4.6.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 137/1

(1)

On 30 August 2017, the Council adopted Regulation (EU) 2017/1509.

(2)

On 23 May 2018, the United Nations Security Council (‘UNSC’) Committee established pursuant to UNSC Resolution 1718 (2006) amended the listing of an entity subject to restrictive measures.

(3)

Annex XIII to Regulation (EU) 2017/1509 should therefore be amended accordingly,

4.6.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 137/3

(1)

In order to avoid disruption to international financial markets and to prevent penalising institutions by subjecting them to higher own funds requirements during the processes of recognition of existing third-country central counterparties (CCPs), Article 497(2) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 established a transitional period during which third-country CCPs with which institutions established in the Union clear transactions may be considered qualifying CCPs by those institutions.

(2)

Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 amended Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) in respect of certain inputs to the calculation of institutions' own funds requirements for exposures to third-country CCPs. Accordingly, Article 89(5a) of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 requires certain third-country CCPs to report, for a limited period of time, the total amount of initial margin they have received from their clearing members. That transitional period mirrors the one laid down in Article 497(2) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013.

(3)

Both transitional periods were set to expire on 15 June 2014.

(4)

Article 497(3) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 empowers the Commission to adopt an implementing act to extend the transitional period for own funds requirements by six months in exceptional circumstances. That extension should also apply in respect of the time limits laid down in Article 89(5a) of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012. Those transitional periods have most recently been extended until 15 June 2018 by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2241 (3).

(5)

Of the CCPs established in third countries that have applied for recognition in accordance with Article 25 of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012, 32 CCPs have been recognised by the European Securities and Markets Authority. The remaining third-country CCPs are still awaiting recognition and their recognition process will not be completed by 15 June 2018. If the transitional period is not extended, institutions established in the Union (or their subsidiaries established outside the Union) having exposures to those remaining third-country CCPs will be required to increase their own funds for those exposures significantly, potentially leading to the withdrawal of those institutions as direct participants in those CCPs or, at least temporarily, to the cessation of the provision of clearing services to those institutions' clients and thus cause severe disruption in the markets in which those CCPs operate.

(6)

The need to avoid disruption to markets outside of the Union that led to the previous extensions of the transitional period laid down in Article 497(2) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 would therefore remain after the expiry of the extension of the transitional period set out in Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2241. A further extension of the transitional period should enable institutions established in the Union (or their subsidiaries established outside the Union) to avoid significant increase in the own funds requirements due to the lack of completion of the recognition process for CCPs which provide, in a viable and accessible way, the specific type of clearing services that institutions established in the Union (or their subsidiaries established outside the Union) require. An additional six-month extension of the transitional periods is therefore appropriate.

(7)

This Regulation should enter into force before 16 June 2018 to ensure that the extension of the existing transitional periods occurs prior to their expiry. A later entry into force could lead to disruption for CCPs, for markets in which they operate and for institutions which have exposures to those CCPs.

(8)

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

4.6.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 137/5

(1)

Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 lists the persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation.

(2)

On 29 May 2018, the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council decided to amend one entry in the list of persons, groups and entities to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply. Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 should therefore be amended accordingly,

4.6.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 137/7

(1)

The Agreement on the European Economic Area (2) (‘the EEA Agreement’) entered into force on 1 January 1994.

(2)

Pursuant to Article 98 of the EEA Agreement, the EEA Joint Committee may decide to amend, inter alia, Annex IX to that Agreement, which contains provisions on financial services.

(3)

The following acts concern financial services and are to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement:

(4)

Annex IX to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly.

(5)

The position of the Union within the EEA Joint Committee should therefore be based on the attached draft decisions,

4.6.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 137/23

(1)

Article 126(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) requires Member States to avoid excessive government deficits.

(2)

Data on Government deficits and debt that are relevant to the application of Articles 121 and 126 TFEU and to the application of Protocol No 12 on the excessive deficit procedure annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the TFEU, are essential inputs to economic policy coordination in the Union.

(3)

In order to enhance the enforcement of budgetary surveillance in the euro area and to deter against the misrepresentation, whether intentional or due to serious negligence, of government deficit and debt data, the Council, acting upon a recommendation by the Commission, may decide to impose a fine on the Member State responsible.

