(1)

On 29 March 2017, the United Kingdom submitted the notification of its intention to withdraw from the Union pursuant to Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union. The Treaties will cease to apply to the United Kingdom from the date of entry into force of a withdrawal agreement or failing that, two years after that notification, i.e. from 30 March 2019, unless the European Council, in agreement with the United Kingdom, unanimously decides to extend that period.

(2)

Once the United Kingdom has become a third country and in the absence of a withdrawal agreement, goods arriving in the customs territory of the Union from the United Kingdom will be subject to the obligation to lodge an entry summary declaration and goods leaving the customs territory of the Union for a destination in the United Kingdom will be subject to the obligation to lodge a pre-departure declaration. Those declarations are to be lodged within a time-limit that provides for sufficient time for Member States' customs administrations to carry out proper risk analysis for security and safety purposes prior to the arrival of the goods and prior to the departure of the goods, respectively, without causing major disruption in the logistical flows and processes of economic operators.

(3)

Currently, in accordance with Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 (2), specific time-limits are laid down for the lodging of entry summary declarations or pre-departure declarations for cargo movements between the customs territory of the Union and any port on the North Sea. Once the United Kingdom has become a third country, the same time-limits should apply for those purposes for goods transported by sea arriving from or leaving for ports of the United Kingdom which are not located on the North Sea. Therefore, the time-limits laid down for the North Sea ports should apply to all ports of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.

(4)

This Regulation should enter into force as a matter of urgency and apply as from the day following that on which the Treaties cease to apply to and in the United Kingdom unless a withdrawal agreement concluded with the United Kingdom has entered into force by that date,

(1)

The Consejo Regulador del Tequila (‘the applicant’), a Mexican body established in accordance with Mexican law, applied for registration of ‘Tequila’ as a geographical indication in Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 17(1) of that Regulation. ‘Tequila’ is a spirit drink that is traditionally produced in the United Mexican States by distilling juice extracted from Agave tequilana F.A.C. Weber (blue variety).

(2)

In accordance with Article 17(5) of Regulation (EC) No 110/2008, the Commission examined the application to register the name ‘Tequila’ sent by the applicant.

(3)

Having concluded that the application complies with Regulation (EC) No 110/2008, the Commission published the main specification of the technical file for ‘Tequila’ in the Official Journal of the European Union (2), pursuant to Article 17(6) of Regulation (EC) No 110/2008, for the purposes of the objection procedure.

(4)

In accordance with Article 17(7) of Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 and Article 13(1) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 716/2013 (3), Unión Española del Licor from Spain and Vinum et Spiritus from Belgium submitted objections to the registration of the name ‘Tequila’ as a geographical indication within the time limit specified. The Commission deemed the two objections admissible according to Article 14 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 716/2013. Objection from Unión de Licoristas Cataluña as well as further information from Unión Española del Licor and from Vinum et Spiritus were also received but were deemed inadmissible, in conformity with Article 14(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 716/2013, as they were not submitted within the time period referred to in Article 17(7) of Regulation (EC) No 110/2008.

(5)

By letter dated 4 April 2017 the Commission communicated the two admissible objections to the applicant and invited it to file its observations within two months in accordance with Article 15(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 716/2013. The applicant sent its observations within the required deadline, on 3 June 2017.

(6)

In accordance with Article 15(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 716/2013, the Commission communicated the observations from the applicant by letters of 31 July 2017 to the two objectors, who were given two months to submit any comments in accordance with Article 15(2) of that Implementing Regulation. The Commission received the reply from Unión Española del Licor on 22 September 2017.

(7)

