(1)

Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 (2) gives effect to restrictive measures provided for in Decision 2014/145/CFSP.

(2)

On 5 June 2023, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2023/1094 (3), which amended one of the criteria for the listing of natural or legal persons, entities or bodies, to include leading businesspersons operating in Russia and their immediate family members, or other natural persons, benefitting from them, as well as businesspersons, legal persons, entities or bodies involved in economic sectors providing a substantial source of revenue to the Government of the Russian Federation.

(3)

This amendment falls within the scope of the Treaty and therefore regulatory action at the level of the Union is necessary in order to implement it, in particular with a view to ensuring its uniform application in all Member States.

(4)

Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 should therefore be amended accordingly,

(1)

The EU is party to the Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries (the NAFO Convention), approved by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3179/78 (2).

(2)

The European Parliament and the Council adopted Regulation (EU) 2019/833 in order to implement the NAFO conservation and enforcement measures (‘CEM’) into EU law.

(3)

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/124 (3) supplemented Regulation (EU) 2019/833 with a number of NAFO conservation and enforcement measures.

(4)

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/989 (4) amended Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/124 with NAFO measures adopted at its 2019 annual meeting.

(5)

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/860 (5) amended Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/124 with NAFO measures adopted at its 2020 annual meeting.

(6)

Regulation (EU) 2021/1231 of the European Parliament and of the Council (6) amended Regulation (EU) 2019/833 with NAFO measures adopted at its 2019 and 2020 annual meetings.

(7)

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/1281 (7) amended Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/124 with NAFO measures adopted at its 2021 annual meeting.

(8)

Regulation (EU) 2022/2037 of the European Parliament and of the Council (8) amended Regulation (EU) 2019/833 with NAFO measures adopted at its 2021 annual meeting.

(9)

At its annual meeting in September 2022, the NAFO amended its CEM with updates of research vessel restrictions, control measures for landings or transhipments of cod catches from Division 3M, deleting provisions concerning observer programme reporting, and adding a cross reference in the fishing logbook.

(10)

These changes should also be implemented into Union law. Therefore, Regulation (EU) 2019/833 and Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/124 should be amended accordingly,

(1)

On 23 April 2019, Tana-Chemie GmbH submitted to the European Chemicals Agency (‘the Agency’) an application in accordance with Article 43(1) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 and Article 4 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 414/2013 (2) for Union authorisation of the same single biocidal product, as referred to in Article 1 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 414/2013, named ‘APESIN alcogel’, of product-type 1, as described in Annex V to Regulation (EU) No 528/2012. The application was recorded under case number BC-TV051115-15 in the Register for Biocidal Products (‘the Register’). The application also indicated the application number of the related reference biocidal product family ‘Knieler & Team Propanol Family’, recorded in the Register under case number BC-AQ050985-22.

(2)

The same single biocidal product ‘APESIN alcogel’ contains propan-1-ol and propan-2-ol as the active substances, which are included in the Union list of approved active substances referred to in Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 for product-type 1.

(3)

On 8 December 2021, the Agency submitted to the Commission an opinion (3) and the draft summary of the biocidal product characteristics (‘SPC’) of ‘APESIN alcogel’ in accordance with Article 6 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 414/2013.

(4)

The opinion concludes that the proposed differences between the same single biocidal product and the related reference biocidal product are limited to information which can be the subject of an administrative change in accordance with Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 354/2013 (4), and that based on the assessment of the related reference biocidal product family ‘Knieler & Team Propanol Family’ and subject to compliance with the draft SPC, the same single biocidal product meets the conditions laid down in Article 19(1) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012.

(5)

On 20 October 2022, the Agency transmitted to the Commission the draft SPC in all the official languages of the Union in accordance with Article 44(4) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012.

(6)

The Commission concurs with the opinion of the Agency and considers it therefore appropriate to grant a Union authorisation for the same single biocidal product ‘APESIN alcogel’.

(7)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Biocidal Products,

(1)

Penalties imposed by the European Central Bank (ECB) for breaching obligations arising from ECB regulations or decisions should be effective, proportionate and dissuasive. In order to further enhance the effectiveness and the dissuasive effect of its powers to impose sanctions, and in the interests of consistency and legal certainty, the ECB should publish a decision to impose a sanction or information relating thereto as the default rule. This ensures that the exercise of the ECB’s sanctioning power is more effective to act as a deterrent to the undertakings that are required to fulfil obligations arising from ECB regulations or decisions, enhancing the dissuasive effect of a pecuniary sanction.