(4)

On 3 May 2016, the Commission launched an investigation related to the manipulation of statistics in Austria as referred to in Regulation (EU) No 1173/2011. The preliminary findings of the investigation were sent to Austria for its observations on 20 December 2016, as required by Commission Delegated Decision 2012/678/EU (2). Austria provided its written observations on the preliminary findings on 25 January 2017.

(5)

On 22 February 2017, the Commission adopted a report on the investigation related to the manipulation of statistics in Austria as referred to in Regulation (EU) No 1173/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the effective enforcement of budgetary surveillance in the euro area, taking into account the observations provided by Austria.

(6)

In its report, the Commission concluded that the State Court of Audit (Landesrechnungshof - LRH) and State Office of Land Salzburg (Amt der Salzburger Landesregierung) and State Government of Land Salzburg (Salzburger Landesregierung), which are entities within the general government sector of Austria, were seriously negligent in not ensuring appropriate compilation controls and reporting procedures. Because of this, those entities facilitated the fact that the Budget Unit of the State Office of Land Salzburg could misrepresent and conceal financial transactions. This in turn resulted in Austria's debt data for the years 2008-2012 being misrepresented to Eurostat in 2012 and 2013, i.e. after the entry into force of Regulation (EU) No 1173/2011. Moreover, the Commission concluded that Statistics Austria (Statistik Austria - STAT) was aware of the possibility that Land Salzburg misrepresented its accounts since at least 6 December 2012, but that it only informed the Commission (Eurostat) of this fact on 10 October 2013.

(7)

The amount of the fine shall not exceed 0,2 % of the gross domestic product of Austria in 2015.

(8)

The reference amount of the fine to be imposed shall be equal to 5 % of the larger impact of misrepresentation of the general government debt of Austria for the relevant years covered by the notification in the context of the excessive deficit procedure (EDP). The revision to the debt reported by Austria for the April 2014 EDP notification amounted to EUR 1 192 million. The reference amount for the fine should thus be set at EUR 59,6 million.

(9)

Taking into account the criteria set out in point (d) of Article 14(3) of Delegated Decision 2012/678/EU, the Commission concluded in its report that the relevant actions of the Member State on which a fine may be based are those which took place in the period from 13 December 2011, when Regulation (EU) No 1173/2011 entered into force, until the launch of the investigation. It also concluded that the last notification in which the relevant misrepresentation occurred was the October 2013 EDP notification that covered the years 2009-2012. The misrepresentations for years 2011 and 2012, contained in the 2012 and the 2013 EDP notifications, respectively, are of relevance in the context of that Regulation because they justify increasing the amount of the fine.

(10)

Taking into account the criteria set out in point (a) of Article 14(3) of Delegated Decision 2012/678/EU, the Commission concluded in its report that the misrepresentation of data did not significantly impact the functioning of the strengthened economic governance of the Union, because of its limited impact on the debt of Austria as a whole. These elements justify a reduction of the amount of the fine.

(11)

Taking into account the criteria set out in point (b) of Article 14(3) of Delegated Decision 2012/678/EU, the Commission concluded in its report that the misrepresentation was the result of serious negligence. The Commission did not conclude in its report that the misrepresentation was intentional in an EDP context. No modulation should be applied to the amount of the fine in this respect.

(12)

Taking into account the criteria set out in point (c) of Article 14(3) of Delegated Decision 2012/678/EU, the Commission concluded in its report that the misrepresentation of data was facilitated by the fact that three entities of the general government sector of Austria were seriously negligent by not ensuring appropriate compilation controls and reporting procedures. Nevertheless, the Commission does not consider this to be a concerted action by those entities. These elements justify a reduction of the amount of the fine.

(13)

Taking into account the criteria set out in Article 14(3)(e) of Delegated Decision 2012/678/EU, the Commission in its report concluded that STAT and all entities concerned have shown a high degree of cooperation in the course of the investigation. This element would normally justify a reduction of the amount of the fine. Nevertheless, it has been ascertained that, under the principle of due diligence, STAT could and should have had a more prompt and pro-active role in informing the Commission (Eurostat) that misreporting had occurred in the accounts of Land Salzburg. This element would normally justify an increase in the amount of the fine. However, this conclusion should be qualified by the high complexity of the factual situation which led to the misreporting, involving losses from financial derivatives and the associated technical difficulties associated to their understanding and elaboration and which should be taken into account when assessing the degree of diligence shown by the authorities of the Member State concerned. Considering the combined effect of the elements justifying a reduction – the high degree of cooperation shown in the course of the investigation as well as the difficulties ensuing from the high complexity of the facts – against the elements justifying an increase, a reduction should still be applied to the amount of the fine.

