18.2.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 41/1

(1)

Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Cambodia's application to register the name ‘ម្រេចកំពត’ (Mrech Kampot)/‘Poivre de Kampot’ 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 ‘ម្រេចកំពត’ (Mrech Kampot)/‘Poivre de Kampot’ should therefore be entered in the register,

18.2.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 41/3

(1)

On 23 March 2006, the Commission adopted Commission Regulation (EC) No 553/2006 imposing provisional anti-dumping measures on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather (‘footwear’) originating in the People's Republic of China (‘PRC’) and Vietnam (‘the provisional Regulation’) (2).

(2)

By Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 (3), the Council imposed definitive anti-dumping duties ranging from 9,7 % to 16,5 % on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather, originating in Vietnam and in the PRC for two years (‘Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006’ or ‘the contested Regulation’).

(3)

By Regulation (EC) No 388/2008 (4) the Council extended the definitive anti-dumping measures on imports of certain footwear with upper leather originating in the PRC to imports consigned from the Macao Special Administrative Region (‘SAR’), whether declared as originating in the Macao SAR or not.

(4)

Further to an expiry review initiated on 3 October 2008 (5), the Council further extended the anti-dumping measures for 15 months by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009 (6), namely until 31 March 2011, when the measures expired (‘Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009’).

(5)

Brosmann Footwear (HK) Ltd, Seasonable Footwear (Zhongshan) Ltd, Lung Pao Footwear (Guangzhou) Ltd and Risen Footwear (HK) Co Ltd as well as Zhejiang Aokang Shoes Co. Ltd (‘the applicants’) challenged the contested Regulation in the Court of First Instance (now: the General Court). By judgements of 4 March 2010 in Case T-401/06 Brosmann Footwear (HK) and Others v Council [2010] ECR II-671 and of 4 March 2010 in Joined Cases T-407/06 and T-408/06 Zhejiang Aokang Shoes and Wenzhou Taima Shoes v Council [2010] ECR II-747 (‘the judgments of the General Court’), the General Court rejected those challenges.

(6)

The applicants appealed those judgements. In its judgments of 2 February 2012 in case C-249/10 P Brosmann et al and of 15 November 2012 in case C-247/10P Zhejiang Aokang Shoes Co. Ltd, the Court of Justice set aside the judgments of the General Court. It held that the General Court erred in law in so far as it held that the Commission was not required to examine requests for market economy treatment (‘MET’) under Article 2(7)(b) and (c) of the basic Regulation from non-sampled traders (paragraph 36 of the judgement in Case C-249/10 P and paragraph 29 and 32 of the judgement in Case C-247/10 P).

(7)

The Court of Justice then gave judgement itself in the matter. It held: ‘[…] the Commission ought to have examined the substantiated claims submitted to it by the appellants pursuant to Article 2(7)(b) and (c) of the basic regulation for the purpose of claiming MET in the context of the anti-dumping proceeding [which is] the subject of the contested regulation. It must next be found that it cannot be ruled out that such an examination would have led to a definitive anti-dumping duty being imposed on the appellants other than the 16,5 % duty applicable to them pursuant to Article 1(3) of the contested regulation. It is apparent from that provision that a definitive anti-dumping duty of 9,7 % was imposed on the only Chinese trader in the sample which obtained MET. As is apparent from paragraph 38 above, had the Commission found that the market economy conditions prevailed also for the appellants, they ought, when the calculation of an individual dumping margin was not possible, also to have benefited from the same rate’ (paragraph 42 of the judgement in Case C-249/10 P and paragraph 36 of the judgement in Case C-247/10 P).

(8)

As a consequence, it annulled the contested Regulation, in so far as it relates to the applicants concerned.

(9)

In October 2013, the Commission by means of notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union  (7) announced that it had decided to resume the anti-dumping proceeding at the very point at which the illegality occurred and to examine whether market economy conditions prevailed for the applicants for the period from 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005 and invited interested parties to come forward and make themselves known.

