(1)

Article 1 of Regulation (EU) 2020/2170 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) provides that goods imported from outside the Union are to be eligible for treatment pursuant to Union import tariff rate quotas or other import quotas only if those goods are released for free circulation in the territories listed therein. That provision addresses the risks to the proper functioning of the Union’s internal market and the integrity of the Common Commercial Policy that would arise from the possible circumvention of the Union tariff rate quotas or other import quotas. The territories set out in Article 1 of that Regulation do not include Northern Ireland.

(2)

The Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, of the one part, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of the other part (3) (the ‘Trade and Cooperation Agreement’), provides for the opening by the Union of quotas with regard to imports into the Union of certain products originating in the United Kingdom. In addition, the Trade and Cooperation Agreement confers upon the Union the right to introduce tariff rate quotas or other import quotas with regard to imports of goods originating in the United Kingdom under certain circumstances, including as part of the application of multilateral safeguard measures in accordance with the WTO Agreement. It is necessary, therefore, to clarify whether goods originating in the United Kingdom and released for free circulation in Northern Ireland are eligible for treatment under those tariff rate quotas or other import quotas.

(3)

The United Kingdom is bound by the arrangements laid down in the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland (the ‘Protocol’) to the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community (4) (the ‘Withdrawal Agreement’). Therefore, the legal relationship between the Union and the United Kingdom in respect of goods originating in the United Kingdom and released for free circulation in Northern Ireland is fundamentally different from that between the Union and any other third country in respect of goods originating in such a third country and released for free circulation in Northern Ireland.

(4)

The United Kingdom has provided evidence showing that certain steel products originating in the United Kingdom that are currently subject to safeguard measures under Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/159 (5) (the ‘products concerned’) have been transferred in significant quantities to Northern Ireland from other parts of the United Kingdom. In order to ensure the economic viability of those transfers and in view of the specific circumstances in Northern Ireland, it is appropriate to allow for the products concerned to benefit from the relevant Union tariff rate quotas when they are released for free circulation in Northern Ireland.

(5)

In order to limit the risk of circumvention of the Union tariff rate quotas applicable to the products concerned by imports of the same products originating in other countries, when such products are released for free circulation in Northern Ireland, the products concerned should be consigned directly from other parts of the United Kingdom.

(6)

Moreover, the United Kingdom has undertaken to take the necessary measures, in accordance with the Protocol, to ensure that the transfers of the products concerned using Union tariff rate quotas are counted against those quotas, as soon as such products are released for free circulation in Northern Ireland, in the same way as if those goods were imported into the Union.

(7)

Since the need for importation into Northern Ireland of the products concerned might vary over time, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in order to adjust the list of the products concerned should be delegated to the Commission. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level, and that those consultations be conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the Interinstitutional Agreement of 13 April 2016 on Better Law-Making (6). In particular, to ensure equal participation in the preparation of delegated acts, the European Parliament and the Council receive all documents at the same time as Member States’ experts, and their experts systematically have access to meetings of Commission expert groups dealing with the preparation of delegated acts.

(8)

Regulation (EU) 2020/2170 should therefore be amended accordingly.

(9)

By virtue of Article 5(3) and (4) of the Protocol, in conjunction with Article 13(3) thereof, this Regulation would also apply to and in the United Kingdom in respect of Northern Ireland.

(10)

In order to avoid any potential disruption in the transfers of the products concerned from other parts of the United Kingdom to Northern Ireland, this Regulation should enter into force as soon as possible,

(1)

The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (the ‘EMCDDA’) was established by Council Regulation (EEC) No 302/93 (3). That Regulation was recast in 2006 by Regulation (EC) No 1920/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council (4).

(2)

The EMCDDA was established to provide the Union, Member States and participating third countries with factual, objective, reliable and comparable information concerning drugs, drug addiction and their consequences at European level in order to help provide them with an overall view of that information for the purpose of informing policymaking and guiding initiatives to tackle drugs and, thus, giving such initiatives added value when, in their respective areas of competence, they take measures or decide on action to address the drugs phenomenon. The establishment and functioning of the EMCDDA has manifestly improved the availability of information on drugs and drug addiction, and their consequences, across the Union and internationally.

