18.7.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 185/1

(1)

In its Communication of 3 March 2010 entitled ‘Europe 2020: A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth’, the Commission emphasised the need to develop favourable conditions for investment in knowledge and innovation so as to achieve smart, sustainable and inclusive growth in the Union. Both the European Parliament and the Council have endorsed that strategy.

(2)

By its resolutions of 28 July 2010 and 18 December 2013, the General Assembly of the United Nations recognised the right to safe and clean drinking water and sanitation as a human right that is essential for the full enjoyment of life. It also called for the progressive realisation of the human right to safe drinking water, emphasising the important role of international cooperation in that context.

(3)

Regulation (EU) No 1291/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) established the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020) (‘Horizon 2020’). Horizon 2020 aims to achieve a greater impact on research and innovation by contributing to the strengthening of public-public partnerships, including through Union participation in programmes undertaken by several Member States, with a view to sustainable development.

(4)

Public-public partnerships should aim to develop closer synergies, increase coordination and avoid unnecessary duplication with Union, international, national and regional research and innovation programmes, and should fully respect the general principles of Horizon 2020, with the aim of strengthening research and innovation in order to contribute towards sustainable development, in particular those relating to openness and transparency.

(5)

In accordance with Article 19(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1291/2013, research and innovation activities carried out under the Partnership for Research and Innovation in the Mediterranean Area (PRIMA) are to have an exclusive focus on civil applications.

(6)

Regulation (EU) No 1291/2013 identified ‘Food security, sustainable agriculture and forestry, marine, maritime and inland water research, and the bioeconomy’ and ‘Climate action, environment, resource efficiency and raw materials’ as two of the priority societal challenges to be addressed by supporting investment in research and innovation. Moreover, Regulation (EU) No 1291/2013 recognises that research and innovation activities for those challenges are to be carried out at the Union level and beyond given the transnational and global nature of the climate and the environment, their scale and complexity, and the international dimension of the food and agricultural supply chain.

(7)

Regulation (EU) No 1291/2013 acknowledges that international cooperation with third countries is necessary to address common challenges effectively. International cooperation in research and innovation is a key aspect of the Union's global commitments and has an important role to play in the Union's partnership with European Neighbourhood countries. In that respect, the Mediterranean area is strategically important for the Union from a political, economic, cultural, scientific and environmental point of view.

(8)

In order to ensure consistency with Regulation (EU) No 1290/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (4), actions which fall within the scope of this Decision should respect fundamental rights and observe the principles acknowledged in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Such actions should be in conformity with any legal obligation stemming from international law, Union law, inter alia, any relevant Commission decisions such as the Commission notice of 28 June 2013 (5), as well as with ethical principles, which include avoiding any breach of research integrity.

(9)

In its Communication of 7 June 2016 on establishing a new Partnership Framework with third countries under the European Agenda on Migration, the Commission emphasised the need for all policies, including research and innovation, to address the root causes of migration through a new cooperation model involving private investors, as well as the need to leverage limited budget resources and to focus on small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and sustainable infrastructure.

(10)

PRIMA aims to implement a joint programme to foster research and innovation capacities and to develop knowledge and common innovative solutions for improving the efficiency, safety, security and sustainability of agro-food systems and of integrated water provision and management in the Mediterranean area. PRIMA should contribute to the achievement of the recently agreed Sustainable Development Goals and to the forthcoming European Sustainable Development Strategy as well as to the goals of the Paris Agreement.

(11)

Integrated water provision and management, including reuse and treatment of water, means that all the different uses of water resources are considered.

(12)

Sustainable agro-food systems should aim to meet the requirements of citizens and the environment for safe, healthy and affordable food and to make food and feed processing, distribution and consumption more sustainable with the aim of minimising food losses and agro-food waste.

(13)

With regard to water resources and agro-food systems, open, democratic and participatory governance is crucial to ensure that the most cost-effective solutions are implemented for the benefit of society as a whole.

(14)

With a view to ensuring participation of the third countries not associated to Horizon 2020 in PRIMA, namely Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Morocco, international agreements for scientific and technological cooperation between the Union and those third countries are required in order to extend to them the legal regime established by this Decision.

(15)

In line with the objectives of Horizon 2020, any other Member State and any third country associated to Horizon 2020 should be entitled to participate in PRIMA if it commits to contributing to the financing of PRIMA and to take the legislative, regulatory, administrative and other measures necessary for protecting the Union's financial interests.

(16)

In order to ensure the joint implementation of PRIMA, an implementation structure (‘PRIMA-IS’) should be set up. PRIMA-IS should be the recipient of the Union financial contribution and it should ensure the efficient and transparent implementation of PRIMA.

(17)

In order to achieve the objectives of PRIMA, any other third country not associated to Horizon 2020, in particular Southern Mediterranean countries, should be able to participate if it commits to contributing to the financing of PRIMA and if PRIMA-IS approves its participation. Its participation should also be provided for by the relevant international agreement for scientific and technological cooperation between such third country and the Union.

(18)

The Union financial contribution should be subject to formal commitments from the Participating States to contribute to the financing of PRIMA and to the fulfilment and implementation of those commitments in accordance with this Decision. Flexibility should be provided to the Participating States to contribute financially to PRIMA-IS on an optional basis with a view to funding indirect actions, thereby achieving a high degree of financial integration. Furthermore, Participating States should contribute financially or in kind to activities implemented without the Union financial contribution and to the administrative budget of PRIMA-IS not covered by the Union financial contribution. The period during which the Participating States are to provide their contribution should be clearly defined.

(19)

A ceiling should be established for the Union financial contribution to PRIMA with funding from Horizon 2020. Under that ceiling, the Union financial contribution should be equal to the Participating States' contribution to PRIMA in order to achieve a high leverage effect and ensure a stronger integration of the Participating States' programmes. It should be possible to use a limited part of the Union financial contribution to cover the administrative costs of PRIMA-IS. An efficient administration of PRIMA should be ensured and administrative costs should be kept to a minimum.

(20)

In order to avoid a protracted implementation of PRIMA, a deadline should be fixed for the launch of the final activities to be funded, including the final calls for proposals.

(21)

PRIMA activities should be in line with the objectives and research and innovation priorities of Horizon 2020 and with the general principles and conditions laid down in Article 26 of Regulation (EU) No 1291/2013. PRIMA should take into account the definitions of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development regarding the Technological Readiness Level in the classification of technological research, product development and demonstration activities.

(22)

PRIMA should support all types of research and innovation activities, including research, development and innovation projects, innovative demonstrators and pilot plants, capacity building, training, awareness-raising and dissemination actions, and researcher mobility, addressing a wide range of Technology Readiness Levels and ensuring an appropriate balance between small and large projects.

