23.12.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 336/1

(1)

A number of amendments should be made to Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (3). In the interests of clarity, that Directive should be recast.

(2)

Directive 2008/95/EC has harmonised central provisions of substantive trade mark law which at the time of adoption were considered as most directly affecting the functioning of the internal market by impeding the free movement of goods and the freedom to provide services in the Union.

(3)

Trade mark protection in the Member States coexists with protection available at Union level through European Union trade marks (‘EU trade marks’) which are unitary in character and valid throughout the Union as laid down in Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (4). The coexistence and balance of trade mark systems at national and Union level in fact constitutes a cornerstone of the Union's approach to intellectual property protection.

(4)

Further to the Commission's communication of 16 July 2008 on an industrial property rights strategy for Europe, the Commission carried out a comprehensive evaluation of the overall functioning of the trade mark system in Europe as a whole, covering Union and national levels and the interrelation between the two.

(5)

In its conclusions of 25 May 2010 on the future revision of the trade mark system in the European Union, the Council called on the Commission to present proposals for the revision of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 and Directive 2008/95/EC. The revision of that Directive should include measures to make it more consistent with Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, which would thus reduce the areas of divergence within the trade mark system in Europe as a whole, while maintaining national trade mark protection as an attractive option for applicants. In this context, the complementary relationship between the EU trade mark system and national trade mark systems should be ensured.

(6)

The Commission concluded in its communication of 24 May 2011 entitled ‘A single market for intellectual property rights’ that in order to meet increased demands from stakeholders for faster, higher quality, more streamlined trade mark registration systems, which are also more consistent, user friendly, publicly accessible and technologically up to date, there is a necessity to modernise the trade mark system in the Union as a whole and adapt it to the internet era.

(7)

Consultation and evaluation for the purpose of this Directive has revealed that, in spite of the previous partial harmonisation of national laws, there remain areas where further harmonisation could have a positive impact on competitiveness and growth.

(8)

In order to serve the objective of fostering and creating a well-functioning internal market and to facilitate acquiring and protecting trade marks in the Union, to the benefit of the growth and the competitiveness of European businesses, in particular small and medium-sized enterprises, it is necessary to go beyond the limited scope of approximation achieved by Directive 2008/95/EC and extend approximation to other aspects of substantive trade mark law governing trade marks protected through registration pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 207/2009.

(9)

For the purpose of making trade mark registrations throughout the Union easier to obtain and administer, it is essential to approximate not only provisions of substantive law but also procedural rules. Therefore, the principal procedural rules in the area of trade mark registration in the Member States and in the EU trade mark system should be aligned. As regards procedures under national law, it is sufficient to lay down general principles, leaving the Member States free to establish more specific rules.

(10)

It is essential to ensure that registered trade marks enjoy the same protection under the legal systems of all the Member States. In line with the extensive protection granted to EU trade marks which have a reputation in the Union, extensive protection should also be granted at national level to all registered trade marks which have a reputation in the Member State concerned.

(11)

This Directive should not deprive the Member States of the right to continue to protect trade marks acquired through use but should take them into account only with regard to their relationship with trade marks acquired by registration.

(12)

Attainment of the objectives of this approximation of laws requires that the conditions for obtaining and continuing to hold a registered trade mark be, in general, identical in all Member States.

(13)

To this end, it is necessary to list examples of signs which are capable of constituting a trade mark, provided that such signs are capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one undertaking from those of other undertakings. In order to fulfil the objectives of the registration system for trade marks, namely to ensure legal certainty and sound administration, it is also essential to require that the sign is capable of being represented in a manner which is clear, precise, self-contained, easily accessible, intelligible, durable and objective. A sign should therefore be permitted to be represented in any appropriate form using generally available technology, and thus not necessarily by graphic means, as long as the representation offers satisfactory guarantees to that effect.

(14)

Furthermore, the grounds for refusal or invalidity concerning the trade mark itself, including the absence of any distinctive character, or concerning conflicts between the trade mark and earlier rights, should be listed in an exhaustive manner, even if some of those grounds are listed as an option for the Member States which should therefore be able to maintain or introduce them in their legislation.

(15)

In order to ensure that the levels of protection afforded to geographical indications by Union legislation and national law are applied in a uniform and exhaustive manner in the examination of absolute and relative grounds for refusal throughout the Union, this Directive should include the same provisions in relation to geographical indications as contained in Regulation (EC) No 207/2009. Furthermore, it is appropriate to ensure that the scope of absolute grounds is extended to also cover protected traditional terms for wine and traditional specialties guaranteed.

(16)

The protection afforded by the registered trade mark, the function of which is in particular to guarantee the trade mark as an indication of origin, should be absolute in the event of there being identity between the mark and the corresponding sign and the goods or services. The protection should apply also in the case of similarity between the mark and the sign and the goods or services. It is indispensable to give an interpretation of the concept of similarity in relation to the likelihood of confusion. The likelihood of confusion, the appreciation of which depends on numerous elements and, in particular, on the recognition of the trade mark on the market, the association which can be made with the used or registered sign, the degree of similarity between the trade mark and the sign and between the goods or services identified, should constitute the specific condition for such protection. The ways in which a likelihood of confusion can be established, and in particular the onus of proof in that regard, should be a matter for national procedural rules which should not be prejudiced by this Directive.

(17)

In order to ensure legal certainty and full consistency with the principle of priority, under which a registered earlier trade mark takes precedence over later registered trade marks, it is necessary to provide that the enforcement of rights which are conferred by a trade mark should be without prejudice to the rights of proprietors acquired prior to the filing or priority date of the trade mark. Such an approach is in conformity with Article 16(1) of the Agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights of 15 April 1994 (‘TRIPS Agreement’).

(18)

It is appropriate to provide that an infringement of a trade mark can only be established if there is a finding that the infringing mark or sign is used in the course of trade for the purposes of distinguishing goods or services. Use of the sign for purposes other than for distinguishing goods or services should be subject to the provisions of national law.

(19)

The concept of infringement of a trade mark should also comprise the use of the sign as a trade name or similar designation, as long as such use is made for the purposes of distinguishing goods or services.

(20)

In order to ensure legal certainty and full consistency with specific Union legislation, it is appropriate to provide that the proprietor of a trade mark should be entitled to prohibit a third party from using a sign in comparative advertising where such comparative advertising is contrary to Directive 2006/114/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (5).

(21)

In order to strengthen trade mark protection and combat counterfeiting more effectively, and in line with international obligations of the Member States under the World Trade Organisation (WTO) framework, in particular Article V of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade on freedom of transit and, as regards generic medicines, the ‘Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and public health’ adopted by the Doha WTO Ministerial Conference on 14 November 2001, the proprietor of a trade mark should be entitled to prevent third parties from bringing goods, in the course of trade, into the Member State where the trade mark is registered without being released for free circulation there, where such goods come from third countries and bear without authorisation a trade mark which is identical or essentially identical with the trade mark registered in respect of such goods.

