(1)

Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) requires that conservation measures be adopted taking into account available scientific, technical and economic advice, including, where relevant, reports drawn up by the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries and other advisory bodies, as well as in the light of any advice received from Advisory Councils established for the relevant geographical areas or fields of competence and joint recommendations made by Member States.

(2)

It is incumbent upon the Council to adopt measures on the fixing and allocation of fishing opportunities, including certain conditions functionally linked thereto, as appropriate. Fishing opportunities should be allocated to Member States in such a way as to ensure the relative stability of fishing activities of each Member State for each stock or fishery and having due regard to the objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) set out in Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013.

(3)

Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 provides that the objective of the CFP is to achieve the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) exploitation rate by 2015 where possible and, on a progressive, incremental basis, at the latest by 2020 for all stocks.

(4)

The total allowable catches (TACs) should therefore be established, in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013, on the basis of the available scientific advice, taking into account biological and socioeconomic aspects whilst ensuring fair treatment between fishing sectors, as well as having regard to the opinions expressed during the consultation with stakeholders.

(5)

Regulation (EU) 2016/1139 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) establishes a multiannual plan for the stocks of cod, herring and sprat in the Baltic Sea and for the fisheries exploiting those stocks (‘the plan’). The plan aims to ensure that exploitation of living marine biological resources restores and maintains populations of harvested species above levels which can produce the MSY. To that end, the target fishing mortality for the stocks concerned, expressed in ranges, is to be achieved as soon as possible and, on a progressive, incremental basis, by 2020. It is appropriate that the catch limits applicable in 2019 for the cod, herring and sprat stocks in the Baltic Sea are established in line with the objectives of the plan.

(6)

The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) has indicated the biomass of Western Baltic herring in ICES subdivisions 20-24 to be below the conservation reference points of the spawning stock biomass as set out in Annex II, column A, to Regulation (EU) 2016/1139. In accordance with Article 5(2) of that Regulation, all appropriate remedial measures should be adopted to ensure a rapid return of the stock concerned to a level capable of producing MSY. To that end, it is necessary to take into account the timeline for the achievement of the objectives of the CFP in general and of the plan in particular in view of the expected effect of the remedial measures adopted, whilst at the same time adhering to the objectives of achieving economic, social and employment benefits as set out in Article 2 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013. Accordingly, and in line with Article 4(3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1139, it is appropriate that fishing opportunities for Western Baltic herring are set below the fishing mortality range in Annex I, column A, of that Regulation, as such a level takes into account the decrease in the biomass.

(7)

As regards the Western Baltic Sea cod stock, scientific advice indicates that recreational fisheries contribute significantly to the overall fishing mortality of that stock and should be limited. It is therefore appropriate to set a daily bag limit per fisherman. This is without prejudice to the principle of relative stability applicable to commercial fishing activities.

(8)

As regards the Eastern Baltic cod stock, ICES has not yet been able to establish biological reference points, following changes in the biology of the stock. It is therefore appropriate, in order to contribute to the achievement of the objectives of the plan, to fix the TAC for Eastern Baltic cod in accordance with the precautionary approach as established in Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 and to set a closure period.

(9)

In order to guarantee full use of coastal fishing opportunities, it is appropriate to introduce a limited inter-area flexibility for salmon from ICES subdivisions 22-31 to ICES subdivision 32 for the Member State that has requested that flexibility.

(10)

According to ICES advice, 29 % of catches in the salmon fishery is misreported, in particular as sea trout catches. As most of the sea trout in the Baltic Sea is exploited in coastal areas, it is appropriate to prohibit fishing for sea trout beyond four nautical miles and to limit by-catches of sea trout to 3 % of the combined catch of sea trout and salmon in order to contribute to preventing misreporting of salmon catches as sea trout catches.

(11)

The use of the fishing opportunities set out in this Regulation is subject to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 (3), and in particular to Articles 33 and 34 thereof concerning the recording of catches and fishing effort, and to the transmission of data on the exhaustion of fishing opportunities to the Commission. This Regulation should therefore specify the codes relating to landings of stocks subject to this Regulation that are to be used by Member States when sending data to the Commission.

(12)

Council Regulation (EC) No 847/96 (4) introduced additional conditions for year-to-year management of TACs including, under Articles 3 and 4, flexibility provisions for precautionary and analytical TACs. Under Article 2 of that Regulation, when fixing the TACs, the Council is to decide to which stocks Articles 3 or 4 shall not apply, in particular on the basis of the biological status of the stocks. More recently, the year-to-year flexibility mechanism was introduced by Article 15(9) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 for all stocks that are subject to the landing obligation. Therefore, in order to avoid excessive flexibility that would undermine the principle of rational and responsible exploitation of living marine biological resources, hinder the achievement of the objectives of the CFP and cause the biological status of the stocks to deteriorate, it should be established that Articles 3 and 4 of Regulation (EC) No 847/96 apply to analytical TACs only where the year-to-year flexibility provided for in Article 15(9) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 is not used.