(23)

In order to have a greater impact, coherence between PRIMA and other research and innovation projects under Horizon 2020, such as the European Institute of Innovation and Technology Food Knowledge and Innovation Community (‘Food KIC’), or other Union instruments, such as the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument, should be sought and possible overlaps should be avoided.

(24)

PRIMA should be implemented on the basis of annual work plans setting out the activities to be undertaken in a given year. PRIMA-IS should monitor regularly the results of calls for proposals and the actions it funds and the extent to which scientific topics, expected impacts and oversubscription in terms of proposals above threshold that could not be funded have been adequately addressed. In justified cases, PRIMA-IS should undertake corrective actions by amending the annual work plan or in subsequent annual work plans.

(25)

In order to achieve the objectives of PRIMA, PRIMA-IS should provide financial support mainly in the form of grants to participants, for actions funded by PRIMA-IS. Those actions should be selected following open and competitive calls for proposals under the responsibility of PRIMA-IS.

(26)

Barriers preventing the participation of newcomers in PRIMA activities should be monitored and addressed.

(27)

In achieving the objectives of PRIMA, and in line with the applicable rules and principles, such as the principle of scientific excellence, PRIMA-IS should aim to provide, through the annual work plan, an appropriate share of its funding, approximately 25 % of the Union financial contribution, reflecting the commitments of Mediterranean Partner Countries to PRIMA, to legal entities established in targeted third countries considered to be Participating States.

(28)

Calls for proposals managed by PRIMA-IS should also be published on the single portal for participants, as well as through other Horizon 2020 electronic means of dissemination managed by the Commission.

(29)

PRIMA-IS should make information on the implementation of the actions funded publicly available.

(30)

The Union financial contribution should be managed in accordance with the principle of sound financial management and with the rules on indirect management laid down in Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council (6) and Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 (7).

(31)

In order to protect the Union's financial interests, the Commission should have the right to terminate, reduce or suspend the Union financial contribution if PRIMA is implemented inadequately, partially or late, or if the Participating States do not contribute, or contribute partially or late, to the financing of PRIMA.

(32)

In line with the overall aim of Horizon 2020 of achieving greater simplification, sets of rules that are different from those of Horizon 2020 should be avoided. Therefore, participation in indirect actions funded by PRIMA-IS is subject to Regulation (EU) No 1290/2013. However, due to the unique objectives and specific operating needs of PRIMA, it is necessary to provide for a limited number of derogations in accordance with Article 1(3) of that Regulation.

(33)

In order to account for the specificities resulting from the geographical scope of PRIMA, derogations from point (b) of Article 9(1) and from Article 9(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1290/2013 are necessary to adjust the minimum eligibility conditions for participation in indirect actions. In particular, in order to adapt to the specificities of PRIMA the minimum number of participants should, by way of derogation from point (b) of Article 9(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1290/2013, be three legal entities established in three different Participating States, fostering balanced Euro-Mediterranean cooperation. A derogation from Article 9(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1290/2013 is also necessary in order to ensure that the minimum eligibility conditions for participation in indirect actions do not discriminate against entities established in third countries that are Participating States.

(34)

Derogations from Article 10(1) and (2) of Regulation (EU) No 1290/2013 are necessary in order to ensure that, as a general rule, only legal entities established in a Participating State or created under Union law, or international European interest organisations, are eligible for funding. However, PRIMA-IS should also be able to fund beneficiaries established in a country that is not a Participating State, provided that such participation is deemed to be essential by PRIMA-IS or if funding is provided for under an international agreement or arrangement. The participation of such entities should be monitored by PRIMA-IS.

(35)

For the purpose of simplification, the administrative burden should be strictly proportionate to the foreseeable effects on all parties. Double audits and disproportionately burdensome documentation or reporting should be avoided. When audits are conducted, the specificities of the national programmes should be taken into account, as appropriate.

(36)

Audits of recipients of Union funds provided in accordance with this Decision should ensure a reduction of the administrative burden, in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 1291/2013.

(37)

The Union's financial interests should be protected through proportionate measures throughout the expenditure cycle, including the prevention, detection and investigation of irregularities, the recovery of funds lost, wrongly paid or incorrectly used and, where appropriate, administrative sanctions in accordance with Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012.

(38)

The Commission, taking into account the views of the Participating States as well as the views expressed by a wide range of stakeholders, should conduct an interim evaluation assessing in particular the quality and efficiency of PRIMA and the progress made towards the objectives set, and a final evaluation, and should prepare reports on those evaluations.

(39)

Upon request from the Commission, PRIMA-IS and the Participating States should submit any information that the Commission needs to include in the reports on the evaluation of PRIMA and, in doing so, should be encouraged to use a harmonised format.

(40)

The objective of this Decision is to strengthen the integration and alignment of research and innovation systems and activities in Mediterranean countries in the fields of agro-food systems, to make them sustainable, and of integrated water provision and management. The scale of the research and innovation necessary to address the challenges in the Mediterranean area is immense due to the systemic character of the major bottlenecks. The scope of research and innovation is complex, multidisciplinary and requires a multi-actor and cross-border approach. A collaborative approach with a wide set of Participating States can help to increase the required scale and scope, by pooling financial and intellectual resources. Since the objective of this Decision cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, but can rather, by integrating national efforts into a consistent Union approach, by bringing together compartmentalised national research and innovation programmes, by helping design common research and funding strategies across national borders, and by achieving the critical mass of actors and investments required, 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 Decision does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective.

(41)

The Union should therefore participate in PRIMA,

(a)

it fulfils the condition laid down in point (c) of Article 4(1) and complies, in particular, with Article 11(5);

(b)

the implementation structure for PRIMA (‘PRIMA-IS’) approves its participation in PRIMA after examining the relevance of its participation to achieving the objectives of PRIMA; and

(c)

it concludes an international agreement for scientific and technological cooperation with the Union setting out the terms and conditions of its participation in PRIMA.

(a)

the formulation of a long-term, common, strategic agenda in the area of agro-food systems, to make them sustainable, and in the area of integrated water provision and management;

(b)

the orientation of relevant national research and innovation programmes towards the implementation of the strategic agenda;

(c)

the involvement of all relevant public and private sector actors in implementing the strategic agenda by pooling knowledge and financial resources to achieve the necessary critical mass;

(d)

the strengthening of the research and innovation funding capacities and of the implementation capabilities of all actors involved including SMEs, academia, non-governmental organisations and local research centres.

(a)

fund the activities referred to in point (a) of Article 6(1);

(b)

cover PRIMA-IS administrative costs, up to a maximum of 6 % of the Union financial contribution referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article.