(22)

To this effect, it should be permissible for trade mark proprietors to prevent the entry of infringing goods and their placement in all customs situations, including, in particular transit, transhipment, warehousing, free zones, temporary storage, inward processing or temporary admission, also when such goods are not intended to be placed on the market of the Member State concerned. In performing customs controls, the customs authorities should make use of the powers and procedures laid down in Regulation (EU) No 608/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (6), also at the request of the right holders. In particular, the customs authorities should carry out the relevant controls on the basis of risk analysis criteria.

(23)

In order to reconcile the need to ensure the effective enforcement of trade mark rights with the necessity to avoid hampering the free flow of trade in legitimate goods, the entitlement of the proprietor of the trade mark should lapse where, during the subsequent proceedings initiated before the judicial or other authority competent to take a substantive decision on whether the registered trade mark has been infringed, the declarant or the holder of the goods is able to prove that the proprietor of the registered trade mark is not entitled to prohibit the placing of the goods on the market in the country of final destination.

(24)

Article 28 of Regulation (EU) No 608/2013 provides that a right holder is to be liable for damages towards the holder of the goods where, inter alia, the goods in question are subsequently found not to infringe an intellectual property right.

(25)

Appropriate measures should be taken with a view to ensuring the smooth transit of generic medicines. With respect to international non-proprietary names (INN) as globally recognised generic names for active substances in pharmaceutical preparations, it is vital to take due account of the existing limitations on the effect of trade mark rights. Consequently, the proprietor of a trade mark should not have the right to prevent a third party from bringing goods into a Member State where the trade mark is registered without being released for free circulation there based upon similarities between the INN for the active ingredient in the medicines and the trade mark.

(26)

In order to enable proprietors of registered trade marks to combat counterfeiting more effectively, they should be entitled to prohibit the affixing of an infringing trade mark to goods, and certain preparatory acts carried out prior to such affixing.

(27)

The exclusive rights conferred by a trade mark should not entitle the proprietor to prohibit the use of signs or indications by third parties which are used fairly and thus in accordance with honest practices in industrial and commercial matters. In order to create equal conditions for trade names and trade marks against the background that trade names are regularly granted unrestricted protection against later trade marks, such use should only be considered to include the use of the personal name of the third party. Such use should further permit the use of descriptive or non-distinctive signs or indications in general. Furthermore, the proprietor should not be entitled to prevent the fair and honest use of the mark for the purpose of identifying or referring to the goods or services as those of the proprietor. Use of a trade mark by third parties to draw the consumer`s attention to the resale of genuine goods that were originally sold by, or with the consent of, the proprietor of the trade mark in the Union should be considered as being fair as long as it is at the same time in accordance with honest practices in industrial and commercial matters. Use of a trade mark by third parties for the purpose of artistic expression should be considered as being fair as long as it is at the same time in accordance with honest practices in industrial and commercial matters. Furthermore, this Directive should be applied in a way that ensures full respect for fundamental rights and freedoms, and in particular the freedom of expression.

(28)

It follows from the principle of free movement of goods that the proprietor of a trade mark should not be entitled to prohibit its use by a third party in relation to goods which have been put into circulation in the Union, under the trade mark, by him or with his consent, unless the proprietor has legitimate reasons to oppose further commercialisation of the goods.

(29)

It is important, for reasons of legal certainty to provide that, without prejudice to his interests as a proprietor of an earlier trade mark, the latter may no longer request a declaration of invalidity or oppose the use of a trade mark subsequent to his own trade mark, of which he has knowingly tolerated the use for a substantial length of time, unless the application for the subsequent trade mark was made in bad faith.

(30)

In order to ensure legal certainty and safeguard legitimately acquired trade mark rights, it is appropriate and necessary to provide that, without prejudice to the principle that the later trade mark cannot be enforced against the earlier trade mark, proprietors of earlier trade marks should not be entitled to obtain refusal or invalidation or to oppose the use of a later trade mark if the later trade mark was acquired at a time when the earlier trade mark was liable to be declared invalid or revoked, for example because it had not yet acquired distinctiveness through use, or if the earlier trade mark could not be enforced against the later trade mark because the necessary conditions were not applicable, for example when the earlier mark had not yet obtained a reputation.

(31)

Trade marks fulfil their purpose of distinguishing goods or services and allowing consumers to make informed choices only when they are actually used on the market. A requirement of use is also necessary in order to reduce the total number of trade marks registered and protected in the Union and, consequently, the number of conflicts which arise between them. It is therefore essential to require that registered trade marks actually be used in connection with the goods or services for which they are registered, or, if not used in that connection within five years of the date of the completion of the registration procedure, be liable to be revoked.

(32)

Consequently, a registered trade mark should only be protected in so far as it is actually used and a registered earlier trade mark should not enable its proprietor to oppose or invalidate a later trade mark if that proprietor has not put his trade mark to genuine use. Furthermore, Member States should provide that a trade mark may not be successfully invoked in infringement proceedings if it is established, as a result of a plea, that the trade mark could be revoked or, when the action is brought against a later right, could have been revoked at the time when the later right was acquired.

(33)

It is appropriate to provide that, where the seniority of a national mark or a trade mark registered under international arrangements having effect in the Member State has been claimed for an EU trade mark and the mark providing the basis for the seniority claim has thereafter been surrendered or allowed to lapse, the validity of that mark can still be challenged. Such a challenge should be limited to situations where the mark could have been declared invalid or revoked at the time it was removed from the register.

(34)

For reasons of coherence and in order to facilitate the commercial exploitation of trade marks in the Union, the rules applicable to trade marks as objects of property should be aligned to the extent appropriate with those already in place for EU trade marks, and should include rules on assignment and transfer, licensing, rights in rem and levy of execution.

(35)

Collective trade marks have proven a useful instrument for promoting goods or services with specific common properties. It is therefore appropriate to subject national collective trade marks to rules similar to the rules applicable to European Union collective marks.

(36)

In order to improve and facilitate access to trade mark protection and to increase legal certainty and predictability, the procedure for the registration of trade marks in the Member States should be efficient and transparent and should follow rules similar to those applicable to EU trade marks.

(37)

In order to ensure legal certainty with regard to the scope of trade mark rights and to facilitate access to trade mark protection, the designation and classification of goods and services covered by a trade mark application should follow the same rules in all Member States and should be aligned to those applicable to EU trade marks. In order to enable the competent authorities and economic operators to determine the extent of the trade mark protection sought on the basis of the application alone, the designation of goods and services should be sufficiently clear and precise. The use of general terms should be interpreted as including only goods and services clearly covered by the literal meaning of a term. In the interest of clarity and legal certainty, the Member States' central industrial property offices and the Benelux Office for Intellectual Property should, in cooperation with each other, endeavour to compile a list reflecting their respective administrative practices with regard to the classification of goods and services.