(13)

Based on new scientific advice, a preliminary TAC for Norway pout in ICES division 3a and Union waters of ICES division 2a and ICES subarea 4 should be established for the period from 1 November 2018 to 31 October 2019.

(14)

In previous years the TACs for anchovy in ICES subareas 9 and 10 and Union waters of CECAF division 34.1.1 have been fixed for a calendar year. In July 2018 ICES issued its advice for the period from 1 July 2018 to 30 June 2019 for that stock. Those periods should be aligned in order to match the TAC period with the period covered by the ICES advice. Exceptionally and only due to the transition, the TAC for anchovy should be amended to cover the period of 18 months, ending on 30 June 2019.

(15)

In order to avoid the interruption of fishing activities and to ensure the livelihoods of Union fishermen, this Regulation should apply from 1 January 2019. However, this Regulation should apply to anchovy in ICES subareas 9 and 10 and Union waters of CECAF division 34.1.1 from 1 January 2018. Such retroactive application is without prejudice to the principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations as the fishing opportunities for that longer period exceed those initially fixed under Council Regulation (EU) 2018/120 (5). Furthermore, this Regulation should apply to Norway pout in ICES division 3a and Union waters of ICES division 2a and ICES subarea 4 from 1 November 2018 until 31 October 2019. For reasons of urgency, this Regulation should enter into force immediately after its publication,

(1)

Regulation (EU) 2016/429 lays down rules for the prevention and control of animal diseases which are transmissible to animals or to humans, including rules for the prioritisation and categorisation of diseases of Union concern. Article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2016/429 provides that disease-specific rules for the prevention and control of diseases apply to the diseases listed in that Article and in Annex II to that Regulation. In addition, Article 5(3) of that Regulation lays down certain criteria to be taken into account in amending the list in that Annex, while the assessment parameters to be used in order to determine whether a disease meets the conditions requiring it to be listed in accordance with that Article are laid down in Article 7 of that Regulation.

(2)

In addition, Article 275 of Regulation (EU) 2016/429 provides that the Commission is to review the list of diseases set out in Annex II to that Regulation by 20 April 2019 at the latest.

(3)

The Commission systematically assessed the animal diseases which require Union intervention with the assistance of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), drawing on the scientific expertise provided by the EU Animal Health Reference Laboratories and the international standards of the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE). For the purposes of that assessment, it used the criteria laid down in Article 5(3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/429 and the assessment parameters laid down in Article 7 of that Regulation.

(4)

The assessed diseases consist of 39 diseases that are currently listed in Annex II to Regulation (EU) 2016/429, as well as another 19 diseases of special relevance for disease prevention, control or trade measures, such as enzootic bovine leukosis, infectious bovine rhinotracheitis or infection with Aujeszky's disease virus, and certain other diseases which have been listed by the OIE, such as surra (Trypanosoma evansi) or contagious caprine pleuropneumonia.

(5)

For the purposes of the assessments, 29 scientific opinions were requested from EFSA on different animal diseases. In providing them, EFSA followed the method set out in its Scientific Opinion adopted on 5 April 2017 on ad hoc method for the assessment on listing and categorisation of animal diseases within the framework of the Animal Health Law (2). For the remaining diseases, the assessments were based on recent EFSA opinions or on information provided by the EU Animal Health Reference Laboratories. As regards all assessed diseases, the relevant OIE standards were considered.

(6)

The results of the scientific assessments by EFSA were inconclusive for certain diseases such as surra (Trypanosoma evansi) (3), enzootic bovine leukosis (4), Venezuelan equine encephalomyelitis (5), infestation with Varroa spp. (Varroosis) (6) and Koi herpes virus disease (7). Taking into account the discussions held at the meetings of the expert group on animal health (8), those five diseases fulfil the requirements laid down in Article 5(3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/429. Therefore those diseases should be included in the list set out in Annex II to that Regulation.

(7)

The results of the scientific assessments carried out showed that swine vesicular disease (9), vesicular stomatitis (9), epizootic ulcerative syndrome (10) and Teschen disease do not fulfil the requirements laid down in Article 5(3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/429. Therefore, those diseases should be removed from the list set out in Annex II to that Regulation.