(a)

the demonstration by the Participating States that PRIMA is set up in accordance with this Decision;

(b)

the designation by the Participating States, or by organisations designated by the Participating States, of an entity with legal personality, as referred to in point (c)(vi) of Article 58(1) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012, as PRIMA-IS, which shall be responsible for implementing PRIMA efficiently, for receiving, allocating and monitoring the Union financial contribution referred to in Article 3(1) of this Decision as well as the Participating States' contributions, where appropriate, and for ensuring that all necessary actions are undertaken to achieve the objectives of PRIMA;

(c)

the commitment by each Participating State to contribute to the financing of PRIMA with an adequate contribution from national resources relevant to the objectives of PRIMA;

(d)

the demonstration by PRIMA-IS of its capacity to implement PRIMA, including receiving, allocating and monitoring the Union financial contribution referred to in Article 3(1) of this Decision in the framework of indirect management of the Union budget in accordance with Articles 58, 60 and 61 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012;

(e)

the establishment of an efficient governance model for PRIMA in accordance with Article 12;

(f)

the adoption by PRIMA-IS, after obtaining approval from the Commission, of the common principles referred to in Article 6(9).

(a)

the implementation by PRIMA-IS of the objectives set out in Article 2, and of the activities referred to in Article 6;

(b)

the maintenance of an appropriate and efficient governance model in accordance with Article 12;

(c)

the compliance by PRIMA-IS with the reporting requirements set out in Article 60(5) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012;

(d)

the fulfilment by the Participating States of the commitments referred to in point (c) of paragraph 1 of this Article.

(a)

where appropriate, financial contributions to PRIMA-IS in view of funding indirect actions referred to in point (a) of Article 6(1);

(b)

financial or in-kind contributions in implementing activities referred to in point (b) of Article 6(1); and

(c)

financial or in-kind contributions to the administrative budget of PRIMA-IS not covered by the Union financial contribution as set out in point (b) of Article 3(3).

(a)

indirect actions within the meaning of Regulations (EU) No 1290/2013 and (EU) No 1291/2013 funded by PRIMA-IS in accordance with Article 7 of this Decision, mainly in the form of grants following transnational open and competitive calls for proposals organised by PRIMA-IS, including:

(b)

activities funded by the Participating States without the Union financial contribution referred to in Article 3(1) consisting of:

(a)

the proposals shall be for transnational projects, with minimum participation of at least three independent legal entities established in three different countries considered to be Participating States in accordance with this Decision by the submission deadline under the relevant call for proposals, of which:

(b)

the proposals shall be selected following transnational calls for proposals and shall be evaluated with the assistance of at least three independent experts, on the basis of the following award criteria: excellence, impact, and quality and efficiency of the implementation;

(c)

the proposals shall be ranked according to the evaluation results. The selection shall be made by PRIMA-IS and should follow that ranking. The Participating States shall agree on an adequate funding mode that allows for the maximising of the number of proposals above threshold to be funded on the basis of that ranking, in particular by providing reserve amounts to the national contributions for calls for proposals. In the event that one or more projects cannot be funded, the projects following directly in the ranking may be selected.

(a)

at least one is established in a Member State or third country associated to Horizon 2020 and does not fall under point (b); and

(b)

at least one is established in a third country listed in Article 1(2), or in a third country bordering the Mediterranean Sea.

(a)

any legal entity established in a Participating State or created under Union law;

(b)

any international European interest organisation, as defined in point (12) of Article 2(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1290/2013.

(a)

participation is deemed to be essential for carrying out the action by PRIMA-IS;

(b)

such funding is provided for under a bilateral scientific and technological agreement or any other arrangement between the Union and the international organisation or, for entities established in a country which is not a Participating State, the country in which the legal entity is established.

(a)

the requirements for PRIMA-IS contribution regarding the performance indicators set out in Annex II to Decision 2013/743/EU;

(b)

the requirements for PRIMA-IS contribution to the monitoring referred to in Annex III to Decision 2013/743/EU;

(c)

the specific performance indicators related to the functioning of PRIMA-IS;

(d)

the requirements for PRIMA-IS regarding the provision of information on administrative costs and of detailed figures concerning the implementation of PRIMA;

(e)

the arrangements regarding the provision of data necessary to ensure that the Commission is able to meet its dissemination and reporting obligations;

(f)

the arrangements for the approval or rejection by the Commission of the draft annual work plan, the common principles referred to in Article 6(9) and the reporting requirements of the Participating States, before they are adopted by PRIMA-IS; and

(g)

provisions for the publication of calls for proposals by PRIMA-IS, in particular on the single portal for participants, as well as through other Horizon 2020 electronic means of dissemination managed by the Commission.

(a)

a Board of Trustees, which shall have a Chair and a Co-Chair;

(b)

a Steering Committee;

(c)

a Secretariat, headed by a Director;

(d)

a Scientific Advisory Committee.

(a)

the annual work plan;

(b)

the common principles referred to in Article 6(9); and

(c)

the Participating States' reporting requirements to PRIMA-IS.

(a)

implement the annual work plan;

(b)

provide support to the other bodies of PRIMA-IS;

(c)

monitor and report on the implementation of PRIMA;

(d)

manage the Union financial contribution referred to in Article 3(1) and the Participating States' financial contributions and report on their use;

(e)

increase the visibility of PRIMA through advocacy and communication;

(f)

liaise with the Commission in accordance with the delegation agreement referred to in Article 8;

(g)

ensure the transparency of PRIMA activities.

(a)

advise the Board of Trustees on strategic priorities and needs;

(b)

advise the Board of Trustees on the content and scope of the draft annual work plan from a scientific and technical standpoint;

(c)

review the scientific and technical aspects of the implementation of PRIMA and deliver an opinion on its annual report.

18.7.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 185/16

(1)

On 6 February 2017, the Council noted that the smuggling of migrants and trafficking of human beings contributes to destabilising the political and security situation in Libya.

(2)

On 17 July 2017, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2017/1338 (3), which applies export restrictions on certain goods to Libya which may be used for smuggling migrants and trafficking in human beings.

(3)

Regulatory action at the level of the Union is necessary in order to implement the measures, in particular with a view to ensuring their uniform application by economic operators in all Member States.

(4)

Regulation (EU) 2016/44 should therefore be amended accordingly,

(1)

the following Article is inserted:

‘Article 2a

1.   Prior authorisation shall be required for:

2.   Annex VII shall include the items which could be used for the smuggling of migrants and trafficking in human beings.

3.   Paragraph 1 shall not apply to the sale, supply, transfer or export, directly or indirectly, of goods set out in Annex VII, as well as the provision of technical assistance, brokering services, financing or financial assistance related to those goods by authorities of Member States to the Libyan government.

4.   The competent authority concerned shall not grant authorisation referred to in paragraph 1 when there are reasonable grounds to believe that the goods would be used for the purpose of smuggling of migrants and trafficking in human beings.