(38)

For the purpose of ensuring effective trade mark protection, Member States should make available an efficient administrative opposition procedure, allowing at least the proprietor of earlier trade mark rights and any person authorised under the relevant law to exercise the rights arising from a protected designation of origin or a geographical indication to oppose the registration of a trade mark application. Furthermore, in order to offer efficient means of revoking trademarks or declaring them invalid, Member States should provide for an administrative procedure for revocation or declaration of invalidity within the longer transposition period of seven years, after the entry into force of this Directive.

(39)

It is desirable that Member States' central industrial property offices and the Benelux Office for Intellectual Property cooperate with each other and with the European Union Intellectual Property Office in all fields of trade mark registration and administration in order to promote convergence of practices and tools, such as the creation and updating of common or connected databases and portals for consultation and search purposes. The Member States should further ensure that their offices cooperate with each other and with the European Union Intellectual Property Office in all other areas of their activities which are relevant for the protection of trade marks in the Union.

(40)

This Directive should not exclude the application to trade marks of provisions of law of the Member States other than trade mark law, such as provisions relating to unfair competition, civil liability or consumer protection.

(41)

Member States are bound by the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (‘the Paris Convention’) and the TRIPS Agreement. It is necessary that this Directive be entirely consistent with that Convention and that Agreement. The obligations of the Member States resulting from that Convention and that Agreement should not be affected by this Directive. Where appropriate, the second paragraph of Article 351 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should apply.

(42)

Since the objectives of this Directive, namely to foster and create a well-functioning internal market and to facilitate the registration, administration and protection of trade marks in the Union to the benefit of growth and competitiveness, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States but can rather, by reason of its scale and effects, 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 Directive does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives.

(43)

Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (7) governs the processing of personal data carried out in the Member States in the context of this Directive.

(44)

The European Data Protection Supervisor was consulted in accordance with Article 28(2) of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council (8) and delivered an opinion on 11 July 2013.

(45)

The obligation to transpose this Directive into national law should be confined to those provisions which represent a substantive amendment as compared with the earlier Directive. The obligation to transpose the provisions which are unchanged arises under the earlier Directive.

(46)

This Directive should be without prejudice to the obligations of the Member States under Directive 2008/95/EC relating to the time limit for transposition of Council Directive 89/104/EEC (9) into national law as set out in Part B of Annex I to Directive 2008/95/EC,

(a)

‘office’ means the central industrial property office of the Member State or the Benelux Office for Intellectual Property, entrusted with the registration of trade marks;

(b)

‘register’ means the register of trade marks kept by an office.

(a)

distinguishing the goods or services of one undertaking from those of other undertakings; and

(b)

being represented on the register in a manner which enables the competent authorities and the public to determine the clear and precise subject matter of the protection afforded to its proprietor.

(a)

signs which cannot constitute a trade mark;

(b)

trade marks which are devoid of any distinctive character;

(c)

trade marks which consist exclusively of signs or indications which may serve, in trade, to designate the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, or the time of production of the goods or of rendering of the service, or other characteristics of the goods or services;

(d)

trade marks which consist exclusively of signs or indications which have become customary in the current language or in the bona fide and established practices of the trade;

(e)

signs which consist exclusively of:

(f)

trade marks which are contrary to public policy or to accepted principles of morality;

(g)

trade marks which are of such a nature as to deceive the public, for instance, as to the nature, quality or geographical origin of the goods or service;

(h)

trade marks which have not been authorised by the competent authorities and are to be refused or invalidated pursuant to Article 6ter of the Paris Convention;

(i)

trade marks which are excluded from registration pursuant to Union legislation or the national law of the Member State concerned, or to international agreements to which the Union or the Member State concerned is party, providing for protection of designations of origin and geographical indications;

(j)

trade marks which are excluded from registration pursuant to Union legislation or international agreements to which the Union is party, providing for protection of traditional terms for wine;

(k)

trade marks which are excluded from registration pursuant to Union legislation or international agreements to which the Union is party, providing for protection of traditional specialities guaranteed;

(l)

trade marks which consist of, or reproduce in their essential elements, an earlier plant variety denomination registered in accordance with Union legislation or the national law of the Member State concerned, or international agreements to which the Union or the Member State concerned is party, providing protection for plant variety rights, and which are in respect of plant varieties of the same or closely related species.

(a)

the use of that trade mark may be prohibited pursuant to provisions of law other than trade mark law of the Member State concerned or of the Union;

(b)

the trade mark includes a sign of high symbolic value, in particular a religious symbol;

(c)

the trade mark includes badges, emblems and escutcheons other than those covered by Article 6ter of the Paris Convention and which are of public interest, unless the consent of the competent authority to their registration has been given in conformity with the law of the Member State.

(a)

it is identical with an earlier trade mark, and the goods or services for which the trade mark is applied for or is registered are identical with the goods or services for which the earlier trade mark is protected;

(b)

because of its identity with, or similarity to, the earlier trade mark and the identity or similarity of the goods or services covered by the trade marks, there exists a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public; the likelihood of confusion includes the likelihood of association with the earlier trade mark.

(a)

trade marks of the following kinds with a date of application for registration which is earlier than the date of application for registration of the trade mark, taking account, where appropriate, of the priorities claimed in respect of those trade marks:

(b)

EU trade marks which validly claim seniority, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, of a trade mark referred to in points (a)(ii) and (iii), even when the latter trade mark has been surrendered or allowed to lapse;

(c)

applications for the trade marks referred to in points (a) and (b), subject to their registration;

(d)

trade marks which, on the date of application for registration of the trade mark, or, where appropriate, of the priority claimed in respect of the application for registration of the trade mark, are well known in the Member State concerned, in the sense in which the words ‘well-known’ are used in Article 6bis of the Paris Convention.

(a)

it is identical with, or similar to, an earlier trade mark irrespective of whether the goods or services for which it is applied or registered are identical with, similar to or not similar to those for which the earlier trade mark is registered, where the earlier trade mark has a reputation in the Member State in respect of which registration is applied for or in which the trade mark is registered or, in the case of an EU trade mark, has a reputation in the Union and the use of the later trade mark without due cause would take unfair advantage of, or be detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark;

(b)

an agent or representative of the proprietor of the trade mark applies for registration thereof in his own name without the proprietor's authorisation, unless the agent or representative justifies his action;

(c)

and to the extent that, pursuant to Union legislation or the law of the Member State concerned providing for protection of designations of origin and geographical indications:

(a)

rights to a non-registered trade mark or to another sign used in the course of trade were acquired prior to the date of application for registration of the subsequent trade mark, or the date of the priority claimed for the application for registration of the subsequent trade mark, and that non-registered trade mark or other sign confers on its proprietor the right to prohibit the use of a subsequent trade mark;

(b)

the use of the trade mark may be prohibited by virtue of an earlier right, other than the rights referred to in paragraph 2 and point (a) of this paragraph, and in particular:

(c)

the trade mark is liable to be confused with an earlier trade mark protected abroad, provided that, at the date of the application, the applicant was acting in bad faith.