(3)

While its general objective is still valid and should be retained, Regulation (EC) No 1920/2006 no longer provides an adequate framework for addressing current and future drug challenges. Therefore, the mandate of the EMCDDA should be revised in order, amongst other things, to replace and strengthen it. The EMCDDA should be renamed the European Union Drugs Agency (EUDA) (the ‘Agency’). Since substantial amendments to Regulation (EC) No 1920/2006 are needed to accommodate the common approach on Union decentralised agencies adopted on 19 July 2012 by the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission and to take account of the developments of the drugs phenomenon, in the interest of clarity and efficiency, that Regulation should be repealed and replaced by this Regulation.

(4)

The main focus of Regulation (EC) No 1920/2006 was on health-related issues. While it is essential to maintain that focus, as health- and supply-related issues regarding the drugs phenomenon are intrinsically linked, it is also necessary to address drug supply in order to reduce the availability of drugs in the Union and curb drug demand and, thus, to contribute to addressing related safety and security concerns. In order to provide factual, objective, reliable, comparable and Union-wide significant data and analysis, the Agency should address the drugs phenomenon, taking an evidence-based, integrated, balanced and multidisciplinary approach to drugs, drug use, drug use disorders and addictions, prevention, treatment, care, risk and harm reduction, rehabilitation, social reintegration and recovery, drug markets and supply, including illicit production and trafficking, and other relevant drug-related issues and their consequences. The Agency’s approach should incorporate human rights, gender and gender equality, age, health, health equity and social perspectives.

(5)

The work of the Agency should be carried out with due regard to the respective powers of the Union and its Member States in the area of drugs. It should cover the various facets of the drugs phenomenon and the solutions applied. In particular, the Agency should consider all aspects related to the protection and improvement of health, including physical and mental aspects, and the potential impact on public health. The Agency should also look into social aspects, including considerations linked to stigmatisation, marginalisation and the reintegration of people who use drugs. In doing so, the Agency should be guided by Union drug-related strategic documents.

(6)

In pursuing its activities, the Agency should cooperate with other relevant Union bodies, offices and agencies within their respective mandates and should take account of their activities in order to avoid duplication. In particular, with due regard for their respective mandates, the Agency should cooperate with the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol), established by Regulation (EU) 2016/794 of the European Parliament and of the Council (5), in order to ensure the collection of data, and the monitoring of trends, on drug supply, including illicit production and trafficking and other related crimes, on the use of new technologies and on new psychoactive substances. The Agency should also cooperate at international level with relevant authorities and bodies in third countries, in particular in candidate countries, and in support of Union and Member State action at the level of the United Nations. It is necessary that such cooperation comply with human rights norms.

(7)

In order to attain maximum efficiency in addressing the drugs phenomenon, the Agency should have exchanges with relevant stakeholders and, in particular, with the scientific community, including academia, and civil society organisations, including organisations of people who use drugs and of communities affected by the consumption and sale of drugs or drug-related crime. Given the particular relevance of the experience of civil society organisations in the Agency’s area of competence, the Agency should maintain cooperation on its activities with civil society organisations, such as those active in the relevant Commission expert groups on drugs composed of civil society organisations. The Agency should dedicate the necessary means to consult, exchange information and pool knowledge with those organisations, including in the area of new psychoactive substances. Where appropriate, the Agency should organise dedicated consultations on the topics within its mandate.

(8)

With a view to disseminating reliable information on drugs and the drug situation, the Agency should engage in communication activities on topics within its mandate. However, communication to the wider public in the area of drugs can sometimes have unintended negative consequences. As part of its communication activities and where appropriate, the Agency should, therefore, consider disseminating its reports, including initial reports and risk assessment reports on new psychoactive substances, to the scientific community and civil society organisations with a view to minimising possible drug-related harm. Where the Agency is prevented from disseminating its reports, in particular due to the presence of classified or sensitive non-classified information, it could consider publishing summaries of those reports with a view to minimising possible drug-related harm.

(9)

In its work, the Agency should pay due regard to poly-substance use because such use is becoming increasingly common.

(10)

The Agency should develop its activities around three main areas of competence, namely monitoring, leading to better informed policies; preparedness, leading to better informed actions; and competence development, leading to stronger Union and Member State responses to the drugs phenomenon.