5.   Where a competent authority listed in Annex IV refuses to grant authorisation, or annuls, suspends, substantively modifies or revokes authorisation in accordance with this Article, the Member State concerned shall notify the other Member States and the Commission thereof and share the relevant information with them.’;

(2)

in Article 20, the following point is inserted:

18.7.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 185/19

(1)

Council Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 (2) gives effect to Decision 2010/788/CFSP (3) and provides for certain measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, including the freezing of their assets.

(2)

United Nations Security Council Resolution (‘UNSCR’) 2360 (2017) of 21 June 2017 amended the criteria for the designation of persons and entities to be subject to the restrictive measures set out in paragraphs 9 and 11 of UNSCR 1807 (2008). Decision (EU) 2017/1340 gives effect to UNSCR 2360 (2017).

(3)

Decision (EU) 2017/1340 falls within the scope of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and regulatory action at Union level is therefore necessary in order to give effect to that Decision, in particular with a view to ensuring its uniform application by economic operators in all Member States.

(4)

Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 should therefore be amended accordingly,

18.7.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 185/20

(1)

On 18 January 2012, the Council adopted Regulation (EU) No 36/2012.

(2)

In view of the gravity of the situation in Syria, in particular the use by the Syrian regime of chemical weapons and its involvement in chemical weapons proliferation, 16 persons should be added to the list of natural and legal persons, entities or bodies subject to restrictive measures in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 36/2012.

(3)

Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 should therefore be amended accordingly,

18.7.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 185/24

(1)

Commission Regulation (EU) No 642/2010 (2) lays down rules on the calculation and fixing of the import duty on certain products. For common wheat, durum wheat and maize, the import duty may depend on the difference between the actual quality of the product imported and the quality of the product entered on the import licence. To this end, qualitative analysis based on representative samples are carried out by the customs office and additional securities are provided for.

(2)

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/1237 (3) provides for the cases where an import licence is required. An import licence is no longer required for products of the cereal sector when they are declared for release for free circulation under conditions other than tariff rate quotas. As a consequence, the requirement to lodge a security for the import licence for the products referred to in Article 12(a) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1342/2003 (4) has been deleted.

(3)

Article 2(4) of Regulation (EU) No 642/2010 provides for an import duty reduction for some ports of unloading, for which the customs authorities are to issue a certificate in accordance with the model given in Annex I to that Regulation. That model still includes a reference to the import licence number as additional information regarding the import licence itself. Moreover, in order to avoid any confusion, it is appropriate to replace the term ‘certificate’ by ‘document’.

(4)

Article 3(4) and Article 6(1) and (2) of Regulation (EU) No 642/2010 provide for an additional security, except where the import licence is accompanied by certain certificates of conformity. In those Articles and in Article 7(4), references to ‘import licence’ or to the security related thereto should be deleted or be replaced by references to the declaration of release for free circulation. At the same time, the term ‘additional security’ should be replaced by a more appropriate term.

(5)

In the interest of clarity and legal certainty, it is appropriate to replace references to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (5), Regulation (EC) No 450/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council (6) and Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 (7) by references to Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (8) and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 (9).

(6)

Regulation (EU) No 642/2010 should therefore be amended accordingly.

(7)

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

(1)

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

‘3.   The Common Customs Tariff duty rates referred to in paragraph 1 shall be those applicable on the date referred to in Article 172(2) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (*1).

(*1)  Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code (OJ L 269, 10.10.2013, p. 1).’"

(2)

In Article 2(4), the second subparagraph is replaced by the following:

‘The customs authority at the port of unloading shall issue a document in accordance with the model given in Annex I attesting the quantity of each product unloaded. For the duty reduction provided for in the first subparagraph to be granted, that document must accompany the goods until completion of the customs import formalities.’

(3)

In Article 3, paragraphs 3 and 4 are replaced by the following:

‘3.   The end-use provisions of Article 254(1), (4) and (5) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 shall apply.

4.   Notwithstanding Article 211(3)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013, for flint maize, the importer shall lodge with the competent authority a specific security of EUR 24 per tonne, except where the declaration of release for free circulation is accompanied by a certificate of conformity issued by the Argentine Servicio National de Sanidad y Calidad Agroalimentaria (Senasa) in accordance with point (a) of the first subparagraph of Article 7(2) of this Regulation.

If, however, the duty applicable on the date of the acceptance of the declaration of release for free circulation is less than EUR 24 per tonne of maize, the specific security shall be equal to the duty amount.’

(4)

Article 6 is replaced by the following:

‘Article 6

1.   For high quality common wheat, the importer shall lodge with the competent authority a specific security of EUR 95 per tonne on the date of acceptance of the declaration of release for free circulation, except where that declaration is accompanied by a certificate of conformity issued by the Federal Grain Inspection Service (FGIS) or by the Canadian Grain Commission (CGC) in accordance with point (b) or (c) of the first subparagraph of Article 7(2).

If, however, import duties for all quality categories of common wheat have been suspended under Article 219 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (*2), the specific security shall not be required for the entire period during which the duties are suspended.

2.   For durum wheat, the importer shall lodge with the competent authority a specific security on the date of acceptance of the declaration of release for free circulation, except where that declaration is accompanied by a certificate of conformity issued by the Federal Grain Inspection Service (FGIS) or by the Canadian Grain Commission (CGC) in accordance with point (b) or (c) of the first subparagraph of Article 7(2).

The amount of the specific security shall be the difference on the day of acceptance of the declaration of release for free circulation between the highest import duty and that applicable to the quality shown, plus a supplement of EUR 5 per tonne. However, where the import duty applicable to the different qualities of durum wheat is zero, the specific security shall not be required.

(*2)  Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 671).’"

(5)

In Article 7(2), the first subparagraph is replaced by the following:

‘2.   The following certificates of conformity shall be officially recognised by the Commission pursuant to the principles laid down in Articles 58 and 59 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 (*3):

(*3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 of 24 November 2015 laying down detailed rules for implementing certain provisions of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the Union Customs Code (OJ L 343, 29.12.2015, p. 558).’"

(6)

In Article 7, paragraph 4 is replaced by the following:

‘4.   If the analysis results show the imported high quality common wheat, durum wheat and flint maize to be of a lower standard quality than entered on the declaration of release for free circulation, the importer shall pay the difference between the import duty applicable to the product shown on the declaration and that on the product actually imported. In this case, the specific security provided for in Article 3(4) and Article 6(1) and (2) shall be released, except for the EUR 5 supplement provided for in the second subparagraph of Article 6(2).

If the difference referred to in the first subparagraph is not paid within one month, the specific security provided for in Article 3(4) and Article 6(1) and (2) shall be forfeit.’