(a)

the earlier trade mark, liable to be declared invalid pursuant to Article 4(1)(b), (c) or (d), had not yet acquired a distinctive character as referred to in Article 4(4);

(b)

the application for a declaration of invalidity is based on Article 5(1)(b) and the earlier trade mark had not yet become sufficiently distinctive to support a finding of likelihood of confusion within the meaning of Article 5(1)(b);

(c)

the application for a declaration of invalidity is based on Article 5(3)(a) and the earlier trade mark had not yet acquired a reputation within the meaning of Article 5(3)(a).

(a)

the sign is identical with the trade mark and is used in relation to goods or services which are identical with those for which the trade mark is registered;

(b)

the sign is identical with, or similar to, the trade mark and is used in relation to goods or services which are identical with, or similar to, the goods or services for which the trade mark is registered, if there exists a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public; the likelihood of confusion includes the likelihood of association between the sign and the trade mark;

(c)

the sign is identical with, or similar to, the trade mark irrespective of whether it is used in relation to goods or services which are identical with, similar to, or not similar to, those for which the trade mark is registered, where the latter has a reputation in the Member State and where use of that sign without due cause takes unfair advantage of, or is detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the trade mark.

(a)

affixing the sign to the goods or to the packaging thereof;

(b)

offering the goods or putting them on the market, or stocking them for those purposes, under the sign, or offering or supplying services thereunder;

(c)

importing or exporting the goods under the sign;

(d)

using the sign as a trade or company name or part of a trade or company name;

(e)

using the sign on business papers and in advertising;

(f)

using the sign in comparative advertising in a manner that is contrary to Directive 2006/114/EC.

(a)

affixing a sign identical with, or similar to, the trade mark on packaging, labels, tags, security or authenticity features or devices, or any other means to which the mark may be affixed;

(b)

offering or placing on the market, or stocking for those purposes, or importing or exporting, packaging, labels, tags, security or authenticity features or devices, or any other means to which the mark is affixed.

(a)

oppose the use of the trade mark by his agent or representative;

(b)

demand the assignment of the trade mark in his favour.

(a)

the name or address of the third party, where that third party is a natural person;

(b)

signs or indications which are not distinctive or which concern the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, the time of production of goods or of rendering of the service, or other characteristics of goods or services;

(c)

the trade mark for the purpose of identifying or referring to goods or services as those of the proprietor of that trade mark, in particular, where the use of the trade mark is necessary to indicate the intended purpose of a product or service, in particular as accessories or spare parts.

(a)

use of the trade mark in a form differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character of the mark in the form in which it was registered, regardless of whether or not the trade mark in the form as used is also registered in the name of the proprietor;

(b)

affixing of the trade mark to goods or to the packaging thereof in the Member State concerned solely for export purposes.

(a)

as a result of acts or inactivity of the proprietor, it has become the common name in the trade for a product or service in respect of which it is registered;

(b)

as a result of the use made of it by the proprietor of the trade mark or with the proprietor's consent in respect of the goods or services for which it is registered, it is liable to mislead the public, particularly as to the nature, quality or geographical origin of those goods or services.

(a)

its duration;

(b)

the form covered by the registration in which the trade mark may be used;

(c)

the scope of the goods or services for which the licence is granted;

(d)

the territory in which the trade mark may be affixed; or

(e)

the quality of the goods manufactured or of the services provided by the licensee.

(a)

‘guarantee or certification mark’ means a trade mark which is described as such when the mark is applied for and is capable of distinguishing goods or services which are certified by the proprietor of the mark in respect of material, mode of manufacture of goods or performance of services, quality, accuracy or other characteristics, from goods and services which are not so certified;

(b)

‘collective mark’ means a trade mark which is described as such when the mark is applied for and is capable of distinguishing the goods or services of the members of an association which is the proprietor of the mark from the goods or services of other undertakings.

(a)

the proprietor does not take reasonable steps to prevent the mark being used in a manner that is incompatible with the conditions of use laid down in the regulations governing use, including any amendments thereto mentioned in the register;

(b)

the manner in which the mark has been used by authorised persons has caused it to become liable to mislead the public in the manner referred to in Article 31(2);

(c)

an amendment to the regulations governing use of the mark has been mentioned in the register in breach of Article 33(2), unless the proprietor of the mark, by further amending the regulations governing use, complies with the requirements of that Article.

(a)

a request for registration;

(b)

information identifying the applicant;

(c)

a list of the goods or services in respect of which the registration is requested;

(d)

a representation of the trade mark, which satisfies the requirements set out in point (b) of Article 3.

(a)

the trade mark should not have been registered because it does not comply with the requirements provided for in Article 4;

(b)

the trade mark should not have been registered because of the existence of an earlier right within the meaning of Article 5(1) to (3).

(a)

in the case of paragraph 2 and paragraph 3(a), any natural or legal person and any group or body set up for the purpose of representing the interests of manufacturers, producers, suppliers of services, traders or consumers, and which, under the terms of the law governing it, has the capacity to sue in its own name and to be sued;

(b)

in the case of paragraph 3(b) of this Article, the proprietor of an earlier trade mark as referred to in Article 5(2) and Article 5(3)(a), and the person authorised under the relevant law to exercise the rights arising from a protected designation of origin or geographical indication as referred to in Article 5(3)(c).

23.12.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 336/27

(1)

The Union is competent to adopt measures for the conservation of marine biological resources under the common fisheries policy and to enter into agreements with third countries and international organisations.

(2)

Pursuant to Council Decision 98/392/EC (2), the Union is a Contracting Party to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982. That convention requires all members of the international community to cooperate in conserving and managing the biological resources of the sea.

(3)

Pursuant to Council Decision 98/414/EC (3), the Union is a Contracting Party to the Agreement on the implementation of the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982, relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks.

(4)

On 1 December 2009 the Council authorised the European Commission to seek, on behalf of the Union, an amendment to the Convention for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna (‘the Convention’) in order for the Union to become a Contracting Party.

(5)

While the negotiations on the amendment to the Convention have not been conclusive, during its 20th meeting in October 2013, the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna (‘CCSBT’) amended the Resolution to establish an Extended Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna (‘CCSBT Extended Commission’) to allow the Union to become a Member of the CCSBT Extended Commission through an Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters.

(6)

On 20 April 2015 the Council authorised the signature and provisional application of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna (CCSBT) concerning the membership of the Union in the Extended Commission of the Convention for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna (‘Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters’).