(11)

The collection, analysis and dissemination of data should continue to be the main task of the Agency. When collecting, analysing or disseminating data, the Agency should comply with the legal framework on the processing of personal data and should not disseminate or transmit any data which would make it possible to identify individuals or small groups of individuals. Standard data are collected through national focal points, which should remain the primary data providers for the Agency. The Agency could also use additional sources and organise meetings of experts, including virtual meetings. In addition, closer to real-time data sources are increasingly available through innovative data collection methods. Therefore, the Agency should have access to relevant available data to obtain a holistic picture of the drugs phenomenon in the Union and the external factors influencing it. With a view to ensuring that each national focal point remain informed of the situation in its Member State, it should be informed on a regular basis of data concerning its Member State that are collected from additional sources of information and of the activities of the network of forensic and toxicological laboratories set up by this Regulation.

(12)

The national focal points are key players in the Union’s drug monitoring and reporting system. They collect information and produce comparable and scientifically sound data on the national drug situation, which feed into monitoring the situation across the Union. The national focal points are also key in the process of improving data collection methodologies and tools and of developing relevant guidelines for their implementation. In addition, the national focal points participate in an early warning system and report on new trends in the use of existing psychoactive substances. It is therefore essential that the Agency and the national focal points have a mutually reinforcing relationship. The data requirements of the Agency should be mirrored in the national focal points. The national focal points should be empowered within the Member States to receive all relevant data from the different national authorities. While avoiding any harmonisation measures and leaving the decisions as to the governance, structure or basic tasks of the national focal points in respect of other national competent authorities to the Member States, in line with the Treaties, the mandate of the Agency should enable a streamlining of data collection in the Member States as far as possible so as to avoid double reporting and duplication of efforts.

(13)

It is necessary to establish the foundations of a relationship of mutual trust and continuous dialogue between the Agency and the national focal points, based on a clear and effective functioning mechanism and a set of rules. The Agency should therefore be empowered to financially support the national focal points and contribute to their effective functioning, including by providing an assessment of each national focal point relating directly to its contribution to coordinated Union action in the field of drugs.

(14)

With the aim of supporting effective Union action in the field of drugs and contributing to the work of the Agency, the national focal points should, inter alia, assume a coordinating role in activities related to ensuring coherent drug-related data collection and monitoring, communication with the Agency and promotion of evidence-based decision making, ensuring a cross-sectoral and comprehensive national view of the drug situation, including any relevant information on new trends and challenges, and contributing to the establishment of relevant indicators. In addition, and in line with national competence, the national focal points have a key role in promoting and supporting evidence-based decision-making, supporting systems of collaboration, assessing the information needs of relevant stakeholders and compiling an up-to-date inventory of national drug information sources.

(15)

In order to facilitate and structure data collection and information exchange, both qualitative and quantitative, and to support the establishment of an integrated and interoperable monitoring system enabling real-time monitoring, the Agency should develop and apply the appropriate digital solutions necessary for the performance of its tasks.

(16)

In order to enable the Agency to make better use of the information available to it, for example to take more proactive measures such as threat assessments, strategic intelligence reports and alerts, and to enhance the Union’s preparedness for future developments, the monitoring and analytical capacity of the Agency should be strengthened as compared to that of the EMCDDA.

(17)

In order to improve the Union’s preparedness, it is necessary to have a holistic picture of potential future developments of the drugs phenomenon. To prepare itself and to better equip policymakers for such future developments, the Agency should conduct regular foresight exercises taking into account megatrends, that is to say long-term driving forces that are currently observable and will most likely have a significant influence on the future, with the aim of identifying new challenges and opportunities for responding to drug problems.

(18)

The drugs phenomenon is becoming increasingly technology-enabled, as was shown during the COVID-19 pandemic where a greater adoption of new technologies to facilitate drug distribution was observed. It is estimated that about two-thirds of the offers on darknet markets are drug-related. Drug trading uses different platforms, including social media networks and mobile applications. That development is mirrored in responses to the drugs phenomenon, with an increased use of internet communications and online interventions, including mobile applications and e-health interventions. The Agency, together with other relevant Union bodies, offices and agencies and while avoiding duplication of efforts, should monitor such developments as part of its holistic approach to the drugs phenomenon.

(19)

New psychoactive substances which pose public health and social risks across the Union should be adequately addressed. It is therefore necessary to monitor new psychoactive substances and, in order to enable a quick response, to maintain the early warning system set up under Regulation (EC) No 1920/2006. The provisions of that Regulation relating to the exchange of information on, and the early warning system for, new psychoactive substances, including initial reports and risk assessments on new psychoactive substances, were amended recently and should remain unchanged in this Regulation.

