determine the reduction in CO2 emissions due to the use of the DENSO efficient alternator.

(7)

Against that background the Commission finds that the Applicant has demonstrated satisfactorily that the emission reduction achieved by the innovative technology is at least 1 g CO2/km.

(8)

The savings of the innovative technology may be partially demonstrated on the standard test cycle, and the final total savings to be certified should therefore be determined in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 8(2) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011.

(9)

The verification report has been prepared by the Vehicle Certification Agency (VCA) which is an independent and certified body and the report supports the findings set out in the application.

(10)

Therefore, no objections should be raised as regards the approval of the innovative technology in question.

(11)

For the purposes of determining the general eco-innovation code to be used in the relevant type-approval documents in accordance with Annexes I, VIII and IX to Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (5), the individual code to be used for the innovative technology approved through this Implementing Decision should be specified.

(12)

Any manufacturer wishing to benefit from a reduction of its average specific CO2 emissions for the purpose of meeting its specific emissions target by means of the CO2 savings from the use of the innovative technology approved by this Decision should in accordance with Article 11(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011, refer to this Decision in its application for an EC type-approval certificate for the vehicles concerned,

8.12.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 322/67

(1)

On 11 June 2012, Monsanto Europe S.A. submitted to the competent authority of Belgium an application in accordance with Articles 5 and 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 for the placing on the market of foods, food ingredients, and feed containing, consisting of, or produced from MON 87427 maize (‘the application’).

(2)

The application also covers the placing on the market of genetically modified maize MON 87427 in products consisting of it or containing it for other uses than food and feed as any other maize, with the exception of cultivation.

(3)

In accordance with Articles 5(5) and 17(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, the application includes the data and information required by Annexes III and IV to Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) and information and conclusions about the risk assessment carried out in accordance with the principles set out in Annex II to that Directive. It also includes a monitoring plan for environmental effects conforming with Annex VII to Directive 2001/18/EC.

(4)

On 19 June 2015, the European Food Safety Authority (‘EFSA’) gave a favourable opinion in accordance with Articles 6 and 18 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003. It concluded that genetically modified maize MON 87427, as described in the application, is as safe as its conventional counterpart and other non-genetically modified maize varieties and is unlikely to have adverse effects on human and animal health and the environment in the context of the scope of the application (3).

(5)

In its opinion, EFSA considered all the specific questions and concerns raised by the Member States in the context of the consultation of the national competent authorities as provided for by Articles 6(4) and 18(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003.

(6)

In its opinion, EFSA also concluded that the monitoring plan for environmental effects, consisting of a general surveillance plan, submitted by the applicant is in line with the intended uses of the products.

(7)

Taking into account these considerations, authorisation should be granted to the products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize MON 87427.

(8)

A unique identifier should be assigned to each genetically modified organism (hereinafter ‘GMO’) as provided for in Commission Regulation (EC) No 65/2004 (4).

(9)

On the basis of the EFSA opinion, no specific labelling requirements, other than those provided for in Articles 13(1) and 25(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, appear to be necessary for foods, food ingredients and feed containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize MON 87427. However, in order to ensure the use of those products within the limits of the authorisation granted by this Decision, the labelling of the products containing or consisting of MON 87427 maize, with the exception of food products, should be complemented by a clear indication that the products in question are not intended for cultivation.

(10)

Regulation (EC) No 1830/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (5) lays down labelling requirements in Article 4(6) for products containing or consisting of GMOs. Traceability requirements for those products are laid down in paragraphs 1 to 5 of Article 4 and traceability requirements for food and feed produced from GMOs are laid down in Article 5 of that Regulation.

(11)

The authorisation holder should submit annual reports on the implementation and the results of the activities set out in the monitoring plan for environmental effects. Those results should be presented in accordance with Commission Decision 2009/770/EC (6). The EFSA opinion does not justify either the imposition of specific conditions or restrictions for the placing on the market and/or the use and handling of the food and feed, including post-market monitoring requirements or specific conditions for the protection of particular ecosystems/environment and/or geographical areas, as provided for in Articles 6(5)(e) and 18(5)(e) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003.

(12)

All relevant information on the authorisation of the products should be entered in the Community register of genetically modified food and feed, as provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003.

(13)

This Decision is to be notified through the Biosafety Clearing-House to the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity, pursuant to Article 9(1) and Article 15(2)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1946/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (7).

(14)

The Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed has not delivered an opinion within the time limit laid down by its Chairman. An implementing act was deemed to be necessary and the chair submitted the draft implementing act to the appeal committee for further deliberation. The appeal committee did not deliver an opinion,

(a)

foods and food ingredients containing, consisting of, or produced from MON-87427-7 maize;

(b)

feed containing, consisting of, or produced from MON-87427-7 maize;

(c)

MON-87427-7 maize in products containing it or consisting of it for any other use than those provided in points (a) and (b), with the exception of cultivation.