(7)

Annex I is replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Regulation.

18.7.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 185/29

(1)

As a result of an agreement between the Union and the United States of America concluded by virtue of Council Decision 2013/125/EU (2), Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 624/2013 (3) amended Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 32/2000 with effect from 1 July 2013 to open a new tariff quota of 1 550 tonnes bound in GATT for imports in the Union of food preparations not elsewhere specified or included of CN code 2106 90 98 originating in the United States of America.

(2)

As country-specific tariff quotas are allocated on the basis of the origin of goods, it was considered appropriate to introduce an obligation in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 32/2000 to present a certificate of origin, in accordance with the applicable Union legislation on non-preferential origin, whenever a declaration for release for free circulation is made in respect of food preparations intended to benefit from the new tariff quota.

(3)

However, by letter of 26 April 2016, the United States of America asked for this obligation to be removed. Their letter explains that the products benefiting from the tariff quota are exported from across the United States and even though the task of issuing certificates of origin is decentralised, the resources necessary to comply with such a paper-based certification system make this task prohibitively burdensome.

(4)

With regard to the risk that products not originating in the United States may be imported under the tariff quota if the obligation is removed, Article 61 of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 (4) already allows customs authorities to require declarants to prove the origin of goods by a means of proof other than presentation of a certificate of origin in accordance with Articles 57, 58 and 59 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 (5). The correct application of the rules can thus be ensured even if the obligation to provide a certificate of origin is removed to reduce the administrative burden on exporters.

(5)

In consequence, given these exceptional circumstances, it is appropriate to allow importers of those products to use the tariff quota without their having to provide a certificate of origin.

(6)

Regulation (EC) No 32/2000 should therefore be amended accordingly.

(7)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,

18.7.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 185/31

(1)

Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 329/2007 lists persons, entities and bodies who, having been designated by the Sanctions Committee or the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), are covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation.

(2)

Annex V to Regulation (EC) No 329/2007 lists persons, entities and bodies who, not having been listed in Annex IV, have been listed by the Council, and are covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation.

(3)

On 5 June 2017, the Sanctions Committee amended the entries for two entities subject to restrictive measures.

(4)

On 2 June 2017, the UNSC adopted Resolution 2356 (2017) adding 14 natural persons and four entities to the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures. Those persons and entities have been added to Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 329/2007 by means of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/970 (2). Some of those persons and entities should therefore be deleted from Annex V to Regulation (EC) No 329/2007, as they are now designated under Annex IV.

(5)

Annex IV and V should therefore be amended accordingly,

18.7.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 185/35

(1)

Article 13 of Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1311/2013 (2) has established a Contingency Margin of up to 0,03 % of the gross national income of the Union.

(2)

In accordance with Article 6 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1311/2013, the Commission had calculated the absolute amount of the Contingency Margin for 2014 (3).

(3)

By Decision (EU) 2015/435 (4), the European Parliament and the Council mobilised the Contingency Margin for making available additional payment appropriations in 2014, to be offset in 2018-2020.

(4)

According to the medium-term payment forecast presented in the context of the Mid-Term Review, pressure on the annual payment ceilings in the years 2018-2020 is to be expected.

(5)

The draft budget for the year 2017 shows a margin below the payment ceiling of EUR 9,6 billion, allowing for the offsetting of the full amount mobilised in 2014.

(6)

Decision (EU) 2015/435 should therefore be amended accordingly,

(1)

Article 1 is replaced by the following:

‘Article 1

For the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2014, the Contingency Margin shall be mobilised to provide the amount of EUR 2 818 233 715 in payment appropriations over and above the payment ceiling of the multiannual financial framework.’.

(2)

Article 2 is replaced by the following:

‘Article 2

The amount of EUR 2 818 233 715 shall be offset against the margin under the payment ceiling for the year 2017.’.

18.7.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 185/37

(1)

Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 (‘IUU Regulation’) establishes a Union system to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated (‘IUU’) fishing.

(2)

Chapter VI of the IUU Regulation lays down the procedure with respect to the identification of non-cooperating third countries, démarches in respect of countries identified as non-cooperating third countries, establishment of a list of non-cooperating third countries, removal from the list of non-cooperating third countries, publicity of the list of non-cooperating third countries and any emergency measures.

(3)

On 24 March 2014, the Council adopted Implementing Decision 2014/170/EU (2) which established a list of non-cooperating third countries in fighting IUU fishing pursuant to IUU Regulation.

(4)

In accordance with Article 32 of the IUU Regulation, by Decision of 1 October 2015 (‘Decision of 1 October 2015’) (3), the Commission notified the Union of the Comoros (‘the Comoros’) of the possibility of being identified as a country which the Commission considers as a non-cooperating third country.

(5)

In the Decision of 1 October 2015, the Commission included the information concerning the essential facts and considerations underlying such possible identification.

(6)

The Decision of 1 October 2015 was notified to the Comoros together with a letter of the same date suggesting that the Comoros implement, in close cooperation with the Commission, a plan of action to rectify the identified shortcomings.

(7)

The Commission invited the Comoros in particular to: (i) take all necessary measures to implement the actions contained in the plan of action suggested by the Commission; (ii) assess the implementation of those actions; and (iii) send every 6 months a detailed report to the Commission assessing the implementation of each of those actions as regards, inter alia, its individual and/or overall effectiveness in ensuring a fully compliant fisheries control system.

(8)

The Comoros was given the opportunity to respond in writing and orally to the Decision of 1 October 2015 as well as to other relevant information communicated by the Commission, allowing it to submit evidence refuting or completing the facts stated in the Decision of 1 October 2015. The Comoros was assured of its right to ask for, or to provide, additional information.

(9)

By its Decision of 1 October 2015 and its letter, the Commission opened a process of dialogue with the Comoros and highlighted that it considered a period of 6 months as being sufficient in principle for reaching an agreement.

(10)

The Commission continued to seek and verify all information it deemed necessary. The oral and written comments submitted by the Comoros following the Decision of 1 October 2015 were considered and taken into account. The Comoros was kept informed, either orally or in writing, of the Commission's deliberations.

(11)

The Commission however took the view that the areas of concern and shortcomings as described in the Decision of 1 October 2015 had not been addressed sufficiently by the Comoros. Moreover, the Commission concluded that the measures of the plan of action had not been fully implemented. As a consequence, the Commission adopted Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/889 (4), identifying the Comoros as a non-cooperating third country in fighting IUU fishing.

(12)

Based on the investigation and dialogue procedures carried out by the Commission, including the correspondence exchanged and the meetings held, and the reasons underlying the Decision of 1 October 2015 and Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/889, it is appropriate to place the Comoros on the list of non-cooperating third countries in fighting IUU fishing.