The objections of Unión Española del Licor and Vinum et Spiritus relate to mandatory requirements laid down in an Official Standard NOM-006-SCFI-2012 (alcoholic beverages — Tequila — specifications) published in the Diario Oficial de la Federación on 13 December 2012 (4) (‘the Official Mexican Standard’) and referred to in the technical file for ‘Tequila’, concerning: (a) labelling requirements for marketing and health information and for the authorised producers' reference numbers; (b) restrictions on commercial arrangements between suppliers and bottlers concerning authorisation to use registered trade marks or other distinctive signs thus limiting the ability of bottlers to source Mexican product and limiting the marketing of ‘Tequila’ after bottling to certain authorised trade marks thereby preventing marketing under operators' own trade marks without specific authorisation; (c) rules for authorisation of operators in the Union permitted to bottle ‘Tequila’ and prescriptions for bottling procedures; (d) control requirements applied to authorised bottlers in the territory of the Union as well as consequences laid down in the Official Mexican Standard in cases of non-compliance; (e) prohibition of trade in bulk of ‘Tequila’ blend category product (containing up to 49 % of total reducing sugars from other sources than sugars originating from Agave tequilana F.A.C. Weber blue variety) within the Union and prohibition of sourcing ‘Tequila’ blend category in bulk via third countries; and (f) a requirement that the 100 % Agave ‘Tequila’ category has to be bottled at a plant managed by the authorised producers located within the designated geographical area in the United Mexican States. The objectors claim that these requirements circumvent, and are incompatible with the free trade and free competition of ‘Tequila’ in the Member States, and specifically infringe Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 110/2008.

(8)

The applicant states that the objections should be dismissed as inadmissible because the template required in Article 13(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 716/2013 was not used by the objectors in their submission, and that the objectors have not demonstrated which specific conditions for registration provided for in Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 are not fulfilled. The applicant asserts that the main objective of the system of controls on bottling, marketing, and distribution is to guarantee the traceability and, consequently, the authenticity of ‘Tequila’. The applicant additionally states that any operator wishing to bottle bulk ‘Tequila’ can do so provided it obtains Tequila bottler's approval certificate and enters into a joint responsibility agreement for the registered trade mark or other distinctive sign.

(9)

Further, the applicant considers that none of the observations calling into question the application of the Official Mexican Standard constitute a ground for opposition in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 given that the denomination ‘Tequila’ is already binding under the provisions of the Agreement between the Union and the United Mexican States of 27 May 1997 on the mutual recognition and protection of designations for spirit drinks (‘the 1997 Agreement’) (5) that stipulates in its Article 4(2) that in the Union territory, the protected name ‘Tequila’ may not be used otherwise than under the conditions laid down in the laws and regulations of the United Mexican States.

(10)

Concerning the form of the objections raised by the applicant, the Commission considered the objections from Unión Española del Licor and Vinum et Spiritus admissible as they comply with requirements laid down in Articles 13(1) and 14(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 716/2013 since all the information required in the form ‘Request for objection to a geographical indication’ set out in Annex III to that Implementing Regulation had been provided in the objections.

(11)

Concerning the applicability of the rules contained in the Official Mexican Standard, as it is a third country regulation, the Commission considers it does not have direct extra territorial effect in the Union. However, by means of the publication of the main specification of the technical file for ‘Tequila’ in the Official Journal of the European Union certain rules from the Official Mexican Standard are expressly mentioned and thus asserted to be applicable to product intended for export. These include production requirements, labelling provisions, and rules on the bottling of the 100 % Agave ‘Tequila’ category that are set out or referred to in the said publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. A system allowing operators or the authorities of a third country to prevent the distribution of product throughout the single market in a manner incompatible with the principles of Union law after its importation, cannot be protected by means of Regulation (EC) No 110/2008.

(12)

Concerning the relation to the 1997 Agreement that protected ‘Tequila’ in the territory of the Union, it is recalled that the possible protection under Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 follows a different legal regime, independent from the one laid down by the 1997 Agreement. Given that the applicant has decided to apply for individual protection of the geographical indication ‘Tequila’ under Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 in addition to the protection under the 1997 Agreement, it should be clarified that the protection under the two instruments applies according to the respective rules of each instrument.

(13)

The Commission has assessed the arguments and evidence provided by the objectors and the applicant, and concluded that the name ‘Tequila’ should be registered as a geographical indication in Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 under the following considerations.

(14)

As regards labelling requirements referred to at (a) in recital (7), Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 provides that Member States may lay down additional rules on production, description, presentation and labelling which are stricter than those provided in Annex II of that Regulation in so far as they are compatible with Union law. Article 6(1) of that Regulation is to be applied mutatis mutandis to rules laid down by the authorities of third countries. From the Official Mexican Standard and from section 9 of the main specification of the technical file for ‘Tequila’, it appears that the United Mexican States provides for stricter rules on the labelling of all ‘Tequila’ products additional to those laid down in Regulation (EC) No 110/2008. The rules in question concern marketing and health information, reference numbers and names and addresses identifying the authorised producer or the bottler. These requirements are not inconsistent with Union rules on labelling and notably those contained in Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council (6). The requirement that operators are identified by a reference number or name and address is justifiable in the interests of transparency and traceability and not an unreasonable requirement. For these reasons, the Commission considers that the opposition grounds concerning labelling requirements are not founded and have to be rejected.