(10)

In March 2014, the Council, by Council Implementing Decision 2014/149/EU (8), rejected a Commission proposal to adopt a Council Implementing Regulation re-imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People's Republic of China and produced by Brosmann Footwear (HK) Ltd, Seasonable Footwear (Zhongshan) Ltd, Lung Pao Footwear (Guangzhou) Ltd, Risen Footwear (HK) Co Ltd and Zhejiang Aokang Shoes Co. Ltd and terminated the proceedings with regard to these producers. The Council took the view that importers having bought shoes from those exporting producers, to whom the relevant customs duties had been reimbursed by the competent national authorities on the basis of Article 236 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/1992 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (9) (‘the Community Customs Code’), had acquired legitimate expectations on the basis of Article 1(4) of the contested Regulation, which had rendered the provisions of the Community Customs Code, and in particular its Article 221, applicable to the collection of the duties, which would be put into question by the adoption of the Commission proposal.

(11)

Two importers of the product concerned, C&J Clark International Ltd. and Puma SE challenged the anti-dumping measures on imports of certain footwear from China and Vietnam invoking the jurisprudence mentioned in recitals (5) to (7) before their national Courts, which referred the matters to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.

(12)

In the joined Cases C-659/13 C & J Clark International Limited and C-34/14 Puma SE, the Court of Justice declared Council Regulations (EC) No 1472/2006 and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009 invalid in so far as the European Commission did not examine the MET and individual treatment (‘IT’) claims submitted by exporting producers in the PRC and Vietnam that were not sampled, contrary to the requirements laid down in Articles 2(7)(b) and 9(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (10) (‘the judgments’).

(13)

Article 266 TFEU provides that the Institutions must take the necessary measures to comply with the Court's judgments. In case of annulment of an act adopted by the Institutions in the context of an administrative procedure, such as anti-dumping, compliance with the Court's judgement consists in the replacement of the annulled act by a new act, in which the illegality identified by the Court is eliminated (‘Asteris judgment’) (11).

(14)

According to the case-law of the Court, the procedure for replacing the annulled act may be resumed at the very point at which the illegality occurred (12). That implies in particular that in a situation where an act concluding an administrative procedure is annulled, that annulment does not necessarily affect the preparatory acts, such as the initiation of the anti-dumping procedure. In a situation where a Regulation imposing definitive anti-dumping measures is annulled, that means that subsequent to the annulment, the anti-dumping proceeding is still open, because the act concluding the anti-dumping proceeding has disappeared from the Union legal order (13), except if the illegality occurred at the stage of initiation.

(15)

Apart from the fact that the Institutions did not examine the MET and IT claims submitted by exporting producers in the PRC and Vietnam that were not sampled, all other findings made in Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009 remain valid.

(16)

In this case, the illegality occurred after initiation. Hence, the Commission decided to resume this anti-dumping proceeding that was still open at the very point at which the illegality occurred and to examine whether market economy conditions prevailed for the exporting producers concerned for the period from 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005.

(17)

For imports of C&J Clark International Ltd. and Puma SE, the Commission will assess all MET and IT claims submitted.

(18)

It is appropriate to order the national customs authorities, on the basis of Article 14 of the basic Regulation, not to reimburse those duties in the meantime. The Commission will make that assessment within eight months from the date of the judgment.

(19)

For imports of other importers that did not have standing themselves to bring an action for annulment, and which hence can rely on the judgment in their applications for re-imbursement of anti-dumping duties pursuant to Article 236 Community Customs Code, the Commission will, for the sake of efficient use of resources, only assess MET and IT claims of those exporting producers which are concerned by re-imbursement claims that have been filed with national customs authorities in due time and form. The Commission notes that according to Article 236(2) of the Community Customs Code Import duties or export duties shall be repaid or remitted upon submission of an application to the appropriate customs office within a period of three years from the date on which the amount of those duties was communicated to the debtor. The Commission also notes that the invalidation of a regulation imposing anti-dumping duties does not constitute unforeseeable circumstances within the meaning of that provision, allowing an extension of the three-year time-limit during which an importer can request the repayment of import duties paid pursuant to that regulation.

(20)

If an act of the Institutions has been declared invalid by a preliminary ruling of the Court of Justice, such judgment has erga omnes effects (14), namely. it is not limited to the applicant before the national court which then raises the question to the Court of Justice. In such a situation, the Commission is thus obliged to implement the judgement with regard to all the parties affected by the illegality which led to the annulment of the measure.