(8)

At the same time, surra (Trypanosoma evansi) (3), Ebola virus disease (11), paratuberculosis (12), Japanese encephalitis (13), West Nile fever (14), Q fever (15), infectious bovine rhinotracheitis/infectious pustular vulvovaginitis (16), bovine viral diarrhoea (17), bovine genital campylobacteriosis (18), trichomonosis (19), enzootic bovine leukosis (4), contagious caprine pleuropneumonia (20), ovine epididymitis (Brucella ovis) (21), infection with Burkholderia mallei (Glanders), infection with equine arteritis virus, equine infectious anaemia, dourine, contagious equine metritis, equine encephalomyelitis (Eastern and Western) (22), infection with Aujeszky's disease virus (23), infection with porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (24), avian mycoplasmosis (Mycoplasma gallisepticum and M. meleagridis) (25), infection with low pathogenic avian influenza viruses (26), avian chlamydiosis (27), infestation with Varroa spp. (Varroosis) (6), infestation with Aethina tumida (Small hive beetle) (28), American foulbrood, infestation with Tropilaelaps spp (28) and infection with Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans (29) do fulfil the requirements laid down in Article 5(3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/429. Therefore those diseases should be included in the list set out in Annex II to that Regulation.

(9)

In addition, Article 2(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/429 provides that that Regulation is to apply to transmissible diseases, including zoonosis, without prejudice to rules laid down in Decision No 1082/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (30), Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council (31), Directive 2003/99/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (32) and Regulation (EC) No 2160/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (33). As the diseases covered by the rules laid down in those acts, namely listeriosis, salmonellosis (zoonotic salmonella), trichinellosis, verotoxigenic E. coli and transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE) are already covered by sector-specify rules, they should therefore be removed from the list set out in Annex II to Regulation (EU) 2016/429.

(10)

The list of diseases in Annex II to Regulation (EU) 2016/429 should therefore be amended accordingly.

(11)

Regulation (EU) 2016/429 should therefore be amended.

(12)

As Regulation (EU) 2016/429 applies with effect from 21 April 2021, the amendments made to it by this Regulation should also apply from that date,

(1)

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

(2)

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

(1)

Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 provides that only novel foods authorised and included in the Union list may be placed on the market within the Union.

(2)

Pursuant to Article 8 of Regulation (EU) 2015/2283, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2470 (2) was adopted, which establishes a Union list of authorised novel foods.

(3)

Pursuant to Article 12 of Regulation (EU) 2015/2283, the Commission is to decide on the authorisation and on the placing on the Union market of a novel food and on updating the Union list.

(4)

On 20 September 2011, the company Ocean Spray Cranberries Inc. (‘the Applicant’) made a request to the competent authority of France to place cranberry extract powder on the Union market as a novel food within the meaning of point (c) of Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3). The application requested for cranberry extract powder to be used in fruit-flavoured beverages, isotonic beverages, tea beverages, vitamin enhanced waters, yogurts and yogurt drinks.

(5)

On 11 December 2014, the competent authority of France issued its initial assessment report. In that report it came to the conclusion that cranberry extract powder meets the criteria for novel food ingredients set out in Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 258/97. In the same report, the competent authority of France also expressed concerns regarding possible nutritional risks associated with the overconsumption of polyphenols for children between one and three years of age resulting from the intake of polyphenols from the novel food, and from other sources of polyphenols in children's diet.

(6)

On 16 January 2015, the Commission forwarded the initial assessment report to the other Member States. Reasoned objections were raised by the other Member States within the 60-day period laid down in the first subparagraph of Article 6(4) of Regulation (EC) No 258/97 with regard to insufficient data excluding the risk for young children aged between one and three years, incomplete specification of the novel food, and lack of information on the protein content needed to exclude allergy risk.

(7)

In view of the initial assessment report issued by the competent authority of France and the objections raised by some Member States, the Commission consulted the European Food Safety Authority (‘the Authority’) on 20 April 2016, asking it to carry out an additional assessment for cranberry extract powder as a novel food in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 258/97.

(8)

In contacts with the Authority the Applicant has declared that the novel food is not intended to be marketed to infants, toddlers and children of below 19 years of age.

(9)

On 4 April 2017, the Authority adopted a ‘Scientific Opinion on the safety of cranberry extract powder as a novel food ingredient pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 258/97’ in which it concluded that cranberry extract is safe for the uses communicated by the Applicant (4). That opinion, although elaborated and adopted by the Authority under Regulation (EC) No 258/97, is in line with the requirements of Article 11 of Regulation (EU) 2015/2283.

(10)

On 7 June 2017 the Commission informed the applicant of its and certain Member States' positions that, in view of the risk that infants, toddlers and children of below 19 years of age could consume the intended products, an authorisation would require an additional safety evaluation for these age groups. Alternatively, the Commission suggested that the risk of consumption by the age groups for which the Authority had not concluded on safety could be sufficiently contained, if cranberry extract would be authorised as a novel food supplement for the adult population. (5)

(11)

On 22 December 2017, the Applicant informed the Commission of its decision to, at this stage, pursue the authorisation of cranberry extract for use in food supplements for the general adult population, without prejudice to a subsequent further application for an extension of the conditions of use based on a further safety assessment by the Authority.