(15)

Restrictions on commercial arrangements between suppliers and bottlers referred to at (b) in recital (7) and rules for authorisation of bottlers in the Union and the procedures for the said authorisations referred to at (c) in recital (7) are justified with regard to the need to ensure traceability and prevent fraud. The rules are expressly applied to labelling of product intended for export as stated in the second paragraph of section 9 of the main specification of the technical file for ‘Tequila’ published in the Official Journal of the European Union, which refers to the use of the term ‘Tequila’ and the registered trade marks or other distinctive sign under the joint responsibility agreement filed with the Mexican Patents and Trademarks Office. The Commission considers that these rules and arrangements in so far as they apply to the use of the term ‘Tequila’ within the Union are proportionate and justified and opposition grounds are not founded and have to be rejected.

(16)

As regards control requirements applied to authorised bottlers in the territory of the Union as well as consequences laid down in the Official Mexican Standard in cases of non-compliance referred to at (d) in recital (7), Article 22 of Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 lays down provisions for verification of compliance with the specification prior to placing product on the market, which for ‘Tequila’ for sale to consumers, includes bottling activities, and specifically requires verification of compliance to be ensured by public authorities of the third country or by one or more product certification bodies for product originating in a third country. The Commission notes the verification procedures and action in case of non-compliance are justified with reference to the need to ensure traceability and prevent admixing and fraud which is difficult to detect for such product. As far as the Official Mexican Standard provides for a verification of compliance with the specifications in the technical file before placing of ‘Tequila’ for sale to consumers on the Union market, the rules are in accordance with Article 22(2) of Regulation (EC) No 110/2008. For these reasons, the Commission considers that the opposition grounds concerning control requirements are not founded and have to be rejected.

(17)

As regards the alleged prohibition of trade in bulk of ‘Tequila’ blend category product within the Union referred to at (e) in recital (7), the Commission notes that the publication of the main specification of the technical file for ‘Tequila’ in the Official Journal of the European Union details only the specific rule for the prohibition on trade in bulk product for the 100 % Agave ‘Tequila’ category, there is no reference prohibiting trade within the single market of ‘Tequila’ blend category in bulk once it has been imported into the Union.

(18)

As regards the alleged prohibition on the sourcing of ‘Tequila’ blend category in bulk via third countries resulting from the requirement to conclude a joint responsibility agreement filed with the Mexican Patents and Trademarks Office for the supply of bulk product and in view of the need to ensure traceability and prevent fraud, the Commission considers it justified to require that the purchase of bulk product from outside of the Union can only be made from producers in the country of origin. For these reasons, the Commission considers that the opposition grounds concerning restrictions on bulk product are not founded and have to be rejected.

(19)

As regards the objection that the requirement of mandatory bottling within the demarcated geographical area applying to 100 % Agave category of ‘Tequila’ referred to at (f) in recital (7) is not in conformity with Union law it should be stated that, in accordance with Article 10 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 716/2013, any restrictions concerning the bottling of spirit drink within the demarcated geographical area are to be justified in the technical file since they constitute a potential restriction to the free movement of goods and the freedom to provide services within the single market. Union law does not apply to determine whether or not a third country can restrict bottling within its territory, but it applies to prevent restrictions to the rebottling or bottling of bulk product within the Union, if such bulk products were exported from the third country into the Union. Such restrictions can only be allowed if they are necessary, proportionate and suitable to protect the reputation of the geographical indication. (7)

(20)