(21)

The Commission has the possibility to remedy the aspects of the contested Regulation which led to its annulment, while leaving unchanged the parts of the assessment which are not affected by the judgment (15).

(22)

In order to ensure an efficient use of resources, the Commission refrains from investigating all the MET and IT claims made by non-sampled Chinese and Vietnamese exporting producers during the investigation which led to the adoption of the contested Regulation. Instead, it considers it appropriate to oblige national customs authorities, which have to decide on an application for re-imbursement of anti-dumping duties on the basis of Article 236 of the Community Customs Code (16), to forward the request for re-imbursement to the Commission and to await the Commission's assessment of the MET and IT claim and, where appropriate, the re-imposition of the antidumping duty at the appropriate rate, before proceeding with re-imbursement. The legal basis for such an obligation is Article 14 basic Regulation, which provides that the Regulation imposing duties shall specify the detailed modalities of its collection by Member States.

(23)

The Commission will then verify whether the exporting producer whose exports were subject to the repayment claim had indeed requested the MET or IT assessment and if yes, whether such an exporting producer should be granted MET or IT or not.

(24)

The Commission will adopt Regulations establishing the assessment and re-imposing, where appropriate, the applicable duty rate. Those newly established rates will take effect as from the date on which the annulled regulation entered into force.

(25)

Therefore, the national customs authorities are obliged to await the outcome of such investigation before deciding on any repayment claim.

(26)

The Commission will strive to respect the delay provided for in the basic Regulation for assessing MET and IT, that is eight months from receiving the information from national customs authorities, in order to avoid any undue delays.

(27)

The analysis of MET and IT claims of exporting producers that have sold to Puma SE and C&J Clark International Ltd should be carried out within eight months from the date of the judgment.

(28)

As regards the anti-dumping duty imposed on other Chinese and Vietnamese exporting producers (apart from those subject to Council Implementing Decision 2014/149/EU and those referred to in the first sentence hereof) the national customs authorities before which claims for repayment or remission of anti-dumping duties paid in respect of exports of these other exporting producers were made should contact the Commission, so that it can assess the MET and IT claims and re-impose, where appropriate, the anti-dumping duties.

(29)

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

18.2.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 41/8

(1)

Commission Implementing Regulations (EU) No 947/2014 (4) and (EU) No 948/2014 (5) opened private storage for butter and skimmed milk powder, respectively, in view of the particular difficult market situation, notably resulting from the ban introduced by Russia on imports of dairy products from the Union.

(2)

Those private storage schemes have been extended by Commission Implementing Regulations (EU) No 1337/2014 (6), (EU) 2015/303 (7) and (EU) 2015/1548 (8). As a result, applications for aid can be lodged until 29 February 2016.

(3)

On 25 June 2015, Russia prolonged the ban on the import of agricultural products and foodstuffs originating in the Union for another year, up to 6 August 2016.

(4)

In addition, the global demand for milk and milk products has remained fragile throughout 2015 while milk supply has increased in the main exporting regions.

(5)

As a consequence, prices of butter and skimmed milk powder in the Union have further deteriorated and downward pressure is likely to carry on.

(6)

In view of the current market situation it is appropriate to secure the undisrupted availability of the private storage aid schemes for butter and skimmed milk powder and to extend them until the end of the 2016 intervention period on 30 September 2016.

(7)

In order to avoid any interruption of the possibility for lodging applications under the schemes, this Regulation should enter into force on the day following that of its publication.

(8)

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

18.2.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 41/10

(1)

Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/1852 opened a temporary exceptional private storage aid scheme for certain cheeses and fixed in advance the amount of aid.

(2)

Article 4(3) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1852 sets 15 January 2016 as the last date for the submission of applications for aid.

(3)

Ireland, France, Italy, Lithuania, Netherlands, Finland, Sweden and the United Kingdom notified the Commission of their wish to continue using the private storage aid scheme.

(4)

A quantity of 68 123 tonnes remained unused after 15 January 2016. It is therefore appropriate to make that quantity available to those Member States which notified their wish to further make use of the private storage aid scheme and to set a breakdown of that quantity per Member State, taking into account the quantities applied for by Member States until 15 January 2016.