(2)

The publication of sanctions reinforces the transparency of decision-making and the accountability of the ECB when imposing them, including by allowing sanctions imposed on different undertakings to be compared. Hence, the publication of sanctions benefits the undertakings that are required to fulfil obligations arising from ECB regulations or decisions by promoting fair and equitable treatment. Publishing the amount, moreover, ensures that it can be verified that sanctions do not diverge without justification from one another, strenghtening the principle of non-discrimination and guaranteeing a level playing field.

(3)

Publishing sanctions imposed by the ECB in the field of its central banking tasks is consistent with the regime applicable to sanctions imposed in the field of supervision, where all sanctions are published (2) unless specific exceptions apply. Considerations regarding the principle of consistency encourage the publication of sanctions in relation to all tasks of the ECB, because a similar rationale for publication applies. The publication of sanctions serves, on the one hand, as a signal to the market and, in certain cases, to potential counterparties of the sanctioned entity. On the other hand, the publicity enhances the dissuasive effect of the sanction.

(4)

The publication of sanctions reinforces the visibility of efficient enforcement, fostering public confidence in the ECB, and Union institutions in general.

(5)

In view of the specific features of financial markets, publication of the details of a sanction should be subject to carefully defined exceptions, to take into account justified market, security and business interests. In particular, if publication would jeopardise the stability of the financial markets or the financial system or an ongoing criminal investigation or cause disproportionate damage to the undertaking concerned, the publication of details of a sanction should either beanonymised or postponed where such circumstances are likely to cease within a reasonable period of time. This reflects the generally applicable principle of proportionality. Lastly, there should be an exception where publication would result in the publication of confidential information and the ECB considers that the risk to legitimate public interests in security may not be mitigated. This is of particular importance in the field of banknotes and the oversight of systemically important payment systems.

(6)

In line with the general competence to decide whether a sanction is imposed, the Executive Board also decides whether an exception from publication applies. In this regard, the Executive Board takes note of the grounds brought forward by the investigating unit or the competent national central bank. If it decides that an exception applies, this should be indicated in its decision to impose the sanction, otherwise, the sanction will be published.

(7)

In each case, in determining the appropriate sanction and whether an exception to publication of certain information should apply, the ECB is guided by the principle of proportionality.

(8)

Therefore, Regulation (EC) No 2157/1999 of the European Central Bank (ECB/1999/4) (3) should be amended accordingly,

(1)

The Republic of Korea (‘Korea’) fulfils the criteria in point (d) of Article 16(1) of Regulation (EU) 2021/695 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1).

(2)

Negotiations should be opened with a view to concluding an agreement with Korea on the general principles for the participation of Korea in Union programmes and on the association of Korea to Horizon Europe – the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2021-2027),

(1)

On 17 March 2014, the Council adopted Decision 2014/145/CFSP (1).

(2)

The Union remains unwavering in its support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

(3)

In its conclusions of 9 February 2023, the European Council reiterated the Union’s resolute condemnation of Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, which constitutes a manifest violation of the United Nations Charter. The European Council also reiterated that the Union stands ready to continue to reinforce its restrictive measures against Russia.

(4)

The Council has assessed that a relationship of mutual benefit and support exists between the Government of the Russian Federation and leading businesspersons operating in Russia. In particular, the Government of the Russian Federation has systematically allowed prominent Russian businesspersons to accumulate their wealth through the exploitation of natural and other public resources. The Council considers, in view of this relationship of interdependence between leading businesspersons and the Government of the Russian Federation, that the designation criteria should cover leading businesspersons operating in any economic sector of Russia. In addition, the Council considers that the designation criteria should be extended to allow for the listing as appropriate of other businesspersons who are involved in economic sectors providing a substantial source of revenue to the Government of the Russian Federation, in order to increase pressure on the Government of the Russian Federation to bring an end to its war of aggression against Ukraine.

(5)

The Council has also assessed that leading Russian businesspersons have engaged in a systematic practice of distributing their funds and assets amongst their immediate family members and other persons, often in order to hide their assets, to circumvent the restrictive measures and to maintain control over the resources available to them. Therefore, the Council considers that immediate family members or other natural persons, who benefit in such a way from leading businesspersons operating in Russia, should also be designated as appropriate, in order to both increase pressure on the Government of the Russian Federation to bring an end to its war of aggression against Ukraine as well as to avoid the risk of circumvention of the restrictive measures.