In section 7 of the main specification of the technical file the applicant states that the aim of the bottling restriction is to preserve the greater organoleptic complexity that could be jeopardised by bulk transport since no other sugars than those obtained from Agave tequilana F.A.C. Weber (blue variety) are added. The applicant asserts also that another reason for the bottling restriction is to preserve the reputation of 100 % Agave ‘Tequila’ which is essentially based on particular characteristics and more generally on the quality of the product that in turn results from the knowledge of the local authorised producers and may be endangered by the risk of admixture and fraud which is difficult to detect. The requirement at issue must be regarded as compatible with Union law despite its restrictive effect if it is shown that it is necessary and proportionate and capable of upholding the considerable reputation incontestably enjoyed among customers by the Mexican denomination ‘Tequila’. It stems from the information contained in the technical file that the bottling restriction is limited to only one category of ‘Tequila’, while it does not represent an obstacle for import to the Union of ‘Tequila’ blend category (containing up to 49 % sugar from other sources than raw material) in bulk to which this restriction does not apply. The territorial scope of the restriction is limited to the demarcated geographical area for ‘Tequila’ which is confined to five Mexican states. The evidence provided by the applicant shows this restriction is justified as a proportionate and appropriate measure to uphold the guarantee of the product's composition and its reputation among consumer. Further, no less restrictive alternative measures capable of attaining an adequate level of control have been indicated. Therefore, the necessary justification of the restriction on the mandatory bottling of 100 % Agave category of ‘Tequila’, is compatible with Article 10 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 716/2013.

(21)

For the above reasons, the Commission considers that the grounds provided in the opposition to the registration of the geographical indication ‘Tequila’ in Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 110/2008, concerning the mandatory bottling within the demarcated geographical area applying to 100 % Agave ‘Tequila’ category are not founded and have to be rejected.

(22)

In the light of the above and in accordance with Article 17(8) of Regulation (EC) No 110/2008, the Commission considers that the application for registration of ‘Tequila’ as a geographical indication satisfies the conditions laid down in that Regulation. The name ‘Tequila’ should be therefore protected and registered as a geographical indication in Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 110/2008.

(23)

Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 should therefore be amended accordingly.

(24)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for Spirit Drinks,

(1)

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 686/2012 (2) and Commission Regulation (EU) No 1141/2010 (3) allocated to the United Kingdom, as rapporteur Member State, the evaluation of certain active substances contained in plant protection products.

(2)

On 29 March 2017, the United Kingdom submitted the notification of its intention to withdraw from the Union pursuant to Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union. The Treaties will cease to apply to the United Kingdom from the date of entry into force of a withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after that notification, i.e. from 30 March 2019, unless the European Council, in agreement with the United Kingdom, unanimously decides to extend that period.

(3)

The draft withdrawal agreement as agreed between the negotiators, and endorsed by the European Council (Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union), contains arrangements for the application of provisions of Union law to and in the United Kingdom during a transition period beyond the date the Treaties cease to apply to and in the United Kingdom. If that agreement enters into force Union legislation in the field of plant protection products will apply to and in the United Kingdom during the transition period in accordance with that agreement and will cease to apply at the end of that period. However, even if the withdrawal agreement is ratified by the EU and the United Kingdom, during the transition period the United Kingdom is not to act as leading authority for risk assessments, examinations, approvals or authorisations at the level of the Union or at the level of Member States acting jointly as referred to, amongst others, in Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.

(4)

It is therefore necessary to allocate to other Member States the evaluation of the active substances for which the United Kingdom is the rapporteur Member State and where a decision on their renewal of approval is not expected before 30 March 2019. The active substances concerned are 1-methylcyclopropene, famoxadone, mancozeb, methiocarb, methoxyfenozide, pirimicarb, pirimiphos-methyl and thiacloprid.

(5)

That allocation should ensure a balance in the distribution of the responsibilities and the work between Member States.

(6)

As the evaluation of the active substances concerned are at an advanced stage and the work to be carried out is expected to be minor, a co-rapporteur Member State should not be allocated for that evaluation.

(7)

Implementing Regulation (EU) No 686/2012 and Regulation (EU) No 1141/2010 should therefore be amended accordingly.

(8)

This Regulation should apply from 30 March 2019. However, in case the two year period referred to in Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union is extended, this Regulation should apply from the day following that on which legislation in the field of plant protection products ceases to apply to and in the United Kingdom, as, in accordance with Article 4(3) of Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1182/71 (4), the cessation of application of acts fixed at a given date occurs on the expiry of the last hour of the day falling on that date.

(9)

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

(1)

In accordance with Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, the United Kingdom received on 29 February 2016 an application from BASF Agro B.V. for the approval of the active substance mefentrifluconazole.