(5)

A new period for lodging applications for aid should be set.

(6)

The rules laid down in Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/1852 for the implementation of the private storage aid scheme for certain cheeses should apply mutatis mutandis to the implementation of the scheme set out by this Regulation,

18.2.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 41/13

(1)

By Regulation (EC) No 2022/95 (2), the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate falling within CN codes 3102 30 90 and 3102 40 90 and originating in Russia. Pursuant to a further investigation, which established that the duty was being absorbed, the measures were amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 663/98 (3). Following an expiry review and an interim review pursuant to Articles 11(2) and 11(3) respectively of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (4), the Council, by Regulation (EC) No 658/2002 (5), imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty of EUR 47,07 per tonne on imports of ammonium nitrate falling within CN codes 3102 30 90 and 3102 40 90 and originating in Russia. Subsequently, a product scope interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 was carried out and, by Council Regulation (EC) No 945/2005 (6), a definitive anti-dumping duty ranging between EUR 41,42 per tonne and EUR 47,07 per tonne was imposed on imports of solid fertilisers with an ammonium nitrate content exceeding 80 % by weight, currently falling within CN codes 3102 30 90, 3102 40 90, ex 3102 29 00, ex 3102 60 00, ex 3102 90 00, ex 3105 10 00, ex 3105 20 10, ex 3105 51 00, ex 3105 59 00 and ex 3105 90 20 originating in Russia.

(2)

Following a second expiry review and a second partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96, the anti-dumping measures described in the previous recital (as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 945/2005), were maintained by Council Regulation (EC) No 661/2008 (7), except for the EuroChem group, for which the fixed amount of duty ranged between EUR 28,88 and EUR 32,82 per tonne.

(3)

By Decision 2008/577/EC (8), the Commission accepted the undertaking offers with a quantitative ceiling from, among others, the Russian producers Open Joint Stock Company (JSC in Russian OAO) Acron and JSC Dorogobuzh.

(4)

By judgment of 10 September 2008 (9), as interpreted by judgment of 9 July 2009 (10), the General Court annulled Regulation (EC) No 945/2005 in so far as it concerned Open Joint Stock Company (JSC) Kirovo-Chepetsky Khimichesky Kombinat (Kirovo), part of OJSC UCC Uralchem (Uralchem). The Council, by Regulation (EC) No 989/2009 (11), amended Regulation (EC) No 661/2008 accordingly. Consequently, for the company Kirovo, the anti-dumping duty (EUR 47,07 per tonne) applies only to imports of ammonium nitrate currently falling within CN codes 3102 30 90 and 3102 40 90.

(5)

By Implementing Regulation (EU) No 999/2014 (12), the Commission maintained the anti-dumping measures (as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 989/2009), following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation.

(6)

On 16 September 2015 Kirovo notified the Commission of its planned reorganisation within the Uralchem Group of companies. As from 1 October 2015 Kirovo is effectively no longer a Joint Stock Company within OJSC UCC Uralchem (Uralchem), but it became a branch of Uralchem, called the Kirovo-Chepetsky Khimichesky Kombinat Branch of OJSC UCC Uralchem (Kirovo Branch). The company submitted that the aim of the reorganisation was to improve the corporate governance of the entire Uralchem Group.

(7)

Uralchem has another production site, the Azot Branch of Uralchem, located in Berezniki (Russia), to which the anti-dumping duty (EUR 47,07 per tonne) applies to all types of ammonium nitrate specified in Article 1(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 999/2014. Therefore, the risk of circumvention need to be assessed given the fact that there are now two branches (Berezniki and Kirovo) within the same legal entity producing ammonium nitrate.

(8)

The Commission thus analysed the information provided by the company and all other information at its disposal and concluded that the risk of circumventing the anti-dumping measures by the different branches of Uralchem is low for the reasons set out below.