(12)

Pursuant to Article 35(1) of Regulation (EU) 2015/2283, any request for placing a novel food on the market within the Union submitted to a Member State in accordance with Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 258/97 and for which the final decision has not been taken before 1 January 2018 shall be treated as an application submitted under Regulation (EU) 2015/2283.The application also meets the requirements laid down in Regulation (EU) 2015/2283.

(13)

The opinion of the Authority gives sufficient grounds to establish that cranberry extract powder, when used in food supplements for general adult population, complies with Article 12(1) of Regulation (EU) 2015/2283.

(14)

On 2 May 2018, the applicant made a request to the Commission for protection of proprietary data for three studies submitted in support of the application namely, a ten-week clinical study in healthy adults (6), a twelve-week clinical study in adults with low to moderate cardiovascular disease risk (7) and a report on the influence on systemic immune functions, urinary and systemic biomarkers of health and faecal characteristics of human subjects during a 10 weeks administration (8). The applicant also made a request to the Commission for protection of proprietary data for consumption information of their cranberry juice cocktail product in Europe, as well as consumption information relating to children (9). A request to the Commission for protection of proprietary data was also made for the compositional data (10) and the intake estimate on cranberry beverage consumption (11).

(15)

On 27 June 2018, the Authority considered (12) that in elaborating its opinion on cranberry extract powder as a novel food, the compositional information (Table IX.b-1, original application, dated June 2011, page 24) and the intake estimate on cranberry beverage consumption (File: ‘Ocean Spray's response to Member States' objections’, dated November 2015) were needed for the characterisation and setting of specifications of the novel food, as well as for hazard identification, and for the assessment whether the potential intake of proanthocyanidins (PAC) from the novel food is comparable to the PAC intake from the consumption of cranberry juice products. Therefore, it is considered that the conclusions on the safety of cranberry extract powder could not have been reached without the aforementioned data.

(16)

Following the receipt of the Authority's opinion, the Commission requested the applicant to further clarify the justification provided with regard to their proprietary claim over the data, and their claim to an exclusive right of reference to that data, as referred to in points (a) and (b) of Article 26(2) of Regulation (EU) 2015/2283.

(17)

The applicant declared that, at the time the application was submitted, it held proprietary and exclusive rights of reference to the evidence and data under national law and that therefore third parties could not lawfully access or use that scientific evidence or scientific data. The Commission assessed all the information provided by the applicant and considered that the applicant has sufficiently substantiated the fulfilment of the requirements laid down in Article 26(2) of Regulation (EU) 2015/2283.

(18)

Accordingly, as provided for under Article 26(2) of Regulation (EU) 2015/2283, the compositional data and the intake estimate contained in the applicant's file and without which the novel food could not have been assessed by the Authority should not be used by for the benefit of a subsequent applicant for a period of five years from the date of entry into force of this Regulation. As a consequence, the placing on the market within the Union of the novel food authorised by this Regulation should be restricted to the applicant for a period of five years.

(19)

However, restricting the authorisation of this novel food and of the reference to the scientific evidence or scientific data contained in the applicant's file for the sole use of the applicant does not prevent other applicants from applying for an authorisation to place on the market the same novel food provided that their application is based on legally obtained information supporting the authorisation under this Regulation.

(20)

Directive 2002/46/EC lays down requirements on food supplements. The use of cranberry extract powder should be authorised without prejudice to the requirements of that Directive.

(21)

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

(1)

Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 provides that only novel foods authorised and included in the Union list may be placed on the market within the Union.

(2)

Pursuant to Article 8 of Regulation (EU) 2015/2283, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2470 (2) establishing a Union list of authorised novel foods was adopted.

(3)

Pursuant to Article 12 of Regulation (EU) 2015/2283, the Commission is to decide on the authorisation and on the placing on the Union market of a novel food and on updating the Union list.

(4)

On 22 August 2016, the company Armor Protéines S.A.S. (‘the Applicant’) made a request to the competent authority of Ireland to place bovine milk basic whey protein isolate obtained from skimmed bovine milk through a series of purification steps, on the Union market as a novel food ingredient within the meaning of point (e) of Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3). The application seeks to have bovine milk basic whey protein isolate used in infant and follow-on formulae, in total diet replacement foods for weight control and in foods for special medical purposes, and in food supplements.

(5)

Pursuant to Article 35(1) of Regulation (EU) 2015/2283, any request for placing a novel food on the market within the Union submitted to a Member State in accordance with Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 258/97 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients, and for which the final decision has not been taken before 1 January 2018 shall be treated as an application submitted under Regulation (EU) 2015/2283.