(2)

In accordance with Article 9(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, the United Kingdom, as rapporteur Member State, notified the applicant, the other Member States, the Commission and the European Food Safety Authority (‘the Authority’) on 30 March 2016 of the admissibility of the application.

(3)

On 25 April 2017, the rapporteur Member State submitted a draft assessment report to the Commission with a copy to the Authority, assessing whether that active substance can be expected to meet the approval criteria provided for in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.

(4)

The Authority complied with Article 12(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009. In accordance with Article 12(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, it requested that the applicant supply additional information to the Member States, the Commission and the Authority. The assessment of the additional information by the rapporteur Member State was submitted to the Authority in the format of an updated draft assessment report on 1 February 2018.

(5)

On 5 July 2018, the Authority communicated to the applicant, the Member States and the Commission its conclusion (2) on whether the active substance mefentrifluconazole can be expected to meet the approval criteria provided for in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009. The Authority made its conclusion available to the public.

(6)

As regards the new criteria to identify endocrine disrupting properties introduced by Commission Regulation (EU) 2018/605 (3), which became applicable on 10 November 2018 and the joint guidance document to identify endocrine disrupting substances (4), the conclusion of the Authority infers that it is unlikely that mefentrifluconazole is an endocrine disrupter via the estrogenic, androgenic, thyroidogenic and steroidogenic modalities. Furthermore, based on the available evidence and according to the guidance for the identification of endocrine disruptors, mefentrifluconazole is unlikely to be an endocrine disruptor for fish considering that the test modalities have been appropriately covered. The Commission therefore considers that mefentrifluconazole is not to be considered as having endocrine disrupting properties.

(7)

On 12 December 2018, the Commission presented to the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed the review report for mefentrifluconazole and on 25 January 2019, it presented a draft Regulation providing that mefentrifluconazole is approved.

(8)

The applicant was given the possibility to submit comments on the review report.

(9)

It has been established with respect to one or more representative uses of at least one plant protection product containing the active substance, and in particular the uses which were examined and detailed in the review report, that the approval criteria provided for in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 are satisfied.

(10)

It is therefore appropriate to approve mefentrifluconazole.

(11)

In accordance with Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 in conjunction with Article 6 thereof and in the light of current scientific and technical knowledge, it is, however, necessary to include certain conditions and restrictions. It is, in particular, appropriate to require further confirmatory information.

(12)

In accordance with Article 13(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 (5) should be amended accordingly.

(13)

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

(1)

Following the expiry of the European Stability Mechanism financial assistance on 20 August 2018, the Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/1192 (2) activated enhanced surveillance of Greece for a period of six months, as from 21 August 2018.

(2)

Greece should continue key institutional and structural reforms over the medium term so as to ensure their completion and full effectiveness, building on the substantial number of actions implemented by it under the European Stability Mechanism financial assistance programme (‘the programme’). To that end, Greece has made a commitment in the Eurogroup to continue and complete all key reforms adopted under the programme and to safeguard the objectives of the important reforms adopted under that programme and its predecessors.

(3)

Greece has also committed to implement specific actions in the areas of fiscal and fiscal-structural policies, social welfare, financial stability, labour and product markets, privatisation and public administration. Those specific actions, which are set out in an annex to the Eurogroup statement of 22 June 2018, will contribute to address potential sources of Greece's economic difficulties.

(4)

Since 2010, Greece has received a substantial amount of financial assistance, as a result of which Greece's outstanding liabilities towards the euro-area Member States, the European Financial Stability Facility and the European Stability Mechanism come to a total amount of EUR 243 700 million. Greece received financial support from its European partners on concessional terms and specific measures to place debt on a more sustainable footing were adopted in 2012 and again by the European Stability Mechanism in 2017. On 22 June 2018, it was politically agreed in the Eurogroup to implement additional measures to ensure debt sustainability. The measures include the extension of weighted average maturities by an additional 10 years, the deferral of interest and amortisation by an additional 10 years as well as the implementation of other debt measures. Two additional measures (the abolition of the step-up interest rate margin related to the debt buy-back tranche of the European Financial Stability Facility programme as of 2018 and the restoration of the transfer of equivalent amounts to the income earned by euro-area national central banks on Greek government bonds held under the Agreement on Net Financial Assets and the Securities Market Programme) can be agreed bi-annually in the Eurogroup on the basis of positive reporting under enhanced surveillance on Greece's compliance with its post-programme policy commitments.