(14)

The Commission recommends that the fine to be imposed on Austria should be set at EUR 29,8 million. In view of these circumstances, the fine should be set at EUR 26,82 million,

4.6.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 137/25

(1)

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

(2)

On 23 May 2018, the United Nations Security Council (‘UNSC’) Committee established pursuant to UNSC Resolution 1718 (2006) amended the listing of an entity subject to restrictive measures.

(3)

Annex I to Decision (CFSP) 2016/849 should therefore be amended accordingly,

4.6.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 137/27

(1)

Directive 91/676/EEC aims to protect waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources by, among other measures, limiting the application of livestock manure to land. If a Member State intends to allow an amount of manure per hectare that is different from the amount specified in the first sentence of the second subparagraph of paragraph 2 of Annex III to Directive 91/676/EEC, that amount is to be fixed so as not to prejudice the achievement of the objectives of the Directive and is to be justified on the basis of objective criteria, such as long growing seasons and crops with high nitrogen uptake. The justification is to be examined by the Commission.

(2)

On 8 December 2005, the Commission adopted Decision 2005/880/EC (2) granting a derogation requested by the Netherlands pursuant to Directive 91/676/EEC for the purpose of allowing the application of grazing livestock manure up to a limit of 250 kg nitrogen per hectare per year on farms with at least 70 % grassland.

(3)

On 5 February 2010, the Commission adopted Decision 2010/65/EU (3), amending Decision 2005/880/EC and extending the derogation until 31 December 2013.

(4)

On 16 May 2014, the Commission adopted Implementing Decision 2014/291/EU (4). In that Decision the Netherlands was granted a derogation pursuant to Directive 91/676/EEC to allow the application of grazing livestock manure on farms with at least 80 % grassland up to a limit of 230 kg nitrogen per hectare per year for farms on southern and central sandy soils and on loess soils and up to a limit of 250 kg nitrogen per hectare per year for farms on other soils. The derogation concerned 19 564 farms in 2016, corresponding to 47 % of the total net agricultural area in the Netherlands.

(5)

On 31 January 2018, the Netherlands submitted to the Commission a request, under the third subparagraph of paragraph 2 of Annex III to Directive 91/676/EEC, for a renewal of the derogation for the period 2018 to 2021.

(6)

The Netherlands applies, in conformity with Article 3(5) of Directive 91/676/EEC, an action programme throughout its whole territory.

(7)

The Dutch legislation implementing Directive 91/676/EEC includes application standards both for nitrogen and phosphate.

(8)

According to the data provided by the Dutch authorities, in the period 2012 to 2015, the number of cattle and pigs in the Netherlands increased by 2,3 % and 0,8 % respectively as compared to the period 2008 to 2011. The number of poultry in the Netherlands increased by 2,4 % for the same period. Since 2006, Dutch legislation (5) sets limitations on the number of pigs and poultry. Moreover, since January 2015, Dutch legislation (6) requires that an appropriate share of surplus manure from the dairy sector is processed. In addition, a system of phosphate production rights for dairy cattle has just been introduced (7) in the Netherlands. All of those measures aim at preventing pollution of water bodies.

(9)

In the period 2012 to 2015, nitrogen use from livestock manure in the Netherlands was 416 000 tonnes, which was a decrease of 4,4 % as compared to the period 2008 to 2011 (8). The use of chemical N fertiliser in the Netherlands increased by approximately 4,3 % in the period 2012 to 2015 compared to the period 2008-2011 (9).

(10)

According to the scientific underpinning provided by the Dutch authorities, the climate in the Netherlands, characterised by an annual rainfall evenly distributed throughout the year and a relatively narrow annual temperature range, promotes a long grass-growing season of 250 days per year.