(9)

First, since the change of the measures following Regulation (EC) No 989/2009 (when the anti-dumping duties applicable to Kirovo were limited only to imports of ammonium nitrate currently falling within CN codes 3102 30 90 and 3102 40 90) there is no evidence that Uralchem has misused the exemption applicable to Kirovo. Indeed, the imports of ammonium nitrate currently not falling within CN codes 3102 30 90 and 3102 40 90 have remained stable since the amendment of the measures. Moreover, the Commission has no indications that the Berezniki plant had wrongly declared any of its production as having been produced by Kirovo, thereby misusing the exemption granted to Kirovo.

(10)

Second, Uralchem submitted that pursuant to the applicable national legislation in Russia, fertilisers are subject to compulsory registration and markings, including the actual legal name and the physical address of the production site. The manufacturer's production site has to be also included in a number of other official documents. Finally, if ammonium nitrate is exported, the production site must be contained in a number of mandatory documents, such as customs export declaration, certificate of origin and waybills. Therefore, it is unlikely that that once the TARIC additional code A959 is attributed to Kirovo Branch of Uralchem, any other production site of the group would misuse it.

(11)

Third, by a letter sent to the Commission, dated 13 October 2015, Uralchem committed to not engaging in any actions which may lead to misusing the TARIC additional code A959, namely by exporting to the Union, under that TARIC code, products not produced in the Kirovo branch based in Kirovo-Chepetsk, Kirov oblast.

(12)

Fourth, the maximum capacity of the Berezniki and Kirovo plants is also known by the Commission and it takes several years in order to build new facilities and to increase the existing capacity. Therefore, any imminent increase of imports in the future, in particular above the maximum capacity of the Kirovo plant, may lead to an ex officio anti-circumvention investigation.

(13)

Nevertheless, in order to further minimise the risks of circumvention, special measures are needed to ensure the application of the individual anti-dumping duties applicable to the different branches within Uralchem. Uralchem must present a valid commercial invoice to the customs authorities of the Member States. The invoice must conform to the requirements set out in Article 1, third paragraph of this Regulation. Imports not accompanied by that invoice shall be subject to the duty rate applicable to ‘all other companies’.

(14)

The Commission informed all interested parties of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it intended to amend Regulation (EU) No 999/2014. Those parties were granted a period within which they could make comments on the disclosure. Uralchem and the Government of the Russian Federation provided comments. Their comments were taken into account.

(15)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 15(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009,

18.2.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 41/17

(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,

18.2.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 41/20

(1)

Article 18(7) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of the Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (2) establishes a resolution procedure whereby the Council may be called to decide on the adoption of resolution schemes.

(2)

From 1 January 2016, the Council acting by simple majority, on the basis of a Commission proposal, may object to a resolution scheme, or approve or object to a material modification of the amount of the Fund provided for in a resolution scheme adopted by the Single Resolution Board within 24 hours from the adoption of the resolution scheme.

(3)

The act of the Council should be adopted by a written vote given the tight deadline as provided for by Article 18(7) of the Regulation. The procedure for objecting to a resolution scheme, or approve or object to a material modification of the amount of the Fund provided thereof is, by nature, urgent.

(4)

Based on the grounds of urgency, the Council may deliberate and take its decision on the basis of documents and drafts drawn up in one of the languages specified in the rules in force governing languages as provided for in Article 14(1) of the Council's Rules of procedure. This should not put into question the obligation to adopt and publish the decision in all languages specified in the rules in force governing languages at a later stage,

18.2.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 41/22

(1)

On 18 September 2015 and 1 October 2015, the Council adopted Decisions (EU, Euratom) 2015/1600 (1) and 2015/1790 (2) appointing the members of the European Economic and Social Committee for the period from 21 September 2015 to 20 September 2020.

(2)

A member's seat on the European Economic and Social Committee has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Ms Marie-Louise KNUPPERT,

18.2.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 41/23

(1)

Commission Implementing Decision 2014/908/EU (2) lays down lists of third countries and territories whose supervisory and regulatory arrangements are found equivalent to the corresponding supervisory and regulatory arrangements applied in the Union in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 575/2013.

(2)

The Commission has conducted further assessments of the supervisory and regulatory arrangements applicable to investment firms and exchanges using the same methodology as for the equivalence assessments that led to the adoption of Implementing Decision 2014/908/EU.