(6)

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

(7)

Decision 2014/145/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly,

(1)

On 4 February 2008, the Council adopted Joint Action 2008/124/CFSP (1).

(2)

On 3 June 2021, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2021/904 (2), amending Joint Action 2008/124/CFSP and extending the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo (EULEX KOSOVO) until 14 June 2023.

(3)

In the context of the strategic review of EULEX KOSOVO, the Political and Security Committee (PSC) agreed that EULEX KOSOVO should be extended until 14 June 2025. The PSC also agreed that, in addition to continuing to implement its tasks, EULEX KOSOVO should assist the law enforcement authorities of Kosovo in developing their capacities to exchange information with regional and international counterparts in the field of legal assistance and cooperation in criminal matters.

(4)

Nothing in this Decision should be understood as prejudicing the independence and the autonomy of the judges and prosecutors active in judicial proceedings in the context of EULEX KOSOVO.

(5)

Due to the special character of the activities of EULEX KOSOVO in support of relocated judicial proceedings within a Member State, it is appropriate to identify the amount envisaged to cover the support for such relocated judicial proceedings and to provide for the implementation of that part of the budget through a grant.

(6)

Joint Action 2008/124/CFSP should be amended accordingly.

(7)

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

(1)

Pursuant to Article 43(b) of Directive 2013/29/EU, the Commission is to determine the practical arrangements for the regular collection and updating of data on accidents related to pyrotechnic articles, so as to enable, as far as possible, an overview of the accident situation in the Union, based on common reporting principles. The regular and reliable collecting, updating and exchanging of such data is therefore an important tool to define a clear picture on the degree of effective implementation of the Directive as regards the lawful and safe use of pyrotechnic articles and thus to evaluate on whether additional harmonization measures would be required.

(2)

All Member States have already agreed that it is, in principle, useful and feasible to collect the data on accidents related to the use of pyrotechnic articles. However, the collection of data relating to pyrotechnic articles of categories other than F1 to F4 would create an unjustified administrative burden. In addition, pyrotechnic articles of category P1 for vehicles, including airbag and seat belt pre-tensioner systems, do not generally present a risk of misuse or accident as they are part of safety devices in vehicles. Considering that Member States have already regularly reported data on accidents related to the use of fireworks to the Commission on a voluntary basis, the existing voluntary system should be used as basis when determining the practical arrangements for the regular collection and updating by all Member States of data on accidents related to the use of fireworks.

(3)

In order to ensure relevance and comparability of the data, the minimum mandatory data should include information on the overall number of accidents with injuries or the overall number of injuries related to the use of pyrotechnic articles as well as the number of injuries resulting from the accidents by age group and the type of injury. In order to better understand the causality and, subsequently, inform national or Union policy decisions, additional data should be provided if available. In order to reduce administrative burden for Member States, where collecting the minimum required data is not possible, reporting of extrapolated data gathered from representative samples should be allowed.

(4)

The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on Pyrotechnic Articles,

(1)

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1062/2014 (2) establishes a list of existing active substances to be evaluated for their possible approval for use in biocidal products. That list includes cyanamide (EC No: 206-992-3; CAS No: 420-04-2).

(2)

Cyanamide has been evaluated for use in biocidal products of product-type 3, veterinary hygiene biocidal products, and product-type 18, insecticides, acaricides and products to control other arthropods, as described in Annex V to Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (3), which correspond respectively to product-types 3 and 18 as described in Annex V to Regulation (EU) No 528/2012.

(3)

Germany was designated as the rapporteur Member State and its evaluating competent authority submitted the assessment report together with its conclusions to the Commission on 30 July 2013. After the submission of the assessment report, discussions took place in technical meetings organised by the European Chemicals Agency (‘the Agency’).

(4)

It follows from Article 90(2) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 that substances for which the Member States’ evaluation has been completed by 1 September 2013 should be evaluated in accordance with the provisions of Directive 98/8/EC.

(5)

In accordance with Article 75(1), point (a), of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012, the Biocidal Products Committee is responsible for preparing the opinion of the Agency regarding applications for approval of active substances. In accordance with Article 7(2) of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1062/2014, the Biocidal Products Committee adopted the opinions of the Agency on 16 June 2016 (“the opinions of 16 June 2016”) (4), having regard to the conclusions of the evaluating competent authority.