(6)

While the request for placing bovine milk basic whey protein isolate on the market as a novel food within the Union was submitted to a Member State in accordance with Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 258/97, the application also meets the requirements laid down in Regulation (EU) 2015/2283.

(7)

On 27 June 2017, the competent authority of Ireland issued its initial assessment report. In that report, it concluded that bovine milk basic whey protein isolate meets the criteria for a novel food ingredient set out in Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 258/97.

(8)

On 4 July 2017, the Commission forwarded the initial assessment report to the other Member States. Reasoned objections were raised by other Member States within the 60-day period laid down in the first subparagraph of Article 6(4) of Regulation (EC) No 258/97 with regard to the safety of bovine milk basic whey protein isolate for infants, and the toxicological relevance of the results in a 6-week developmental toxicity study in juvenile rats (4).

(9)

In view of the objections raised by the other Member States, the Commission consulted the European Food Safety Authority (‘the Authority’) on 11 December 2017, asking it to carry out an additional assessment for bovine milk basic whey protein isolate as a novel food ingredient in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 258/97.

(10)

In a subsequent application submitted on 3 January 2018, the Applicant made a request to the Commission for protection of proprietary data for a number of studies submitted in support of the application, namely two human clinical studies with a bovine milk basic whey protein isolate (5) (6), an in vitro bacterial reverse mutation assay (7), an in vitro mammalian cell micronucleus test (8), a 90-day oral toxicity study in rats (9), a 6-week developmental toxicity study in juvenile rats, and the electrophoresis analysis of bovine milk basic whey protein isolate (10).

(11)

On 27 June 2018, the Authority adopted ‘Scientific Opinion on the safety of bovine milk basic whey protein isolate as a novel food pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2015/2283’ (11). That opinion is in line with the requirements of Article 11 of Regulation (EU) 2015/2283.

(12)

That opinion gives sufficient grounds to establish that bovine milk basic whey protein isolate, in the proposed uses and use levels when used as an ingredient in infant and follow-on formulae, in total diet replacement foods for weight control, in foods for special medical purposes, and in food supplements, complies with Article 12(1) of Regulation (EU) 2015/2283.

(13)

In its opinion on bovine milk basic whey protein isolate, the Authority considered that the data from the 90-day oral toxicity study in rats served as a basis to establish a reference point and to assess whether the margin of exposure in relation to the proposed maximum intake of the novel food by humans is sufficient. Therefore, it is considered that the conclusions on the safety of bovine milk basic whey protein isolate could not have been reached without the data from the report of this study.

(14)

Following receipt of the Authority's opinion, the Commission requested the Applicant to further clarify the justification provided with regard to their proprietary claim over the 90-day oral toxicity in rats study report, and to clarify their claim to an exclusive right of reference to this study, as referred to in points (a) and (b) of Article 26(2) of Regulation (EU) 2015/2283.

(15)

The Applicant also declared to hold proprietary and exclusive rights of reference to the study under national law at the time the application was submitted, and that therefore third parties could not lawfully access or use this study. The Commission has assessed all the information provided by the Applicant and considers that the Applicant has sufficiently substantiated the fulfilment of the requirements laid down in Article 26(2) of Regulation (EU) 2015/2283.

(16)

Accordingly, as provided for under Article 26(2) of Regulation (EU) 2015/2283, the 90-day oral toxicity study in rats contained in the Applicant's file, and without which the novel food could not have been assessed by the Authority, should not be used by the Authority for the benefit of a subsequent applicant for a period of five years from the date of entry into force of this Regulation. As a consequence, the placing on the market within the Union of the novel food authorised by this Regulation should be restricted to the Applicant for a period of five years.

(17)

However, restricting the authorisation of this novel food and of the reference to the 90-day oral toxicity study in rats contained in the Applicant's file for the sole use of the Applicant does not prevent other applicants from applying for an authorisation to place on the market the same novel food provided that their application is based on legally obtained information supporting the authorisation under this Regulation.

(18)

As the source of the novel food comes from milk, which is listed in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council (12) as one of a number of substances or products which cause allergies or intolerances, foods and food supplements containing bovine milk basic whey protein isolate should be appropriately labelled following the requirements of Article 21 of that Regulation.

(19)

Directive 2002/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (13) lays down requirements on food supplements. The use of bovine milk basic whey protein isolate should be authorised without prejudice to that Directive.

(20)

Regulation (EU) No 609/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (14) lays down requirements on food intended for infants and young children, food for special medical purposes, and total diet replacement for weight control. The use of bovine milk basic whey protein isolate should be authorised without prejudice to that Regulation.

(21)

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

(1)

Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 provides that only novel foods authorised and included in the Union list may be placed on the market within the Union.

(2)

Pursuant to Article 8 of Regulation (EU) 2015/2283, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2470 (2) establishing a Union list of authorised novel foods was adopted.