(11)

Moreover, the information provided by the Dutch authorities in the context of the previous derogation granted by Implementing Decision 2014/291/EU indicates that derogation has not led to a deterioration of the Dutch water bodies. For instance, the nitrate concentration in the water leaving the root zone on monitored holdings covered by authorisations has decreased since 2006 and was in average in 2015 and 2016 below 50 mg/l.

(12)

The data reported by the Netherlands under Article 10 of Directive 91/676/EEC shows that for the period 2012 to 2015, approximately 88 % of the groundwater monitoring stations in the Netherlands had mean nitrate concentrations below 50 mg/l and that 79 % of those monitoring stations had mean nitrate concentrations below 25 mg/l. The data also shows that for the period 2012 to 2015, 99 % of the surface water monitoring stations in the Netherlands had mean nitrate concentrations below 50 mg/l and that 96 % of those monitoring stations had mean nitrate concentrations below 25 mg/l. The data indicates a stable or decreasing trend in nitrate concentration in groundwater and surface water compared to the period 2008 to 2011. Nevertheless, in the reporting period 2012 to 2015, 60 % of the freshwaters were eutrophic, 13 % potentially eutrophic and 27 % not eutrophic.

(13)

After examination of the request from the Netherlands in accordance with the third subparagraph of paragraph 2 of Annex III to Directive 91/676/EEC and in the light of the 6th Dutch Action Programme and the experience gained from the derogation provided for in Implementing Decision 2014/291/EU, the Commission considers that the amount of grazing livestock manure proposed by the Netherlands, corresponding to 230 kg nitrogen per hectare per year on farms with at least 80 % grassland on southern and central sandy soils and on loess soils and 250 kg nitrogen per hectare per year on farms with at least 80 % grassland on other soils, will not prejudice the achievement of the objectives of Directive 91/676/EEC, subject to certain strict conditions being met by the Netherlands, and is justified on the basis of objective criteria.

(14)

The Netherlands should ensure that the pressure on water bodies as a consequence of growing livestock numbers and the associated manure production does not increase. To that end the Netherlands should ensure that total manure production, both in terms of nitrogen and phosphorus, does not increase beyond the level of the year 2002. New legislation implementing the 6th Dutch Action Programme should therefore provide for a binding manure production ceiling which is not to be exceeded and which can be invoked against individual farmers where needed.

(15)

The authorisations to individual farmers is subject to certain conditions that are aimed at ensuring fertilisation at farm level based on crop needs and reduction and prevention of nitrogen and phosphorus losses to water. Those conditions should therefore include requirements that a fertiliser plan has been established at farm level, that fertiliser practices are recorded through fertiliser accounts, that periodic soil analysis are carried out, that green cover is applied in winter after maize, that specific provisions on grass ploughing are complied with, that no manure is applied before grass ploughing, that the fertilisation takes into account the contribution of leguminous crops, and that no phosphate from chemical fertilisers is applied to the land.

(16)

Over the recent years the implementation by the Netherlands of their manure management policy, including compliance with Implementing Decision 2014/291/EU, has suffered some setbacks leading to a situation where there are concerns over possible fraud. This exceptional situation requires the Netherlands to step up its efforts in preventing fraud in the implementation of its manure policy. While the 6th Action Programme already provides for measures aimed at reinforcing the control and inspections with a view to improving overall compliance with the rules of the Dutch manure policy, additional efforts need to be deployed to foster effective implementation and full compliance. Those efforts should include the establishment of an enhanced enforcement strategy, taking into account also the provisions of Directive 2008/99/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (10). The strategy should be based on an independent assessment of compliance with the rules on Dutch manure policy and contain specific measures aiming at further strengthening inspections and controls and a clear methodology to establish sufficiently dissuasive penalties and sanctions. It is therefore justified to limit the duration of the derogation so that it expires on 31 December 2019 in order to enable the Netherlands to fully implement the enhanced enforcement strategy. The Netherlands may submit, in accordance with the second subparagraph of paragraph 2 of Annex III to Directive 91/676/EEC, a request for a new derogation for a subsequent period.

(17)

Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (11) provides for a comprehensive, cross-border approach to water protection organised around river basin districts (RBDs), with the objective of achieving good status for European bodies of water. Reducing nutrients is an integral part of that objective. Granting of a derogation under this Decision is without prejudice to the provisions of Directive 2000/60/EC and does not exclude that additional measures may be needed to fulfil obligations derived from that Directive.