(20)

Based on strengthened monitoring by the Agency and the experience gained in the risk assessment of new psychoactive substances, the Agency should develop general health and security threat assessment capabilities. Greater capacity to proactively and rapidly identify new threats and inform the development of counter-measures is urgently needed as the current dynamic nature of the drugs phenomenon means that related challenges can rapidly spread across borders.

(21)

As dangerous substances and certain consumption patterns might lead to harm for health, the Agency should be able to issue alerts complementing and without prejudice to the relevant national alert systems. To support that function, the Agency should develop a European drug alert system which is accessible by national authorities. That system should facilitate the rapid exchange of information that might require rapid actions to safeguard health, social aspects, safety and security. The Agency should, under the conditions laid down in this Regulation, be able to develop an alert system to make information on identified risks available to people who use or potentially use specific drugs.

(22)

Drug precursors are substances necessary for the production of drugs such as amphetamines, cocaine and heroin. As illegal drug production in the Union is increasing, the prevention of diversion and trafficking of drug precursors from legal channels to illegal drug production should be strengthened. To support that effort, the Agency should have a role in monitoring the diversion and trafficking of drug precursors and in assisting the Commission in the implementation of Union law on drug precursors.

(23)

As there is a growing need for forensic and toxicological data and specialist expertise, matched by a need for better coordination between laboratories in the Member States, a network of forensic and toxicological laboratories knowledgeable in the area of drugs and drug-related harm should be set up. That network should enable the Agency to have access to relevant information, increase the Agency’s capacities in that area and support knowledge exchange between the relevant laboratories in the Member States, without the Agency incurring the high costs of creating and running its own laboratory.

(24)

The network of forensic and toxicological laboratories should be representative of the Member States in that each of them should be allowed to appoint up to three laboratories to the network, covering toxicological and forensic expertise. In order to ensure the broadest coverage possible, experts from other laboratories relevant for the work of the Agency, including from the Customs Laboratories European Network, should also be given the possibility to participate in the network. Such cooperation would enable all laboratories involved to learn from each other across different domains, support the sharing of information between relevant laboratories and decrease the costs for individual laboratories.

(25)

To further knowledge in the area covered by the mandate of the Agency and support Member States, the Agency should identify and finance relevant projects, such as the development of reference standards on new drugs, the elaboration of toxicological or pharmacological studies, the implementation of innovative approaches to research, and drug profiling. The projects that the Agency finances should be included in the Agency’s consolidated annual activity report and be made public.

(26)

The Agency will be in a position to access data and gain necessary scientific experience to develop and promote evidence-based interventions and best practices, to raise awareness about the adverse effects of drugs, prevention, risk and harm reduction measures, treatment, care, rehabilitation and recovery, and, where relevant, to take a gender-sensitive approach and to take into account the age dimension. The Agency should promote the implementation and updating of existing quality standards for drug prevention (European Drug Prevention Quality Standards) and of a curriculum providing decision- and policy-makers with the knowledge about the most effective evidence-based prevention interventions and approaches (European Union Prevention Curriculum), including how to reach high-risk populations.

(27)

Given its Union-wide perspective, the Agency should be able to assess national measures and training, for example on prevention, including gender-sensitive and age-appropriate prevention, treatment, harm reduction, recovery and other related measures, in order to determine whether they reflect the latest scientific state of play and whether they have proven effective. A positive assessment of national measures could serve as a quality label.

(28)

Considering that the Agency will be in a unique position at Union level that allows it to compare data and best practices, the Agency should be able to offer support, including, where so required by Member States, assisting with the evaluation and drafting of national drug strategies in a more structured way across Member States. In addition, the Agency’s role in providing training and support to Member States in the implementation of quality standards and good practices should be strengthened in light of the expertise it will develop in those areas.

(29)

International cooperation should be part of the core tasks of the Agency with responsibilities established in clear terms in order to allow it to fully engage in such activities and respond to requests from international organisations and other bodies and from third countries. The Agency should be able to offer adequate scientific and evidence-based tools for the development and implementation of the external dimension of the Union’s drugs policy and for the important role of the Union at multilateral level, in accordance with the Treaties, as a means to ensure the efficient and coherent implementation of the Union’s drugs policy internally and at international level. Work in that area should be based on an international cooperation framework developed by the Agency. The international cooperation framework should be in accordance with the Treaties and the Union priorities on international cooperation and guided by the relevant United Nations instruments. The Agency should revise the international cooperation framework on a regular basis in order to ensure that it adequately reflects international developments and priorities.