(7)

Since vessels flying the flags of Member States of the Union fish resources in the area of distribution of Southern Bluefin Tuna, it is in the Union's interest to play an effective role in the implementation of the Convention.

(8)

Membership of the CCSBT Extended Commission will also promote consistency in the Union's conservation approach across oceans and reinforce its commitment to the long-term conservation and sustainable use of fisheries resources globally.

(9)

The Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters should therefore be approved,

23.12.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 336/29

(1)

Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 aims to progressively eliminate discards in all Union fisheries through the introduction of a landing obligation for catches of species subject to catch limits.

(2)

Article 15(6) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 empowers the Commission to adopt discard plans by means of a delegated act for a period of no more than three years on the basis of joint recommendations developed by Member States in consultation with the relevant Advisory Councils.

(3)

Belgium, Ireland, Spain, France, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom have a direct fisheries management interest in the north-western waters. Those Member States have submitted a joint recommendation to the Commission after consultation of the North Western Waters Advisory Council. Scientific contribution was obtained from relevant scientific bodies and reviewed by the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF). The measures included in the joint recommendation comply with Article 15(6) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 and therefore, in accordance with Article 18(3) of that Regulation, they should be included in this Regulation.

(4)

As regards the north-western waters, according to Article 15(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 the landing obligation should apply to the species that define the fisheries which are subject to catch limits at the latest from 1 January 2016. In accordance with the joint recommendation, the discard plan should cover fisheries which define the highly mixed cod, haddock, whiting and saithe fishery, Norway lobster (Nephrops) fishery, mixed common sole and plaice fishery, and hake fishery from 1 January 2016.

(5)

The joint recommendation suggested that an exemption for landing obligation be applied to Norway lobster caught by pots, traps or creels in ICES division VIa and subarea VII, as scientific evidence demonstrates high survival rates, taking into account the characteristics of the gear, of the fishing practices and of the ecosystem. STECF concluded that the exemption was grounded. Therefore, the exemption concerned should be included in this Regulation.

(6)

The joint recommendation includes seven de minimis exemptions from the landing obligation for certain fisheries and up to certain levels. The evidence provided by the Member States was reviewed by the STECF, which in general concluded that the joint recommendation contained reasoned arguments that further improvements in the selectivity are difficult to achieve and/or regarding disproportionate costs in handling unwanted catches, supported in some cases with a qualitative assessment of the costs. In light of the above and in the absence of differing scientific information, it is appropriate to establish the de minimis exemptions in accordance with the percentage level proposed in the joint recommendation and at levels not exceeding those allowed under Article 15(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013.

(7)

The de minimis exemption for common sole, up to a maximum of 3 % in 2016-2018 of the total annual catches of this species by vessels using trammel and gill nets to catch common sole in ICES divisions VIId, VIIe, VIIf and VIIg, is based on the fact that increases in selectivity are very difficult to achieve. STECF concluded that the exemption is well defined and therefore, the exemption concerned should be included in this Regulation.

(8)

The de minimis exemption for whiting, up to a maximum of 7 % in 2016 and 2017 and up to a maximum of 6 % in 2018 of the total annual catches of this species by vessels using bottom trawls of less than 100 mm to catch whiting in ICES divisions VIId and VIIe, is based on the fact that increases in selectivity are very difficult to achieve. STECF concluded that sufficient evidence is provided to support the exemption, but that additional information should be sought to evaluate the de minimis volume. Therefore, this exemption can be included in the Regulation only with a provision asking the Member States concerned to submit further data to the Commission to allow STECF to fully assess the current discard level compared to the volume of the de minimis requested.

(9)

The de minimis exemption for whiting, up to a maximum of 7 % in 2016 and 2017 and up to a maximum of 6 % in 2018 of the total annual catches of this species by vessels using bottom trawls of not less than 100 mm to catch whiting in ICES divisions VIIb-VIIj, is based on the fact that increases in selectivity are very difficult to achieve. STECF concluded that sufficient evidence is provided to support the exemption, but that additional information should be sought to evaluate the de minimis volume. STECF further noted that further selectivity studies were ongoing. Therefore, this exemption is included in the Regulation, with a provision asking the Member States concerned to submit further data to the Commission to allow STECF to fully assess current discard rates in the fisheries concerned.

(10)

The de minimis exemption for whiting, up to a maximum of 7 % in 2016 and 2017 and up to a maximum of 6 % in 2018 of the total annual catches of this species by vessels using bottom trawls of less than 100 mm to catch whiting in ICES divisions VII (excluding VIIa, VIId and VIIe), is based on the fact that increases in selectivity are very difficult to achieve. STECF noted that the basis for this exemption has little quantified information on selectivity. STECF concluded that additional information should be sought to evaluate this de minimis exemption. Therefore, this exemption can be included in the Regulation only with a provision asking the Member States concerned to submit further data to the Commission to allow STECF to better assess the information supporting this exemption.

(11)

The de minimis exemption for Norway lobster, up to a maximum of 7 % in 2016 and 2017 and up to a maximum of 6 % in 2018 of the total annual catches of this species by vessels obliged to land Norway lobster in ICES subarea VII, is based on the fact that increases in selectivity are very difficult to achieve. STECF concluded that the exemption was grounded. Therefore, the exemption concerned should be included in this Regulation.

(12)

The de minimis exemption for Norway lobster, up to a maximum of 7 % in 2016 and 2017 and up to a maximum of 6 % in 2018 of the total annual catches of this species by vessels obliged to land Norway lobster in ICES division VIa, is based on the fact that increases in selectivity are very difficult to achieve and there is supporting quantitative information on disproportionate costs of handling unwanted catches. STECF concluded that the exemption was grounded. Therefore, the exemption concerned should be included in this Regulation.

(13)

The de minimis exemption for common sole, up to a maximum of 3 % in 2016-2018 of the total annual catches of this species by vessels using gear with increased selectivity in ICES divisions VIId, VIIe, VIIf and VIIg, is based on the fact that increases in selectivity are very difficult to achieve. STECF noted that the exemption is to compensate for the use of a more selective gear and the de minimis exemption requested is to cover residual discards. Therefore, the exemption concerned should be included in this Regulation.