(13)

Pursuant to Article 34(1) of the IUU Regulation, the Council, acting by qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission, is to remove a third country from the list of non-cooperating third countries if that country demonstrates that the situation that warranted its listing has been rectified. A removal decision is also to take into consideration whether the identified third country concerned has taken concrete measures capable of achieving a lasting improvement of the situation.

(14)

In the Decision of 1 October 2015, the Commission analysed the duties of the Comoros and evaluated its compliance with its international obligations as flag, port, coastal or market State. For the purpose of that review, the Commission took into account the parameters listed in Article 31(4) to (7) of the IUU Regulation.

(15)

The Commission reviewed the compliance of the Comoros in line with the findings of the Decision of 1 October 2015, and having regard to relevant information provided thereon by the Comoros, the suggested plan of action, and the measures taken to rectify the situation.

(16)

The main shortcomings identified by the Commission in the suggested plan of action were related to several failures to implement obligations under international law, linked in particular to: the failure to adopt an adequate legal framework and registration and licensing procedures; the lack of cooperation and information sharing within the Comorian administration and with third countries where Comorian vessels operate; the lack of an adequate and efficient monitoring, control and surveillance system; and the lack of a deterrent sanctioning system. Other identified shortcomings relate, more generally, to compliance with international obligations including Regional Fisheries Management Organisations recommendations and resolutions. A lack of compliance with recommendations and resolutions from relevant bodies such as the International Plan of Action against Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing and the Voluntary Guidelines for Flag State Performance, both of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, were also identified. However, the lack of compliance with non-binding recommendations and resolutions was considered only as supporting evidence and not as a basis for the identification.

(17)

In Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/889, the Commission identified the Comoros as a non-cooperating third country pursuant to the IUU Regulation.

(18)

With respect to the possible constraints upon the Comoros as a developing country, it is noted that the development status and overall performance of the Comoros with respect to fisheries management may be impaired by its level of development. However, having taken account of the nature of the established shortcomings of the Comoros, the Comorian development level cannot fully excuse or otherwise justify its overall performance as flag, port, coastal or market State with respect to fisheries and the insufficiency of its actions to prevent, deter and eliminate IUU fishing.

(19)

Having regard to the Decision of 1 October 2015 and Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/889, and to the dialogue process with the Comoros held with the Commission and the outcome of that process, it can be concluded that the actions undertaken by the Comoros in light of its duties as flag State are insufficient to comply with Articles 63, 64, 91, 94, 117 and 118 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

(20)

Thus, the Comoros has failed to discharge its duties under international law as flag State to take action to prevent, deter and eliminate IUU fishing.

(21)

In view of the conclusions reached with regard to the Comoros, that country should be added, in accordance with Article 33 of the IUU Regulation, to the list of non-cooperating third countries established by the Implementing Decision 2014/170/EU. That Decision should therefore be amended accordingly.

(22)

The inclusion of the Comoros in the list of non-cooperating third countries in the fight against IUU fishing entails the application of the measures laid down in Article 38 of the IUU Regulation. Article 38(1) of the IUU Regulation provides for the prohibition of importation of fisheries products caught by vessels flying the flag of non-cooperating third countries. In the case of the Comoros, that prohibition should cover all stocks and species, namely all fishery products as defined in Article 2(8) of the IUU Regulation, since the lack of appropriate measures adopted in relation to IUU fishing leading to the identification of the Comoros as a non-cooperating third country is not limited to a given stock or species.

(23)

It is noted that IUU fishing, inter alia, depletes fish stocks, destroys marine habitats, undermines the conservation and sustainable use of marine resources, distorts competition, endangers food security, puts honest fishermen at an unfair disadvantage, and weakens coastal communities. In view of the magnitude of the problems related to IUU fishing, it is considered necessary for the Union to expeditiously implement the actions in respect of the Comoros as a non-cooperating third country. As a consequence, this Decision should enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

(24)

If the Comoros demonstrates that the situation that warranted its listing has been rectified, the Council, acting by qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission, is to remove the Comoros from the list of non-cooperating third countries in line with Article 34(1) of the IUU Regulation. Any such removal decision should also take into consideration whether the Comoros has taken concrete measures capable of achieving a lasting improvement of the situation,

18.7.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 185/41

(1)

Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 (‘IUU Regulation’) establishes a Union system to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated (‘IUU’) fishing.

(2)

Chapter VI of the IUU Regulation lays down the procedure with respect to the identification of non-cooperating third countries, démarches in respect of countries identified as non-cooperating third countries, establishment of a list of non-cooperating third countries, removal from the list of non-cooperating third countries, publicity of the list of non-cooperating third countries and any emergency measures.

(3)

On 24 March 2014, the Council adopted Implementing Decision 2014/170/EU (2) which established a list of non-cooperating third countries in fighting IUU fishing pursuant to IUU Regulation.

(4)

In accordance with Article 32 of the IUU Regulation, by Decision of 12 December 2014 (‘Decision of 12 December 2014’) (3), the Commission notified Saint Vincent and the Grenadines of the possibility of being identified as a country which the Commission considers as a non-cooperating third country.

(5)

In the Decision of 12 December 2014, the Commission included the information concerning the essential facts and considerations underlying such possible identification.

(6)

The Decision of 12 December 2014 was notified to Saint Vincent and the Grenadines together with a letter of the same date suggesting that Saint Vincent and the Grenadines implement, in close cooperation with the Commission, a plan of action to rectify the identified shortcomings.

(7)

The Commission invited Saint Vincent and the Grenadines in particular to: (i) take all necessary measures to implement the actions contained in the plan of action suggested by the Commission; (ii) assess the implementation of those actions; and (iii) send every 6 months a detailed report to the Commission assessing the implementation of each of those actions as regards, inter alia, its individual and/or overall effectiveness in ensuring a fully compliant fisheries control system.

(8)

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines was given the opportunity to respond in writing and orally to the Decision of 12 December 2014 as well as to other relevant information communicated by the Commission, allowing it to submit evidence refuting or completing the facts stated in the Decision of 12 December 2014. Saint Vincent and the Grenadines was assured of its right to ask for, or to provide, additional information.

(9)

By its Decision of 12 December 2014 and its letter, the Commission opened a process of dialogue with Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and highlighted that it considered a period of 6 months as being sufficient in principle for reaching an agreement.

(10)

The Commission continued to seek and verify all information it deemed necessary. The oral and written comments submitted by Saint Vincent and the Grenadines following the Decision of 12 December 2014 were considered and taken into account. Saint Vincent and the Grenadines was kept informed, either orally or in writing, of the Commission's deliberations.