(3)

Pursuant to Article 12 of Regulation (EU) 2015/2283, the Commission is to decide on the authorisation and on the placing on the Union market of a novel food and on updating the Union list.

(4)

On 22 December 2016, the company Marealis AS (‘the Applicant’) made a request to the competent authority of Finland to place refined shrimp peptide concentrate produced from the enzymatic hydrolysis of Northern shrimp (Pandalus borealis) shells and heads, on the Union market as a novel food ingredient within the meaning of point (e) of Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3). The application seeks to have refined shrimp peptide concentrate used in food supplements for the general adult population.

(5)

Pursuant to Article 35(1) of Regulation (EU) 2015/2283, any request for placing a novel food on the market within the Union submitted to a Member State in accordance with Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 258/97 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients, and for which the final decision has not been taken before 1 January 2018 shall be treated as an application submitted under Regulation (EU) 2015/2283.

(6)

While the request for placing refined shrimp peptide concentrate on the market as a novel food within the Union was submitted to a Member State in accordance with Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 258/97, the application also meets the requirements laid down in Regulation (EU) 2015/2283.

(7)

On 8 March 2017, the competent authority of Finland issued its initial assessment report. In that report, it concluded that refined shrimp peptide concentrate meets the criteria for a novel food ingredient set out in Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 258/97.

(8)

On 13 March 2017, the Commission forwarded the initial assessment report to the other Member States. Reasoned objections were raised by other Member States within the 60-day period laid down in the first subparagraph of Article 6(4) of Regulation (EC) No 258/97 with regard to the safety of refined shrimp peptide concentrate for hypo-, normo-, and hyper-tensive consumers due to its putative antihypertensive effects, its potential side effects related to its postulated inhibition of the angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) and potential cardiac effects, and its potential interactions with medicines used in the treatment of blood pressure disorders.

(9)

In view of the objections raised by the other Member States, the Commission consulted the European Food Safety Authority (‘the Authority’) on 21 September 2017, asking it to carry out an additional assessment for refined shrimp peptide concentrate as novel food ingredient in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 258/97.

(10)

On 2 February 2018, the Applicant made a request to the Commission for the protection of proprietary data for a number of studies submitted in support of the application namely, a de novo peptide synthesis study (4), the analytical report of the ACE inhibitory effects study (5), an acute oral toxicity study (6), an in vitro bacterial reverse mutation assay (7), a 90-day oral toxicity study (8), an assessment study of the antihypertensive effects and safety of the refined shrimp peptide concentrate in healthy humans with mild or moderate hypertension (9), and a double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel study on the assessment of anti-hypertensive effect and safety of a the refined shrimp peptide concentrate in dietary supplements in healthy humans with mild or moderate hypertension (10). This request was reiterated by the Applicant in a subsequent application submitted on 29 March 2018.

(11)

On 18 April 2018, the Authority adopted ‘Scientific Opinion on the safety of shrimp peptide concentrate as a novel food pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2015/2283’ (11). That opinion is in line with the requirements of Article 11 of Regulation (EU) 2015/2283.

(12)

That opinion gives sufficient grounds to establish that refined shrimp peptide concentrate, in the proposed uses and use levels when used as an ingredient in food supplements, complies with Article 12(1) of Regulation (EU) 2015/2283.

(13)

In its opinion, the Authority considered that the data from the 90-day oral toxicity study served as a basis to assess the toxicity profile of refined shrimp peptide concentrate and to establish the related No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL). The data from the assessment study of the antihypertensive effects and safety of the refined shrimp peptide concentrate in healthy humans with mild or moderate hypertension, and the data from the double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel study on the assessment of anti-hypertensive effect and safety of a the refined shrimp peptide concentrate dietary supplement in healthy humans with mild or moderate hypertension, served as the basis to establish the safety of the novel food for this category of consumers. Therefore, it is considered that the conclusions on the safety of refined shrimp peptide concentrate, could not have been reached without the data from the unpublished reports of these studies.

(14)

Following receipt of the Authority's opinion, the Commission requested the Applicant to further clarify the justification provided with regard to their proprietary claim over the study reports, and to clarify their claim to an exclusive right of reference to those studies, as referred to in points (a) and (b) of Article 26(2) of Regulation (EU) 2015/2283. The Applicant also declared to hold proprietary and exclusive rights of reference to the studies under national law at the time the application was submitted, and that therefore third parties could not lawfully access or use those studies. The Commission has assessed all the information provided by the Applicant and considers that the Applicant has sufficiently substantiated the fulfilment of the requirements laid down in Article 26(2) of Regulation (EU) 2015/2283.