(14)

Since the measures provided for in this Regulation impact directly on the economic activities linked to and the planning of the fishing season of Union vessels, this Regulation should enter into force immediately after its publication. It should apply from 1 January 2016 in order to comply with the time-frame set out in Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013. In accordance with Article 15(6) of that Regulation, this Regulation should apply for no more than 3 years,

(a)

for common sole (Solea solea), up to a maximum of 3 % in 2016, 2017 and 2018 of the total annual catches of this species by vessels using trammel and gill nets to catch common sole in ICES divisions VIId, VIIe, VIIf and VIIg;

(b)

for whiting (Merlangius merlangus), up to a maximum of 7 % in 2016 and 2017 and up to a maximum of 6 % in 2018 of the total annual catches of this species by vessels using bottom trawls of less than 100 mm to catch whiting in ICES divisions VIId and VIIe;

(c)

for whiting (Merlangius merlangus), up to a maximum of 7 % in 2016 and 2017 and up to a maximum of 6 % in 2018 of the total annual catches of this species by vessels using bottom trawls of not less than 100 mm to catch whiting in ICES divisions VIIb-VIIj;

(d)

for whiting (Merlangius merlangus), up to a maximum of 7 % in 2016 and 2017 and up to a maximum of 6 % in 2018 of the total annual catches of this species by vessels using bottom trawls of less than 100 mm to catch whiting in ICES subarea VII, except divisions VIIa, d and e.

(e)

for Norway lobster (Nephrops norvegicus), up to a maximum of 7 % in 2016 and 2017 and up to a maximum of 6 % in 2018 of the total annual catches of this species by vessels obliged to land Norway lobster in ICES subarea VII;

(f)

for Norway lobster (Nephrops norvegicus), up to a maximum of 7 % in 2016 and 2017 and up to a maximum of 6 % in 2018 of the total annual catches of this species by vessels obliged to land Norway lobster in ICES division VIa;

(g)

for common sole (Solea solea), up to a maximum of 3 % in 2016, 2017 and 2018 of the total annual catches of this species by vessels using gear with increased selectivity (TBB gear with mesh size of 80-199 mm) in ICES divisions VIId, VIIe, VIIf and VIIg.

23.12.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 336/36

(1)

Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 aims to progressively eliminate discards in all Union fisheries through the introduction of a landing obligation for catches of species subject to catch limits.

(2)

Article 15(6) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 empowers the Commission to adopt discard plans by means of a delegated act for a period of no more than three years on the basis of joint recommendations developed by Member States in consultation with the relevant Advisory Councils.

(3)

Belgium, Spain, France, the Netherlands and Portugal have a direct fisheries management interest in the south-western waters. Those Member States have submitted a joint recommendation to the Commission after consultation of the South Western Waters Advisory Council. Scientific contribution was obtained from relevant scientific bodies and reviewed by the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF). The measures included in the joint recommendation comply with Article 15(6) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 and therefore, in accordance with Article 18(3) of that Regulation, they should be included in this Regulation.

(4)

As regards the south-western waters, according to Article 15(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 the landing obligation applies to the species that define the fisheries at the latest from 1 January 2016. In accordance with the joint recommendation, the discard plan should cover the fisheries of common sole, hake and Norway lobster (only inside the stocks' distribution areas referred to as ‘functional units’) in ICES divisions VIIIa, b, d, e; Norway lobster in ICES divisions VIIIc and IXa (only inside functional units); common sole and plaice in ICES division IXa; and hake in ICES divisions VIIIc and IXa.

(5)

The joint recommendation suggested that an exemption from the landing obligation be applied to Norway lobster caught by trawls in ICES subareas VIII and IX, as existing scientific evidence indicates possible high survival rates, taking into account the characteristics of the gears targeting this species, the fishing practices and the ecosystem. The STECF in its evaluation concludes that more studies are needed to corroborate the existing findings, and notes that such studies are underway and planned. Therefore, this exemption should be included in the Regulation for the year 2016, with a provision asking the Member States concerned to submit further data to the Commission to allow STECF to fully assess the justifications for the exemption.

(6)

The joint recommendation includes three de minimis exemptions from the landing obligation for certain fisheries and up to certain levels. The evidence provided by the Member States was reviewed by the STECF. The STECF concludes that the joint recommendation contained reasoned arguments related to the difficulty of increasing selectivity combined with disproportionate costs of handling unwanted catches. In light of the above it is appropriate to establish the de minimis exemptions in accordance with the percentage level proposed in the joint recommendation and at levels not exceeding those allowed under Article 15(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013.

(7)

The de minimis exemption for common sole, up to a maximum of 5 % of the total annual catches of this species by vessels targeting this species in ICES divisions VIIIa and VIIIb with beam trawls and bottom trawls, is based on the fact that viable increases in selectivity are very difficult to achieve. The STECF concluded that the supporting information is sufficient to justify the exemption claimed. Therefore, the exemption concerned should be included in this Regulation.

(8)

The de minimis exemption for common sole, up to a maximum of 3 % of the total annual catches of this species by vessels targeting this species in ICES divisions VIIIa and VIIIb with trammel nets and gillnets, is based on the fact that viable increases in selectivity are very difficult to achieve. The STECF concluded that the supporting information is sufficient to justify the exemption claimed. Therefore, the exemption concerned should be included in this Regulation.

(9)

The de minimis exemption for hake, up to a maximum of 7 % in 2016 and 2017 and 6 % in 2018 of the total annual catches of this species by vessels targeting this species in ICES subareas VIII and IX with trawls, is based on the fact that viable increases in selectivity are very difficult to achieve. The existing supporting information presented demonstrates that increasing selectivity in the fisheries concerned would lead to losses of marketable fish that would make the fisheries potentially uneconomic. Moreover, STECF pointed out that it should be supplemented by further selectivity studies in the relevant fisheries. Therefore, this exemption should be included in the Regulation, with a provision asking the Member States concerned to submit further data to the Commission to allow STECF to fully assess the justifications for the exemption.

(10)

Since the measures provided for in this Regulation impact directly on the economic activities linked to and the planning of the fishing season of Union vessels, this Regulation should enter into force immediately after its publication. It should apply from 1 January 2016 in order to comply with the time-frame set out in Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013. In accordance with Article 15(6) of that Regulation, this Regulation should apply for no more than three years,

(a)

for common sole (Solea solea), up to a maximum of 5 % of the total annual catches of this species by vessels using beam trawl (gear code: TBB) and bottom trawls (gear codes: OTB, OTT, PTB, TBN, TBS, TB, OT, PT and TX) targeting this species in ICES divisions VIIIa and VIIIb;

(b)

for common sole (Solea solea), up to a maximum of 3 % of the total annual catches of this species by vessels using trammel nets and gillnets (gear codes: GNS, GN, GND, GNC, GTN, GTR and GEN) targeting this species in ICES divisions VIIIa and VIIIb;

(c)

for hake (Merluccius merluccius), up to a maximum of 7 % in 2016 and 2017 and up to 6 % in 2018 of the total annual catches of this species by vessels using trawls (gear codes: OTT, OTB, PTB, OT, PT, TBN, TBS, TX, SSC, SPR, TB, SDN, SX and SV) targeting this species in ICES subareas VIII and IX.

23.12.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 336/42

(1)

Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 aims to progressively eliminate discards in all Union fisheries through the introduction of a landing obligation for catches of species subject to catch limits.