(18)

Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (12) lays down general rules aimed at the establishment of the Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the Union for the purposes of environmental policies of the Union and policies or activities of the Union which may have an impact on the environment. Where applicable, the spatial information collected in the context of this Decision should be in line with the provisions set out in that Directive. In order to reduce the administrative burden and enhance data coherence, the Netherlands, when collecting the necessary data under this Decision should, where appropriate, make use of the information generated under the Integrated Administration and Control System established pursuant to Chapter II of Title V of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (13).

(19)

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

(1)

‘grassland farm’ means any holding where at least 80 % of the acreage available for manure application is grass;

(2)

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

(3)

‘farm land’ means the acreage owned, rented or managed by the farmer under a written individual contract and on which the farmer has a direct management responsibility;

(4)

‘grass’ means permanent grassland or temporary grassland which lies less than five years;

(5)

‘fertilisation plan’ means a calculation of the planned use and availability of nutrients;

(6)

‘fertilisation account’ means the nutrient balance based on the real use and uptake of nutrients.

(7)

‘southern and central sandy soils’ means soils indicated as southern and central sandy soils under the Dutch legislation implementing the Nitrates Directive

(8)

‘loess soils’ means soils indicated as loess soils under the Dutch legislation implementing the Nitrates Directive

(1)

The Netherlands shall monitor the amount of manure produced and shall ensure that manure production at national level both in terms of nitrogen and phosphorus will not increase beyond the level of the year 2002 corresponding to 504,4 million kg of nitrogen and 172,9 million kg of phosphate.

(2)

The Netherlands shall establish an enhanced enforcement strategy aiming at strengthening the compliance with the rules on Dutch manure policy and at ensuring that any information pointing at situations of non-compliance is followed up effectively.

The enhanced enforcement strategy shall, as a minimum, include the following elements:

(a)

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

(b)

a calculation of the manure nitrogen (less losses in housing and storage) and phosphorus produced on the grassland farm;

(c)

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

(d)

the foreseeable nitrogen and phosphorus crop requirements;

(e)

the amount and the type of manure delivered to contractors and therefore not used on the grassland farm;

(f)

the amount of imported manure used on the grassland farm;

(g)

a calculation of the contribution from organic matter mineralisation, leguminous crops and atmospheric deposition and amount of nitrogen present in the soil at the moment when the crop starts to use it to a significant degree;

(h)

a calculation of nitrogen and phosphorus application from manure for each field (parcels of the grassland farm that are homogeneous regarding cropping and soil type);

(i)

a calculation of nitrogen application from chemical and other fertilisers for each field;

(j)

calculations for assessment of compliance with the maximum application standards for nitrogen and phosphorus established in the 6th Dutch Action Programme.

(a)

the crop acreages;

(b)

the number and type of livestock;

(c)

the manure production per animal;

(d)

the amount of fertilisers imported by the grassland farm;

(e)

the amount of manure delivered to contractors and therefore not used on the grassland farm and the name of those contractors.

(a)

the percentage of the grassland farms in each municipality which are covered by authorisations;

(b)

the percentage of the livestock in each municipality which is covered by authorisations;

(c)

the percentage of the agricultural land in each municipality which is covered by authorisations.

(a)

data related to fertilisation in all grassland farms which are covered by authorisations, including information on yields and soil types;

(b)

trends in livestock numbers for each livestock category in the Netherlands and in grassland farms covered by an authorisation,

(c)

trends in national manure production as far as nitrogen and phosphate in manure are concerned;

(d)

a summary of the results of controls related to excretion coefficients for pig and poultry manure at national level;

(e)

the maps referred to in Article 9(1);

(f)

the results of water monitoring, including information on water quality trends for groundwater and surface water, as well as the impact on water quality of the derogation granted in this Decision;

(g)

the information on nitrate and phosphorus concentration referred to in Article 9(2);

(h)

the results from the reinforced water monitoring referred to in Article 9(5);

(i)

the results of the surveys on local land use, crop rotations and agricultural practices referred to in Article 9(4);

(j)

the results of the model-based calculations referred to in Article 9(4);

(k)

an evaluation of the implementation of the conditions for the authorisations set out in Articles 7 and 8 on the basis of controls carried out at farm level, and information on non-compliant farms, on the basis of the results of the administrative controls and inspections referred to in Article 10;

(l)

the results of the enhanced enforcement strategy referred to in Article 4, in particular as regards the reduction in non-compliance cases.