(5)

Greece's general government balance has been positive since 2016. Greece is expected to have met the primary surplus target of 3,5 % of Gross Domestic Product in 2018 and is projected to achieve the target over the medium term. External net lending turned positive in 2015, and has shown only small deficits thereafter. The economy has continued to recover, with growth at an estimated 2,0 % in 2018, and unemployment is on a declining path. Greece initiated a broad structural reform agenda to improve its business environment and competitiveness under the financial assistance programmes and has continued to take measures in that area since August 2018.

(6)

Even so, notwithstanding those reforms, Greece continues to experience significant legacy stock imbalances and vulnerabilities. In particular, as is also identified by the Commission's 2019 Alert Mechanism Report, prepared pursuant to Articles 3 and 4 of Regulation (EU) No 1176/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3), Greece faces some difficulties. Public debt is estimated to have stood at 182,8 % of Gross Domestic Product at the end of the third quarter of 2018, the highest level in the Union. The net international investment position of – 140,5 % of Gross Domestic Product in 2017 also remains highly elevated; moreover, in spite of the current account being close to balance, it is still insufficient to support a reduction of the large net international investment position to prudent levels at a satisfactory pace. While unemployment has continued to decline from its peak of 27,9 % in 2013, it still stood at 18,6 % in October 2018. Long-term unemployment (13,5 % in the third quarter of 2018) and youth unemployment (39,1 % in November 2018) also remain very high. The business environment and the judicial system still need considerable additional improvement, as Greece still lags far behind the best-performance frontier in several areas of the structural components of leading comparative indicators (e.g. time to reach a judicial decision, enforcing contracts, registering property, resolving insolvency, etc.).

(7)

While the banking sector remains sufficiently capitalised, it continues to face challenges linked to large stocks of non-performing exposures and low levels of profitability, while there remain strong links with the State. At end-September 2018, the stock of non-performing exposures was still very high at EUR 84,7 billion or 46,7 % of total on-balance-sheet exposures. Greece has adopted key reforms under the programme, and intends to develop additional tools in the near term, to strengthen the framework for the resolution of non-performing exposures and thereby to facilitate the clean-up of banks' balance sheets. Notwithstanding, continuous efforts will be needed to bring the non-performing-exposure ratio to sustainable levels, and enable financial institutions to fulfil their intermediation and risk management function at all times.

(8)

After being cut off from financial market borrowing since 2010, Greece started to regain market access through issuances of government bonds as from July 2017. Greece had a successful bond issuance in January 2019, which was its first issuance since the exit from the programme. Greece's borrowing conditions nonetheless remain fragile against the background of external economic risks and domestic challenges in sustaining reform implementation over the medium term.

(9)

The Commission published its first assessment under enhanced surveillance on Greece on 21 November 2018. The assessment carried out by the Commission and reflected in its Communication described progress on Greece's general and specific reform commitments made in the Eurogroup and concluded that reform implementation has progressed but further efforts were needed to fulfil Greece's reform commitments (4).

(10)

In light of the above, the Commission concludes that the conditions justifying the establishment of enhanced surveillance pursuant to Article 2 of Regulation (EU) No 472/2013 are still present. In particular, Greece continues to face risks with respect to its financial stability which, if they materialise, could have adverse spill-over effects on other euro-area Member States. Should any spillover effects materialise, they could occur indirectly by impacting investor confidence and thus refinancing costs for banks and sovereigns in other euro-area Member States.

(11)

Therefore, over the medium term, Greece needs to continue adopting measures to address the sources or potential sources of difficulties and implementing structural reforms to support a robust and sustainable economic recovery, with a view to alleviate the legacy effects of several factors. Those factors include the severe and protracted downturn during the crisis; the size of Greece's debt burden; its financial sector vulnerabilities; the continued relatively strong interlinkages between the financial sector and the Greek public finances, including through State ownership; the risk of contagion of severe tensions in either of those sectors to other Member States, as well as euro-area Member States' exposure to the Greek sovereign.

(12)

In order to address residual risks and monitor the fulfilment of the commitments geared thereto, it appears necessary and appropriate to prolong the enhanced surveillance of Greece pursuant to Article 2(1) of Regulation (EU) No 472/2013.