(2)

Article 15(6) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 empowers the Commission to adopt discard plans by means of delegated acts for a period of no more than three years on the basis of joint recommendations developed by Member States in consultation with the relevant Advisory Councils.

(3)

Belgium, Denmark, Germany, France, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom have a direct fisheries management interest in the North Sea. Those Member States have submitted a joint recommendation to the Commission after having consulted the North Sea Advisory Council and the Long Distance Advisory Council. Scientific contribution was obtained from relevant scientific bodies and reviewed by the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF). The measures included in the joint recommendation comply with Article 18(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013.

(4)

For the purposes of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013, the North Sea comprises ICES zones IIIa and IV. As some demersal stocks relevant to the proposed discard plan are also to be found in Union waters of ICES Division IIa, Member States recommend that this Division is covered by the discard plan.

(5)

As regards the North Sea, in accordance with Article 15(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 the landing obligation applies to the species that define the fisheries which are subject to catch limits at the latest from 1 January 2016 in the mixed fisheries for cod, haddock, whiting and saithe; in the fisheries for Norway lobster; in the mixed fishery for common sole and plaice; in the fisheries for hake and in the fisheries for Northern prawn. In accordance with Article 15(5) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013, the discard plan identifies the species which have to be landed as from 1 January 2016. These species are saithe, haddock, Norway lobster, common sole, plaice, hake and Northern prawn. This discard plan also establishes an obligation to land bycatches of Northern prawn.

(6)

The joint recommendation suggested that two exemptions from the landing obligation be applied to Norway lobster caught, respectively, with pots and with certain bottom trawls (OTB, TBN (3)) in ICES Division IIIa. Based on the scientific evidence provided in the joint recommendation and reviewed by STECF and taking into account the characteristics of the gear, of the fishing practices and of the ecosystem, the Commission considers that those exemptions should be included in this Regulation. Member States should submit additional data in order to enable STECF to further assess the survival rates of Norway lobster caught with the trawls concerned and the Commission to review the relevant exemption after 2016.

(7)

The joint recommendation includes five de minimis exemptions from the landing obligation for certain fisheries and up to certain levels. The evidence provided by the Member States was reviewed by the STECF, which in general concluded that the joint recommendation, supported in some cases with a qualitative assessment of the costs, contained reasoned arguments that further improvements in selectivity are difficult to achieve and/or imply disproportionate costs in handling unwanted catches. As such conclusion is not contradicted by differing scientific information, it is appropriate to establish the de minimis exemptions in accordance with the percentage level proposed in the joint recommendation, within the limits of Article 15(5)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013.

(8)

The de minimis exemption suggested in the joint recommendation for common sole and haddock combined, up to a maximum of 2 % of the total annual catches of Norway lobster, sole and haddock in the fishery for Norway lobster by vessels using bottom trawls with a species selective grid in ICES Division IIIa, is based on the fact that increases in selectivity are very difficult to achieve. The STECF concluded that the supporting information is sufficient to justify the exemption claimed. Therefore, the exemption concerned should be included in this Regulation.

(9)

The de minimis exemption suggested in the joint recommendation for common sole, up to a maximum of 3 % of the total annual catches of this species by vessels using trammel and gill nets to catch common sole in ICES Division IIIa, Subarea IV and Union waters of ICES Division IIa, is based on the fact that increases in selectivity are very difficult to achieve.. STECF concluded that the supporting information is sufficient to justify the exemption claimed. Therefore, the exemption concerned should be included in this Regulation.

(10)

The de minimis exemption suggested in the joint recommendation for common sole smaller than 19 cm, up to a maximum of 3,7 % of the total annual catches of this species by vessels using beam trawl with a mesh size of 80-90 mm in ICES Subarea IV South of 55/56° N, is based on the fact that increases in selectivity are very difficult to achieve and that there is supporting quantitative information on disproportionate costs of handling of unwanted catches. The Commission considers that it is appropriate to include that exemption in this Regulation. Member States should submit additional data as regards the costs concerned, in order to enable the Commission to review that exemption after 2016.

(11)

The de minimis exemption suggested in the joint recommendation for common sole, up to a maximum of 7 % of the total annual catches of this species by vessels using beam trawls with increased selectivity in ICES Subarea IV, is based on the fact that increases in selectivity are very difficult to achieve. The STECF concluded that the supporting information is sufficient to justify the suggested exemption. Therefore, the exemption concerned should be included in this Regulation.

(12)

The de minimis exemption suggested in the joint recommendation for Norway lobster smaller than minimum conservation reference size, up to a maximum of 6 % of the total annual catches of this species by vessels using certain bottom trawls in ICES Subarea IV and Union waters of ICES Division IIa, is based on the fact there is supporting quantitative information on disproportionate costs of handling and disposal of unwanted catches. The STECF concluded that the supporting information is sufficient to justify the suggested exemption. Therefore, the exemption concerned should be included in this Regulation.

(13)

Article 18a of Regulation (EC) No 850/98 empowers the Commission to establish, for the purpose of adopting discard plans and for the species subject to the landing obligation, a minimum conservation reference size (MCRS) with the aim of ensuring the protection of juveniles of marine organisms. MCRS may derogate, where appropriate, from the sizes established in Annex XII to that Regulation. Currently, for Norway lobster a MCRS of 130 mm is established in that Annex XII. Scientific evidence reviewed by the STECF supports the setting of MCRS for Norway lobster at 105 mm. In particular, STECF concluded that the proposed MCRS is above the average maturity size and that the risk to the population of reducing the MCRS in ICES Division IIIa is small.

(14)

Discard plans may also include technical measures regarding fisheries or species covered by the landing obligation. In order to increase gear selectivity and reduce unwanted catches in the Skagerrak, it is appropriate to provide for a number of technical measures, which were agreed between the Union and Norway in 2011, (4) and 2012 (5).

(15)

In order to ensure appropriate control, specific requirements for the Member States to establish lists of vessels covered by this Regulation should be laid down.

(16)

As the measures provided for in this Regulation have a direct impact on the economic activities linked to and the planning of the fishing season of Union vessels, it should enter into force immediately after its publication. It should apply from 1 January 2016 in order to comply with the time-frame set out in Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013. In accordance with Article 15(6) of that Regulation, this Regulation should apply for no more than one year,

(a)

catches with pots (FPO);

(b)

catches in ICES Division IIIa with bottom trawls (OTB, TBN) with a mesh size of at least 70 mm equipped with a species selective grid with bar spacing of maximum 35 mm; and

(c)

catches in ICES Division IIIa with bottom trawls (OTB, TBN) with a mesh size of at least 90 mm equipped with a top panel of at least 270 mm mesh size (diamond mesh) or at least 140 mm mesh size (square mesh).