(15)

Accordingly, as provided for under Article 26(2) of Regulation (EU) 2015/2283, the 90-day oral toxicity study, the assessment study of the antihypertensive effects and safety of the refined shrimp peptide concentrate in healthy humans with mild or moderate hypertension, and the double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel study on the assessment of anti-hypertensive effect and safety of a the refined shrimp peptide concentrate dietary supplement in healthy humans with mild or moderate hypertension, contained in the Applicant's file and without which the novel food could not have been assessed by the Authority, should not be used by the Authority for the benefit of a subsequent applicant for a period of five years from the date of entry into force of this Regulation. As a consequence, the placing on the market within the Union of the novel food authorised by this Regulation should be restricted to the Applicant for a period of five years.

(16)

However, restricting the authorisation of this novel food and of the reference to the 90-day oral toxicity study, to the assessment study of the antihypertensive effects and safety of the refined shrimp peptide concentrate in healthy humans with mild or moderate hypertension, and to the double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel study on the assessment of anti-hypertensive effect and safety of a the refined shrimp peptide concentrate dietary supplement in healthy humans with mild or moderate hypertension, contained in the Applicant's file for the sole use of the Applicant does not prevent other applicants from applying for an authorisation to place on the market the same novel food provided that their application is based on legally obtained information supporting the authorisation under this Regulation.

(17)

As the source of the novel food comes from crustaceans, and may contain traces of fish, of other crustaceans, and of molluscs, which are listed in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council (12) as substances or products which cause allergies or intolerances, food supplements containing refined shrimp peptide concentrate should be appropriately labelled following the requirements of Article 21 of that Regulation.

(18)

Directive 2002/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (13) lays down requirements on food supplements. The use of refined shrimp peptide concentrate should be authorised without prejudice to that Directive.

(19)

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

(1)

Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006 prohibits the use of towed gears within 3 nautical miles of the coast or within the 50 m isobaths where that depth is reached at a shorter distance from the coast.

(2)

At the request of a Member State, the Commission may allow a derogation from Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006, provided that a number of conditions set out in Article 13(5) and (9) are fulfilled.

(3)

A derogation from Article 13(1) of that Regulation for the use of boat seines by vessels fishing for transparent goby (Aphia minuta) in the territorial waters of the Geographical Sub-Area 9, as defined in Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 1343/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) was granted until 31 March 2014 by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 988/2011 (3).

(4)

An extension of the derogation was granted until 31 March 2018 by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2407 (4).

(5)

On 23 May 2018, the Commission received from Italy a request to extend the derogation which expired on 31 March 2018. Italy provided up-to-date information justifying the extension of the derogation.

(6)

Italy adopted the management plan by Decree (5) in accordance with Article 19(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006. The management plan adopted is put in place to accompany the entire duration of the derogation.

(7)

The Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) assessed the derogation requested by Italy and the related updated management plan in July 2018 (6). The overall assessment by the STECF is positive, information on its biology and ecology, fleet and effort are well presented. STECF stated that the objectives proposed by the management plan are consistent with the objectives of Article 2 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 (7) of the European Parliament and of the Council and with the relevant provisions of Article 6. The presence of other species in the catches is quite occasional. The boat-seine for transparent goby can be considered as selective gear while for species from the Annex III of Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006 the impact of this boat seine on these species can be considered as very low. STECF stated that the management plan contains a lot of elements for the monitoring and management of the fishing activities. STECF highlighted the need for some clarifications on gears interaction on seabed, monitoring and scientific data. Italy was requested to examine these issues. In order to address the issue of improved scientific data, the Italian authorities agreed to update the management plan and re-enforce the compulsory reporting obligations with the commitment to provide preliminary scientific report at the end of the 2019-2020 fishing season.

(8)

The extension of the derogation requested by Italy complies with the conditions laid down in Article 13(5) and (9) of Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006.

(9)

There are specific geographical constraints given both the limited size of the continental shelf and the spatial distribution of the target species, which is exclusively limited to certain zones in the coastal areas at depths smaller than 50 m. Hence, the fishing grounds are limited.

(10)

STECF expressed some concerns on the lack of updated data on spatial distribution of fishing operations in relation to the distribution of the seagrass habitats. However, it should be noted that with respect to the impact on the seabed, the observations carried out on board during the fishing seasons have shown that the boat-seine operates effectively only on the clean seabed, made of sand or mud while fishing is prohibited over Posidonia beds. Account taken of the above, it is concluded that boat seines fishing has no significant impact on protected habitats and is very selective, since the seines are hauled in the water column and do not touch the seabed because collection of material from the seabed would damage the target species and make the selection of the fished species virtually impossible due to their very small size.

(11)

Boat seines fishing is carried out close to the shore in shallow depths. The nature of this type of fishery is such that it cannot be undertaken with any other gears.

(12)

The derogation requested by Italy affects 117 vessels.

(13)

The management plan presented by Italy guarantees no future increase of the fishing effort, as fishing authorisations will be issued to specified 117 vessels, involving a total effort of 5 886,9 kW that are already authorised to fish in Italy.