4.6.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 137/35

(1)

Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/247 (3) was adopted following outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza of subtype H5 in a number of Member States (‘the concerned Member States’), and the establishment of protection and surveillance zones by the competent authority of the concerned Member States in accordance with Article 16(1) of Council Directive 2005/94/EC (4).

(2)

Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/247 provides that the protection and surveillance zones established by the competent authorities of the concerned Member States in accordance with Directive 2005/94/EC are to comprise at least the areas listed as protection and surveillance zones in the Annex to that Implementing Decision. Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/247 also lays down that the measures to be applied in the protection and surveillance zones, as provided for in Article 29(1) and Article 31 of Directive 2005/94/EC, are to be maintained until at least the dates for those zones set out in the Annex to that Implementing Decision.

(3)

Since the date of its adoption, Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/247 has been amended several times to take account of developments in the epidemiological situation in the Union as regards avian influenza. In particular, Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/247 was amended by Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/696 (5) in order to lay down rules regarding the dispatch of consignments of day-old chicks from the areas listed in the Annex to Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/247. That amendment took into account the fact that day-old chicks pose a very low risk for the spread of highly pathogenic avian influenza compared to other poultry commodities.

(4)

Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/247 was also subsequently amended by Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/1841 (6) in order to strengthen the disease control measures applicable where there is an increased risk for the spread of highly pathogenic avian influenza. Consequently, Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/247 now provides for the establishment at Union level of further restricted zones in the concerned Member States, as referred to in Article 16(4) of Directive 2005/94/EC, following an outbreak or outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza, and the duration of the measures to be applied therein. Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/247 now also lays down rules for the dispatch of live poultry, day-old chicks and hatching eggs from the further restricted zones to other Member States, subject to certain conditions.

(5)

In addition, the Annex to Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/247 has been amended numerous times, mainly to take account of changes in the boundaries of the protection and surveillance zones established by the concerned Member States in accordance with Directive 2005/94/EC.

(6)

The Annex to Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/247 was last amended by Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/697 (7), following the notification by Bulgaria of further outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza of subtype H5 in poultry holdings in the Plovdiv region of that Member State. Bulgaria also notified the Commission that it had duly taken the necessary measures required in accordance with Directive 2005/94/EC following those latest outbreaks, including the establishment of protection and surveillance zones around the infected poultry holdings.

(7)

Since the date of the last amendment made to Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/247 by Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/697, Bulgaria has notified the Commission of a further outbreak of highly pathogenic avian influenza of subtype H5N8 in a poultry holding in the Dobrich region of that Member State.

(8)

Bulgaria has also notified the Commission that it has taken the necessary measures required in accordance with Directive 2005/94/EC following that new outbreak, including the establishment of protection and surveillance zones around the infected poultry holding in that Member State.

(9)

The Commission has examined those measures in collaboration with Bulgaria, and the Commission is satisfied that the boundaries of the protection and surveillance zones, established by the competent authority of Bulgaria, are at a sufficient distance to the poultry holding where the new outbreak was confirmed.

(10)

In order to prevent any unnecessary disturbance to trade within the Union, and to avoid unjustified barriers to trade being imposed by third countries, it is necessary to rapidly describe at Union level, in collaboration with Bulgaria, the protection and surveillance zones established in Bulgaria, in accordance with Directive 2005/94/EC, following the new outbreak of highly pathogenic avian influenza in that Member State.

(11)

Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/247 should therefore be updated to take account of the up-to-date epidemiological situation in Bulgaria, as regards highly pathogenic avian influenza. In particular, the newly established protection and surveillance zones in Bulgaria, now subject to restrictions in accordance with Directive 2005/94/EC, should be listed in the Annex to Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/247.

(12)

The Annex to Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/247 should therefore be amended to update regionalization at Union level in order to include the protection and surveillance zones established in Bulgaria, in accordance with Directive 2005/94/EC, following the new outbreak of highly pathogenic avian influenza in that Member State, and the duration of the restrictions applicable therein.

(13)

Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/247 should therefore be amended accordingly.

(14)

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