(11)

The Commission however took the view that the areas of concern and shortcomings as described in the Decision of 12 December 2014 had not been addressed sufficiently by Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. Moreover, the Commission concluded that the measures of the plan of action had not been fully implemented. As a consequence, the Commission adopted Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/918 (4), identifying Saint Vincent and the Grenadines as a non-cooperating third country in fighting IUU fishing.

(12)

Based on the investigation and dialogue procedures carried out by the Commission, including the correspondence exchanged and the meetings held, and the reasons underlying the Decision of 12 December 2014 and Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/918, it is appropriate to place Saint Vincent and the Grenadines on the list of non-cooperating third countries in fighting IUU fishing.

(13)

Pursuant to Article 34(1) of the IUU Regulation, the Council, acting by qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission, is to remove a third country from the list of non-cooperating third countries if that country demonstrates that the situation that warranted its listing has been rectified. A removal decision is also to take into consideration whether the identified third country concerned has taken concrete measures capable of achieving a lasting improvement of the situation.

(14)

In the Decision of 12 December 2014, the Commission analysed the duties of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and evaluated its compliance with its international obligations as flag, port, coastal or market State. For the purpose of that review, the Commission took into account the parameters listed in Article 31(4) to (7) of the IUU Regulation.

(15)

The Commission reviewed the compliance of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines in line with the findings of the Decision of 12 December 2014, and having regard to relevant information provided thereon by Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, the suggested plan of action, and the measures taken to rectify the situation.

(16)

The main shortcomings identified by the Commission in the suggested plan of action were related to several failures to implement obligations under international law, linked in particular to: the failure to adopt an adequate legal framework; the lack of an adequate and efficient monitoring, control and surveillance system; the lack of an observer scheme; and the lack of a deterrent sanctioning system. Other identified shortcomings relate, more generally, to compliance with international obligations, including Regional Fisheries Management Organisations recommendations and resolutions, and the conditions for registration of vessels according to international law. A lack of compliance with recommendations and resolutions from relevant bodies such as the International Plan of Action against Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing and the Voluntary Guidelines for Flag State Performance, both of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, were also identified. However, the lack of compliance with non-binding recommendations and resolutions was considered only as supporting evidence and not as a basis for the identification.

(17)

In Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/918, the Commission identified Saint Vincent and the Grenadines as a non-cooperating third country pursuant to the IUU Regulation.

(18)

With respect to the possible constraints upon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines as a developing country, it is noted that the development status and overall performance of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines with respect to fisheries are not impaired by its general level of development.

(19)

Having regard to the Decision of 12 December 2014 and Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/918, and to the dialogue process with Saint Vincent and the Grenadines held with the Commission and the outcome of that process, it can be concluded that the actions undertaken by Saint Vincent and the Grenadines in light of its duties as flag State are insufficient to comply with Articles 63, 64, 91, 94 and 117 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Articles 7, 18, 19, 20 and 23 of the United Nations Agreement for 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, and Article III(8) of the Agreement to promote compliance with international conservation and management measures by fishing vessels on the high seas of the United Nations.

(20)

Thus, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines has failed to discharge its duties under international law as flag State to take action to prevent, deter and eliminate IUU fishing.

(21)

In view of the conclusions reached with regard to Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, that country should be added, in accordance with Article 33 of the IUU Regulation, to the list of non-cooperating third countries established by the Implementing Decision 2014/170/EU. That Decision should therefore be amended accordingly.

(22)

The inclusion of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines in the list of non-cooperating third countries in the fight against IUU fishing entails the application of the measures laid down in Article 38 of the IUU Regulation. Article 38(1) of the IUU Regulation provides for the prohibition of importation of fisheries products caught by vessels flying the flag of non-cooperating third countries. In the case of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines that prohibition should cover all stocks and species, namely all fishery products as defined in Article 2(8) of the IUU Regulation, since the lack of appropriate measures adopted in relation to IUU fishing leading to the identification of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines as a non-cooperating third country is not limited to a given stock or species.

(23)

It is noted that IUU fishing, inter alia, depletes fish stocks, destroys marine habitats, undermines the conservation and sustainable use of marine resources, distorts competition, endangers food security, puts honest fishermen at an unfair disadvantage, and weakens coastal communities. In view of the magnitude of the problems related to IUU fishing, it is considered necessary for the Union to expeditiously implement the actions in respect of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines as a non-cooperating third country. As a consequence, this Decision should enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

(24)

If Saint Vincent and the Grenadines demonstrates that the situation that warranted its listing has been rectified, the Council, acting by qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission, is to remove Saint Vincent and the Grenadines from the list of non-cooperating third countries in line with Article 34(1) of the IUU Regulation. Any such removal decision should also take into consideration whether Saint Vincent and the Grenadines has taken concrete measures capable of achieving a lasting improvement of the situation,

18.7.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 185/45

(1)

On 26 January 2015, 5 February 2015 and 23 June 2015, the Council adopted Decisions (EU) 2015/116 (1), (EU) 2015/190 (2) and (EU) 2015/994 (3) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2015 to 25 January 2020.

(2)

A member's seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Augusto ROLLANDIN,

—

Mr Pierluigi MARQUIS, Consigliere e Presidente della Regione Autonoma Valle d'Aosta.

18.7.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 185/46

(1)

On 26 January 2015, 5 February 2015 and 23 June 2015, the Council adopted Decisions (EU) 2015/116 (1), (EU) 2015/190 (2) and (EU) 2015/994 (3) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2015 to 25 January 2020.

(2)

An alternate member's seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Ms Ingrid VAN ENGELSHOVEN,

—

Ms S. (Saskia) BRUINES, wethouder van de gemeente 's-Gravenhage.

18.7.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 185/47

(1)

On 26 January 2015, 5 February 2015 and 23 June 2015, the Council adopted Decisions (EU) 2015/116 (1), 2015/190 (2) and 2015/994 (3) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2015 to 25 January 2020.

(2)

Two members' seats on the Committee of the Regions have become vacant following the end of the terms of office of Ms Uta-Maria KUDER and Mr Detlef MÜLLER.

(3)

An alternate member's seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Andreas TEXTER,

(a)

as members:

and

(b)

as an alternate member:

18.7.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 185/48

(1)

On 26 January 2015, 5 February 2015 and 23 June 2015, the Council adopted Decisions (EU) 2015/116 (1), (EU) 2015/190 (2) and (EU) 2015/994 (3) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2015 to 25 January 2020.

(2)

A member's seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Marc SANT.

(3)

An alternate member's seat has become vacant following the appointment of Mr Mario FAVA as a member of the Committee of the Regions,

(a)

as a member:

and

(b)

as an alternate member:

18.7.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 185/49

(1)

On 31 July 2015, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 (1).

(2)

The Council has previously noted the importance of stability in Libya and has offered to provide support to the Libyan authorities as recognised under the Libyan Political Agreement, to counter the smuggling of migrants and trafficking in human beings.