(a)

for common sole and haddock combined, up to a maximum of 2 % of the total annual catches of Norway lobster, common sole and haddock in the fishery for Norway lobster by vessels using bottom trawls (OTB, TBN) of mesh size equal to or larger than 70 mm equipped with a species selective grid with bar spacing of maximum 35 mm in ICES Division IIIa;

(b)

for common sole, up to a maximum of 3 % of the total annual catches of this species by vessels using trammel nets and gill nets (GN, GNS, GND, GNC, GTN, GTR, GEN, GNF) in the ICES Division IIIa, Subarea IV and Union waters of ICES Division IIa;

(c)

for common sole smaller than 19 cm, up to a maximum of 3,7 % of the total annual catches of this species by vessels using beam trawls (TBB) of mesh size 80-90 mm in the southern part of the North Sea (ICES Subarea IV South of 55/56° N);

(d)

for common sole below minimum conservation reference size, up to a maximum of 7 % of the total annual catches of this species by vessels using beam trawl (TBB) of mesh size 80-119 mm with increased mesh size in the extension of the beam trawl in ICES Subarea IV;

(e)

for Norway lobster below minimum conservation reference size, up to a maximum of 6 % of the total annual catches of this species by vessels using bottom trawls (OTB, TBN, OTT, TB) of mesh size 80-99 mm in ICES Subarea IV and Union waters of ICES Division IIa.

(a)

total length of 105 mm;

(b)

carapace length of 32 mm.

(a)

a square mesh panel of at least 140 mm;

(b)

a diamond mesh panel of at least 270 mm placed in a four panel section and mounted with a joining ration of three meshes of 90 mm to one mesh of 270 mm; or

(c)

a sorting grid with no more than 35 mm bar spacing.

—

at least 3 metres long,

—

positioned no more than 4 metres from the cod line, and

—

the full width of the top sheet of the trawl (i.e. from selvedge to selvedge).

(a)

trawls with at least 70 mm square mesh cod end equipped with a sorting grid with no more than 35 mm bar spacing;

(b)

trawls with minimum mesh sizes of less than 70 mm when fishing for pelagic or industrial species, provided the catch contains more than 80 % of one or more pelagic or industrial species;

(c)

trawls with at least 35 mm cod end when fishing for Pandalus, provided the trawl is equipped with a sorting grid with a maximum bar spacing of 19 mm.

—

constructed with a top panel of a minimum mesh size of 120 mm square mesh,

—

at least 3 metres long, and

—

at least as wide as the width of the sorting grid.

23.12.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 336/49

(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 12 August 2014, the International Accounting Standards Board published amendments to International Accounting Standard (IAS) 27 Separate Financial Statements entitled Equity Method in Separate Financial Statements. The objective of the Amendments is to permit entities to use the equity method, as described in IAS 28 Investments in Associates and Joint Ventures, to account for investments in subsidiaries, joint ventures and associates in their separate financial statements.

(3)

Amendments to IAS 27 imply by way of consequence amendments to International Financial Reporting Standard (IFRS) 1 and IAS 28 in order to ensure consistency between international accounting standards.

(4)

The amendments to IAS 27 contain some references to IFRS 9 that at present cannot be applied as IFRS 9 has not been adopted by the Union. Therefore, any reference to IFRS 9 as laid down in the Annex to this Regulation should be read as a reference to International Accounting Standard (IAS) 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement.

(5)

The European Financial Reporting Advisory Group confirms that the amendments to IAS 27 meet the criteria for adoption set out in Article 3(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1606/2002.

(6)

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,

(a)

International Financial Reporting Standard (IFRS) 1 First-time Adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards is amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation;

(b)

International Accounting Standard (IAS) 27 Separate Financial Statements is amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation;

(c)

International Accounting Standard 28 Investments in Associates and Joint Ventures is amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.

23.12.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 336/54

(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,

23.12.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 336/56

(1)

Article 464(3) and (4) of the Association Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Moldova, of the other part (1) (‘the Agreement’) provide for the provisional application of the Agreement in part.

(2)

Article 3 of Council Decision 2014/492/EU (2) specifies the parts of the Agreement to be applied provisionally.

(3)

Article 462 of the Agreement provides that the application of Title V (Trade and trade-related matters) of the Agreement in relation to those areas of the Republic of Moldova over which the Government of the Republic of Moldova does not exercise effective control is to commence once the Republic of Moldova ensures the full implementation and enforcement of Title V on its entire territory.

(4)

Article 462 of the Agreement further provides that the Association Council is to adopt a decision on when the full implementation and enforcement of Title V of the Agreement on the entire territory of the Republic of Moldova is ensured.

(5)

The Republic of Moldova has informed the European Commission that it will be able to ensure the full implementation and enforcement of Title V of the Agreement on its entire territory from 1 January 2016.

(6)

It is necessary to monitor and regularly review the application of Title V of the Agreement in relation to the entire territory of the Republic of Moldova.

(7)

It is therefore appropriate to determine the Union position in relation to the application of Title V of the Agreement on the entire territory of the Republic of Moldova,

23.12.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 336/59

(1)

Regulation (EU) No 652/2014 lays down, inter alia, provisions for the management of expenditure relating to the food chain and animal health and requirements for the submission and the content of the national programmes for the eradication, control and surveillance of animal diseases and zoonoses.

(2)

Article 12(1) of Regulation (EU) No 652/2014 provides that each year, by 31 May at the latest, Member States are to submit to the Commission the national programmes starting in the following year for which they wish to apply for a grant.

(3)

Commission Decision 2008/425/EC (2) provides that Member States seeking a financial contribution from the Union for national programmes for the eradication, monitoring and control of certain animal diseases are to submit applications containing certain minimum information set out in Annexes I to V to that Decision.

(4)

Following the adoption of Regulation (EU) No 652/2014, standard requirements for the content and the submission by Member States of national programmes as defined in Article 9 of that Regulation should be revised to fully comply with the requirements of Article 12 of that Regulation.

(5)

In addition, the standard requirements for the content and submission by Member States of national programmes as defined in Article 9 of Regulation (EU) No 652/2014, should comply with the criteria for national eradication, control and monitoring programmes established by Commission Decision 2008/341/EC (3).

(6)

To be in line with evolving Union legislation, the electronic standard templates provided online on the Commission's website should be used for certain diseases to facilitate necessary modifications or including further details. The Commission will inform and discuss with Member States all necessary modifications of the electronic standard templates in the framework of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed. The revised electronic standard templates will be sent to all Member States at the latest by early March of the concerned year.

(7)

For other diseases not included in electronic standard templates and for aquaculture diseases the use of non-electronic standard templates is considered the appropriate tool for submissions of national programmes, given the low number of submissions in the last years, which does not justify the development of specific electronic templates.

(8)

For the sake of clarity, Decision 2008/425/EC should therefore be repealed and replaced by this Decision.

(9)

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