(13)

Greece was given the opportunity to express its views on the assessment of the Commission, via a letter sent on 14 February 2019. In its response on 15 February 2019, Greece broadly concurred with the Commission's assessment of the economic challenges it faces, which is the basis for prolonging enhanced surveillance.

(14)

Greece will continue to benefit from technical support under the Structural Reform Support Programme (as laid down in Regulation (EU) 2017/825 of the European Parliament and of the Council (5)) for the design and implementation of reforms, including for the continuation and completion of key reforms in line with the policy commitments monitored under enhanced surveillance.

(15)

The Commission intends to closely collaborate with the European Stability Mechanism, in the context of its Early Warning System, in implementing the enhanced surveillance,

(1)

Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union provides that every person has the right to have their affairs handled impartially, fairly and within a reasonable time by the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union. That article sets out a series of procedural rights that apply to interested parties involved in administrative proceedings which may affect their interests.

(2)

In 2007, the Commission created the function of hearing officer, in order to safeguard the effective exercise of the procedural rights of interested parties and ensure that trade proceedings are handled impartially, fairly and within a reasonable time. From 2007 to 2012, that role was entrusted to an official of the Directorate-General for Trade experienced in trade defence issues.

(3)

In 2012, in order to strengthen the role of the hearing officer, and to reinforce the transparency and fairness of trade proceedings, the President of the Commission adopted Decision 2012/199/EU (2). In order to take into account past experience, new legal developments including the reference to the role of the hearing officer in Regulations (EU) 2016/1036 (3) and (EU) 2016/1037 (4) of the European Parliament and of the Council as well as increasing procedural constraints, that Decision should be replaced.

(4)

The function of the hearing officer should be attributed to an independent person experienced in trade proceedings. The hearing officer should be appointed by the Commission in accordance with the rules laid down in the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union. In accordance with those rules, consideration may be given to candidates who are not officials of the Commission.

(5)

In order to ensure full independence, the hearing officer should be attached, for administrative purposes only, to the member of the Commission responsible for trade policy.

(6)

The main tasks of the hearing officer should be to advise the member of the Commission responsible for trade policy and the Director-General responsible for trade policy (‘the Director-General’), to guarantee procedural rights, decide on requests for access to the file, to take decisions on the confidential nature of documents and to review the position of the Commission services responsible for the extension of deadlines. The hearing officer should seek to ensure that in the preparation of draft legal acts or proposals, due account is taken of all the relevant facts, whether favourable or unfavourable to the parties concerned.

(7)

The hearing officer should ensure that the opportunities afforded to interested parties for presenting evidence of facts and defence of their interests during the proceeding are such as to enable them to exercise their rights of defence in the most effective manner.

(8)

The intervention of the hearing officer should take place in a manner that any follow-up can be implemented, bearing in mind the time constraints of the proceedings.

(9)

It is necessary to determine the manner and circumstances in which the hearing officer may intervene, and to establish rules for the organisation, conduct and follow-up of such interventions.

(10)

The power of the hearing officer to decide on issues concerning access to the file, confidentiality and deadlines should provide the parties involved in a trade proceeding with an additional procedural guarantee whilst not impeding the orderly conduct and timely completion of proceedings.

(11)

The reports of the hearing officer should ensure that the main issues dealt with, and recommendations made by the hearing officer are brought to the attention of the decision-makers and thus provide an additional guarantee for the respect of the rights of parties affected by a trade proceeding. The annual reports of the hearing officer should also inform the Member States, the European Parliament and the public about the main activities of the hearing officer.

(12)

When processing personal data, the hearing officer should adhere to Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council (5).

(13)

This Decision should be without prejudice to the general rules granting or excluding access to Commission documents,

(1)

Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/492 of 21 March 2017 amending Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the coordination of social security systems and Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.

(2)

Annex VI to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly,

(1)

Regulation (EU) No 909/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 on improving securities settlement in the European Union and on central securities depositories and amending Directives 98/26/EC and 2014/65/EU and Regulation (EU) No 236/2012 (1), as corrected by OJ L 349, 21.12.2016, p. 8, is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.

(2)

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

(1)

Regulation (EU) 2015/751 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2015 on interchange fees for card-based payment transactions (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.

(2)

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