(14)

The request covers vessels with a track record in the fishery of more than five years

(15)

Those vessels are included on a list communicated to the Commission in accordance with the requirements of Article 13(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006.

(16)

The fishing activities concerned fulfil the requirements of Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006 since the Italian management plan explicitly prohibits to fish above protected habitats.

(17)

The requirements of Article 8(1)(h) of Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006 are not applicable since they relate to trawlers.

(18)

As regards the minimum mesh size requirement laid down in Article 9(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006, it should be noted that, given the fishing activities concerned are highly selective, have a negligible effect on the marine environment and are not carried out above protected habitats, Italy authorised in the management plan in line with Article 9(7) of Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006 a derogation from that requirement.

(19)

The fishing activities concerned fulfil the recording requirements laid down in Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 (8).

(20)

The fishing activities concerned take place at a very short distance from the coast and therefore do not interfere with the activities of vessels using gears other than trawls, seines or similar towed nets.

(21)

The activity of the boat seines is regulated in the Italian management plan to ensure that catches of species mentioned in Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006 are minimal. Moreover, according to paragraph 5.1.2(a) of the Italian management plan, the fishing for Aphia minuta is limited to a fishing season from 1 November to 31 March each year and to a maximum of 60 days per boat for every fishing season.

(22)

Boat seines do not target cephalopods.

(23)

The Italian management plan includes measures for the monitoring of fishing activities, as provided for in the third subparagraph of Article 13(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006.

(24)

The requested extension of the derogation should therefore be granted.

(25)

Italy should report to the Commission in due time and in accordance with the monitoring plan provided for in the Italian management plan.

(26)

A limitation in duration of the derogation will allow ensuring prompt corrective measures in case the report to the Commission shows a poor conservation status of the exploited stock, while providing scope to enhance the scientific basis for an improved management plan.

(27)

Accordingly, the derogation should apply until 31 March 2021.

(28)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture,

(1)

Commission Implementing Decision 2014/709/EU (4) lays down animal health control measures in relation to African swine fever in certain Member States, where there have been confirmed cases of that disease in domestic or feral pigs (the Member States concerned). The Annex to that Implementing Decision demarcates and lists certain areas of the Member States concerned in Parts I to IV thereof, differentiated by the level of risk based on the epidemiological situation as regards that disease. The Annex to Implementing Decision 2014/709/EU has been amended several times to take account of changes in the epidemiological situation in the Union as regards African swine fever that need to be reflected in that Annex. The Annex to Implementing Decision 2014/709/EU was last amended by Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/1576 (5), following recent instances of African swine fever in Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Romania.

(2)

The risk of the spread of African swine fever in wildlife is linked to the natural slow spread of that disease among feral pig populations, and also the risks linked to human activity, as demonstrated by the recent epidemiological evolution of that disease in the Union, and as documented by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in the Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Animal Health and Welfare, published on 14 July 2015; in the Scientific Report of EFSA on Epidemiological analyses on African swine fever in the Baltic countries and Poland, published on 23 March 2017; and in the Scientific Report of EFSA on Epidemiological analyses of African swine fever in the Baltic States and Poland, published on 8 November 2017 (6).

(3)

Since the date of adoption of Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/1576, the epidemiological situation in the Union has evolved as regards African swine fever, and there have been further instances of that disease that need to be reflected in the Annex to Implementing Decision 2014/709/EU.

(4)

In October 2018, one case of African swine fever in a feral pig was observed in the province of Silistra in Bulgaria. This case of African swine fever in a feral pig constitutes an increased level of risk which should be reflected in the Annex to Implementing Decision 2014/709/EU. Accordingly, this area of Bulgaria affected by African swine fever should be listed in Part II of that Annex.

(5)

In October 2018, an outbreak of African swine fever in domestic pigs was observed in the county of Maramureș in Romania. This outbreak of African swine fever in domestic pigs constitutes an increased level of risk which should be reflected in the Annex to Implementing Decision 2014/709/EU. Accordingly, this area of Romania affected by African swine fever should now be listed in Part III of that Annex instead of in Part I thereof. Given that Part III of the Annex to Implementing Decision 2014/709/EU lists the areas where the situation is still evolving and dynamic, when any areas are listed in that Part, particular consideration must always be given to the effect on the surrounding areas.

(6)

In order to take account of recent developments in the epidemiological evolution of African swine fever in the Union, and in order to combat the risks associated with the spread of that disease in a proactive manner, new high-risk areas of a sufficient size should be demarcated for Bulgaria and Romania and duly listed in Parts I, II and III of the Annex to Implementing Decision 2014/709/EU. The Annex to Implementing Decision 2014/709/EU should therefore be amended accordingly.

(7)

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