(30)

In order to help Union funding for security and health research to develop its full potential and address what is required by a drugs policy, the Agency should assist the Commission in identifying key research themes and in drawing up and implementing the Union framework programmes for research and innovation that are relevant to the Agency’s objectives. Where the Agency assists the Commission in identifying key research themes or in drawing up and implementing a Union framework programme, it should not receive funding from that programme and should take all necessary measures in order to avoid conflicts of interest. The Agency should participate in Union-wide initiatives addressing research and innovation to ensure that technologies necessary for its activities are developed and available for use. Planned research and innovation activities should be set out in the single programming document containing the Agency’s multiannual and annual work programme.

(31)

The Commission and the Member States should be represented on the Management Board of the Agency to effectively supervise its work. The members and the alternate members of the Management Board should be appointed taking into account their relevant managerial, administrative and budgetary skills. Alternate members should act as members in the absence of the relevant members. Alternate members may also attend meetings in the presence of the relevant members without their presence entailing additional costs for the Agency and without taking part in the votes.

(32)

The Management Board should be given the necessary powers, in particular to adopt the budget, the appropriate financial rules and planning documents, and the consolidated annual activity report. In order to ensure the independent functioning and integrity of the Agency, the Management Board should also adopt rules for the prevention and management of conflicts of interest in respect of its members, the members of the Executive Board, the members of the Scientific Committee, the members of a European Information Network on Drugs and Drug Addiction (the ‘Reitox network’), seconded national experts and other staff not employed by the Agency. In so doing, it is important that the Agency give due consideration to the recommendations and guidelines on that matter, in particular those of the European Ombudsman and the Commission Guidelines on the prevention and management of conflicts of interest in EU decentralised agencies of 10 December 2013. The Management Board should exercise the appointing authority powers vis-à-vis the staff of the Agency, including the Executive Director.

(33)

It is important that all parties represented on the Management Board endeavour to multiply perspectives and experiences represented in and contributing to its work, while ensuring the continuity of its work. All parties should aim to achieve gender-balanced representation on the Management Board.

(34)

The Management Board should be assisted by an Executive Board to prepare its decisions. The Agency should be headed by an Executive Director. A Scientific Committee should assist the Management Board and the Executive Director with regard to relevant scientific matters.

(35)

The Management Board should appoint the Executive Director following an open and transparent selection procedure organised and managed by the Commission. In line with the practice followed in the appointment of executive directors to the EMCDDA, the Commission should consider including a representative of the Management Board as an observer in the appointment procedure. The assessment by the Commission at the end of the initial five-year term of office of the Executive Director should include prior input from the Management Board on the performance of the Executive Director.

(36)

It is important that the Agency be adequately resourced to carry out its tasks, objectives and responsibilities under this Regulation and be granted an autonomous budget reflecting its mission. It should be mainly financed by a contribution from the general budget of the Union. The Union budgetary procedure should be applicable as far as the Union contribution and any other subsidies chargeable to the general budget of the Union are concerned. The Court of Auditors should audit the Agency’s accounts.

(37)

In order to further support Member States and other stakeholders in understanding and addressing the drugs phenomenon, the possibility for the Agency to deliver additional services, beyond its core tasks laid down in this Regulation, against the payment of fees should be introduced. The method by which fees levied by the Agency are calculated should be transparent. The fees levied by the Agency should cover the full cost of providing the activities related to the services delivered, including staff and operational costs. Where fees have been levied in a financial year, the Agency’s provisional accounts should be accompanied by a report on those fees. Such reports would also be subject to audit by the Court of Auditors. Fees should be set at a level that avoids a deficit or a significant accumulation of surplus and should be revised where that is not the case.

(38)

The Executive Director should present the annual report of the Agency to the European Parliament and the Council. Furthermore, the European Parliament and the Council should be able to invite the Executive Director to report on the performance of her or his duties.

(39)

Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council (6) should apply to the Agency. The Agency should be as transparent as possible about its activities, without jeopardising the attainment of the objective of its operations.