(6)

According to the opinions of 16 June 2016, cyanamide met the criteria to be classified as carcinogen category 2 and toxic for reproduction category 2 in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council (5), and was therefore considered as also having endocrine-disrupting properties in accordance with Article 5(3) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012, pending the adoption of delegated acts specifying the scientific criteria for the determination of endocrine-disrupting properties. The opinions of 16 June 2016 also considered that the risks to human health and the environment of using the representative biocidal products presented in the application for approval of cyanamide for product-types 3 and 18 were acceptable subject to appropriate risk mitigation measures. However, the risk assessment presented in those opinions did not take into account the risks resulting from the endocrine-disrupting properties of cyanamide.

(7)

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/2100 (6) setting out scientific criteria for the determination of endocrine-disrupting properties pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 entered into force on 7 December 2017 and came into effect on 7 June 2018.

(8)

In anticipation of the application of the new scientific criteria set out in Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/2100, and to provide clarity as regards the hazard properties and the risks resulting from the use of cyanamide, on 26 April 2018, pursuant to Article 75(1), point (g), of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012, the Commission requested the Agency (7) to revise its opinions of 16 June 2016 and to clarify whether cyanamide has also endocrine-disrupting properties on the basis of the scientific criteria laid down in that Delegated Regulation. The Agency was requested to update only that part of the opinions relating to the assessment of the endocrine-disrupting properties, unless the conclusion of that assessment affected the results of the risk assessment already performed or the recommendations for approval. In the latter case, such assessment and recommendations were also to be updated. For the preparation of the revised opinions of the Agency, the evaluating competent authority of Germany invited the applicant to submit additional information as regards the assessment of the endocrine-disrupting properties of cyanamide in accordance with the criteria laid down in Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/2100.

(9)

The Biocidal Products Committee adopted the revised opinions of the Agency on 10 December 2019 (“the opinions of 10 December 2019”) (8), having regard to the conclusions of the evaluating competent authority.

(10)

According to the opinions of 10 December 2019, cyanamide has endocrine-disrupting properties that may cause adverse effects in humans and the environment (non-target organisms) on the basis of the criteria laid down in Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/2100. The opinions remarked that there is no agreed methodology for undertaking a risk assessment of endocrine-disrupting properties and that, given the exposure to cyanamide of humans and the environment, a risk related to endocrine-disrupting properties cannot be excluded.

(11)

The opinions of 10 December 2019 did not contain any information as to whether a safe threshold can be derived in relation to endocrine-disrupting properties of cyanamide, and, if so, whether the risks of using the representative biocidal products presented in the application for approval of cyanamide for product-types 3 and 18 could be considered acceptable or not, in relation to the endocrine-disrupting properties of cyanamide.

(12)

On 2 September 2020, pursuant to Article 75(1), point (g), of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012, the Commission requested the Agency (9) to revise its opinions of 10 December 2019 and to clarify whether a safe threshold may be derived in relation to the endocrine-disrupting properties of cyanamide, and to conclude whether the risks for human health and for the environment could be considered acceptable or not.

(13)

The Biocidal Products Committee adopted the new revised opinions of the Agency on 30 November 2021 (‘the opinions of 30 November 2021’) (10), having regard to the conclusions of the evaluating competent authority. According to those opinions, since it was not possible to derive a safe threshold with respect to the endocrine-disrupting properties of cyanamide, it is not possible to conclude whether risks for both human health for the general public and the environment for the representative biocidal product used for product-type 3 (for the disinfection by professional users against Brachyspira hyodysenteriae of the liquid manure stored underneath the slatted floor in pig stables in order to protect fattening pigs against the pig disease dysenteria) and product-type 18 (for the control by professional users of Musca domestica in liquid manure in pig stables) are acceptable or not. Therefore, no conclusion could be drawn whether cyanamide fulfils the approval conditions.

(14)

Therefore, given that the opinions of 30 November 2021 of the Agency do not provide either a positive or a negative conclusion on whether cyanamide fulfils the approval conditions, the Commission considers that it has ultimately not been demonstrated based on the data available in the application submitted for the approval that the representative biocidal product containing cyanamide for product-types 3 and 18 may be expected to not have unacceptable effects itself, or as a result of its residues, on human health and on the environment.

(15)

Taking into account the opinions of 30 November 2021, it has not been demonstrated that biocidal products of product-types 3 and 18 containing cyanamide meet the criteria laid down in Article 5(1), points (b) (iii) and (iv), read in conjunction with Article 10(1) of Directive 98/8/EC. It is therefore appropriate not to approve cyanamide for use in biocidal products of product-types 3 and 18.

(16)

The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Biocidal Products,