(3)

The smuggling of migrants and trafficking in human beings contributes to destabilising the political and security situation in Libya.

(4)

Restrictions should be applied to the export of certain products to Libya which may be used to facilitate the smuggling of migrants and trafficking in human beings.

(5)

Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 should therefore be amended accordingly,

18.7.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 185/51

(1)

On 27 May 2016, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2016/849.

(2)

In accordance with Article 33(1) of Decision (CFSP) 2016/849, the Council shall implement modifications to Annex I thereto on the basis of the determination made by the United Nations Security Council (‘UNSC’) or by the Sanctions Committee.

(3)

On 5 June 2017, the UNSC Committee established pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1718 (2006) amended the entries for two entities subject to restrictive measures.

(4)

On 2 June 2017, the UNSC added 14 persons and four entities to the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures. Those persons and entities have accordingly been added to Annex I to Decision (CFSP) 2016/849 by means of Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2017/975 (2). Some of those persons and entities should therefore be removed from Annex II to Decision (CFSP) 2016/849 as they are now designated under Annex I.

(5)

Annexes I and II to Decision (CFSP) 2016/849 should therefore be amended accordingly,

18.7.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 185/55

(1)

On 20 December 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/788/CFSP.

(2)

On 21 June 2017, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 2360 (2017), which amends the listing criteria governing UN restrictive measures.

(3)

Further Union action is needed in order to implement certain measures.

(4)

Decision 2010/788/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly,

18.7.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 185/56

(1)

On 31 May 2013, the Council adopted Decision 2013/255/CFSP.

(2)

In view of the gravity of the situation in Syria, in particular the use by the Syrian regime of chemical weapons and its involvement in chemical weapons proliferation, 16 persons should be added to the list of natural and legal persons, entities or bodies subject to restrictive measures in Annex I to Decision 2013/255/CFSP.

(3)

Decision 2013/255/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly,

18.7.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 185/60

(1)

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

(2)

On 19 January 2016, the Political and Security Committee (PSC) agreed to use the extant EUBAM Libya shell to plan for a possible civilian Common Security and Defence Policy/Security Sector Reform engagement with the Libyan Government of National Accord upon its request, contributing to the efforts of the United Nations Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL), and on that basis agreed to prolong the mandate of EUBAM Libya for six months. Subsequently, on 15 February 2016, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2016/207 (2) extending EUBAM Libya until 21 August 2016.

(3)

On 4 August 2016, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2016/1339 (3) amending Decision 2013/233/CFSP and extending it until 21 August 2017.

(4)

The Malta Declaration by the members of the European Council on the external aspects of migration of 3 February 2017 notably emphasised that the efforts to stabilise Libya are now more important than ever and that the Union will do its utmost to contribute to that objective. In Libya, capacity building is key for the authorities to acquire control over the land and sea borders and to combat transit and smuggling activities.

(5)

In its conclusions on Libya of 6 February 2017, the Council notably reaffirmed its full support to UNSMIL and concluded that EUBAM Libya will continue engaging and assisting Libyan authorities in view of a possible future civilian mission, once conditions allow, in the field of police, rule of law and border management.

(6)

On 4 July 2017, the PSC agreed, based on the mission's strategic review, to extend the mandate of EUBAM Libya until 31 December 2018.

(7)

The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (the ‘HR’) should be allowed to release to Europol, Frontex, the United Nations and Interpol classified information generated for the purposes of EUBAM Libya, in accordance with Council Decision 2013/488/EU (4).

(8)

Decision 2013/233/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly.

(9)

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

(1)

Article 2 is replaced by the following:

‘Article 2

Objectives

EUBAM Libya will assist in a comprehensive civilian security sector reform planning process, with a view to preparing for a possible civilian Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) mission.

The objectives of EUBAM Libya are to engage and assist the Libyan authorities in the fields of border management, law enforcement and the broader criminal justice system.’.

(2)

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

‘1.   In order to achieve the objectives set out in Article 2, EUBAM Libya shall:

(3)

In Article 5, paragraph 7 is replaced by the following:

‘7.   The Civilian Operation Commander, the Head of Union Delegation in Libya and the Head of Mission of EUBAM Libya shall consult each other as required. The European External Action Service Principal Advisor on Gender should also be consulted, where appropriate.’.

(4)

In Article 6, paragraph 7 is replaced by the following:

‘7.   The Head of Mission shall coordinate, as appropriate, with other Union actors on the ground. The Head of Mission shall, without prejudice to the chain of command, receive local political guidance from the Head of Union Delegation in Libya.’.

(5)

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

‘1.   The PSC shall exercise, under the responsibility of the Council and of the HR, political control and strategic direction of EUBAM Libya. The Council hereby authorises the PSC to take the relevant decisions for that purpose in accordance with the third paragraph of Article 38 TEU. That authorisation shall include the powers to appoint a Head of Mission, upon a proposal from the HR, and to amend the planning documents. The powers of decision with respect to the objectives and termination of EUBAM Libya shall remain vested in the Council.’.

(6)

In Article 11, paragraph 4 is replaced by the following:

‘4.   EUBAM Libya staff shall undergo mandatory security training before taking up their duties, in accordance with the planning documents. They shall also receive regular in-theatre refresher training organised by the Mission Security Officer.’.

(7)

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

‘The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to EUBAM Libya for the period from 22 August 2016 to 30 November 2017 shall be EUR 17 000 000.’.

(8)

In Article 15, paragraph 4 is replaced by the following:

‘4.   The HR shall be authorised to release to Europol and Frontex EU classified information generated for the purposes of EUBAM Libya, in accordance with Decision 2013/488/EU.’.

(9)

In Article 15, the following paragraphs are added:

‘5.   The HR shall be authorised to release to the UN EU classified information up to “RESTREINT UE/EU RESTRICTED” level which are generated for the purposes of EUBAM Libya, in accordance with Decision 2013/488/EU.

6.   The HR shall be authorised to release to INTERPOL EU classified information generated for the purposes of EUBAM Libya, in accordance with Decision 2013/488/EU. Pending the conclusion of an agreement between the Union and INTERPOL, EUBAM Libya may release such information to the National Central Bureaux of INTERPOL of the Member States, in accordance with arrangements to be concluded between the Civilian Operation Commander and the Head of the relevant National Central Bureau.

7.   The HR shall be authorised to conclude the arrangements necessary to implement the provisions on information exchange in this Article.

8.   The HR may delegate the authorisations to release information as well as the ability to conclude the arrangements referred to in this Article to persons placed under the HR's authority, to the Civilian Operation Commander and/or to the Head of Mission.’.

(10)

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

‘It shall apply until 31 December 2018.’.