(3)

In its assessments, the Commission has considered relevant developments in the supervisory and regulatory framework since the adoption of Implementing Decision 2014/908/EU and took into account available sources of information, including independent assessments carried out by international organisations, such as the International Monetary Fund and the International Organization of Securities Commissions.

(4)

The Commission has concluded that in Japan only the supervisory and regulatory arrangements applied to a subset of the Japanese investment firms comply with a series of operational, organisational and supervisory standards reflecting the essential elements of the Union's supervisory and regulatory arrangements applicable to investment firms. That subset of Japanese investment firms, as defined in Article 28 of the Financial Instrument and Exchange Act of Japan, engages in defined business and is referred to in Japan's legal framework as Type I Financial Instruments Business Operators (Type I FIBOs). Type I FIBOs are subject to specific rules related to registration capital requirements, as well as to ongoing risk-based capital requirements. Based on the analysis carried out, it is appropriate to consider the supervisory and regulatory requirements applied to Type I FIBOs located in Japan as at least equivalent to those applied in the Union for the purposes of Article 107(4) and Article 142(1)(4)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013.

(5)

The Commission has concluded that Hong Kong, Indonesia and South Korea have in place supervisory and regulatory arrangements which comply with a series of operational, organisational and supervisory standards reflecting the essential elements of the Union's supervisory and regulatory arrangements applicable to investment firms. Therefore, it is appropriate to consider the supervisory and regulatory requirements applied to investment firms located in those third countries and territories as at least equivalent to those applied in the Union for the purposes of Article 107(4) and Article 142(1)(4)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013.

(6)

The Commission has concluded that Australia, Indonesia and South Korea have in place supervisory and regulatory arrangements which comply with a series of operational standards reflecting the essential elements of the Union's supervisory and regulatory arrangements applicable to exchanges. Therefore, it is appropriate to consider the supervisory and regulatory arrangements applied to exchanges located in those third countries as at least equivalent to those applied in the Union for the purposes of Article 107(4) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013.

(7)

Implementing Decision 2014/908/EU should therefore be amended to include those third countries and territories in the appropriate list of third countries and territories whose supervisory and regulatory requirements are considered equivalent to the Union's regime for the purposes of the treatment of exposures according to Regulation (EU) No 575/2013.

(8)

The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the European Banking Committee,

(1)

Annex II is replaced by the text set out in Annex I to this Decision;

(2)

Annex III is replaced by the text set out in Annex II to this Decision;

(3)

Annex V is replaced by the text set out in Annex III to this Decision.

18.2.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 41/28

(1)

External statistics are increasingly used for purposes other than monetary policy, including macro-prudential analysis and monitoring of excessive economic imbalances. These activities, as well as other activities in the area of international cooperation and research, will be facilitated by the European Central Bank's publication of the euro area aggregates compiled on the basis of Guideline ECB/2011/23 (2) and of the national data collected in this respect.

(2)

Given the balance between merit and costs, the reduction of the reporting period for the transmission of quarterly balance of payments and international investment position data due to apply from 2019 under Guideline ECB/2011/23, will no longer be applied.

(3)

Therefore, Guideline ECB/2011/23 should be amended accordingly,

(1)

in Article 1, the following definition is added:

(2)

Article 2 is amended as follows:

(3)

Article 3(2) is amended as follows:

(4)

the following Article 3a is inserted:

‘Article 3a

Transmission and publication of data by the ECB

1.   The ECB shall transmit to the NCBs the euro area aggregates it publishes, as well as the publishable national data sets collected under Article 2.

2.   The ECB may publish publishable national data sets following the publication of the respective euro area aggregates.’;

(5)

in Article 6, paragraph 3 is replaced by the following:

‘3.   Where the data for an item in Tables 1 to 5 of Annex II are of negligible or of insignificant size for euro area and national statistics, or the data for that item cannot be collected at reasonable cost, best estimates based on sound statistical methodologies shall be permitted provided the analytical value of the statistics is not compromised. In addition, best estimates shall be permitted for the following breakdowns in Tables 1, 2, 2A and 6 of Annex II:

(6)

Annexes I and II are amended in accordance with the Annex to this Guideline.