(40)

Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (7) and the Interinstitutional Agreement of 25 May 1999 between the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities concerning internal investigations by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) (8), to which the EMCDDA acceded, should apply to the Agency.

(41)

The Agency processes data that require particular protection, in particular European Union Classified Information (EUCI) and sensitive non-classified information. The Agency should draw up rules on the confidentiality and processing of such information. The rules on the protection of EUCI should be consistent with Commission Decisions (EU, Euratom) 2015/443 (9) and (EU, Euratom) 2015/444 (10). In accordance with those legal acts, the Agency should refrain from publishing sensitive data. It should also refrain from disclosing the confidential business information of third parties.

(42)

In order to control and ensure the performance of the Agency and to ensure that its mandate allows it to carry out the necessary activities required by developments in drug markets and policy, an external evaluation of the Agency’s work should be conducted on a regular basis and its mandate adapted accordingly, if needed.

(43)

The Agency should cooperate closely, in full compliance with fundamental rights, with relevant international organisations and other governmental and non-governmental bodies, including relevant technical bodies, from inside and outside the Union in the implementation of its work programme, in accordance with the relevant Treaty provisions and Member State competences, in particular to avoid duplication of work and to ensure access to all data and tools needed for carrying out its mandate.

(44)

The Agency should replace and succeed the EMCDDA. It should therefore be the legal successor of all EMCDDA’s contracts, including employment contracts, liabilities and properties. International agreements concluded by the EMCDDA before 2 July 2024 should remain in force.

(45)

Since the objective of this Regulation, namely the establishment of an agency to address the drugs phenomenon, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States but can rather, by reason of the scale and effects of the action, be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU). In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective,

(1)

On 22 May 2018, the Council authorised the Commission to negotiate a free trade agreement with New Zealand.

(2)

On 30 June 2022, the negotiations for the Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and New Zealand (‘the Agreement’) were successfully concluded.

(3)

The Agreement should be signed,

(1)

Council Regulation (EU) 2023/194 (1) fixes for 2023 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks applicable in Union waters and, for Union fishing vessels, in certain non-Union waters. The total allowable catches (TACs) and measures functionally linked to the TACs set by Regulation (EU) 2023/194 should be amended to take into account the publication of scientific advice as well as the outcomes of consultations with third countries.

(2)

Regulation (EU) 2023/194 sets at zero the TAC for anchovy (Engraulis encrasicolus) in International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) subareas 9 and 10 and Union waters of Committee for Eastern Central Atlantic Fisheries (CECAF) division 34.1.1 for the period from 1 July 2023 to 30 June 2024, pending the publication by ICES of its scientific advice for that stock for that period. In order to allow fishing to continue until the definitive TAC for that stock is set on the basis of that scientific advice, a provisional TAC at the level of 4 564 tonnes for the period from 1 July 2023 to 30 September 2023 should be established. That level corresponds to the catches of that stock in the third quarter of 2022.

(3)

On 12 May 2023, the Union, the United Kingdom and Norway held consultations on the level of the fishing opportunities for sprat (Sprattus sprattus) in ICES subarea 4 and division 3a for the period from 1 July 2023 to 30 June 2024, as well as on the level of the TACs for sprat for that period in Union and United Kingdom waters of ICES subarea 4 and division 2a and Union and Norwegian waters of ICES division 3a. Those consultations were conducted on the basis of the Union position endorsed by the Council on 4 May 2023. Those TACs should therefore be set at the levels agreed with the United Kingdom and Norway.

(4)

On 4 May 2023, the Union and the United Kingdom held consultations on the level of the TAC for sprat in Union and United Kingdom waters of ICES divisions 7d and 7e for the period from 1 July 2023 to 30 June 2024. Those consultations were conducted pursuant to Article 498(2), (4) and (6) of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (2) and on the basis of the Union position endorsed by the Council on 27 April 2023. The outcome of those consultations was documented in a Written Record. That TAC should therefore be set at the level agreed with the United Kingdom.

(5)

Given that, in relation to several stocks, either their biomass is below the limit biomass reference point (‘Blim’) or ICES does not define conservation reference points but recommends zero catches or suspending the targeted fishery, the year-to-year flexibility pursuant to Articles 3 and 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 847/96 (3) should be prohibited in 2023.

(6)

Codes for several conditions regarding Norwegian quotas under TACs included in Part B of Annex IA to Regulation (EU) 2023/194, establishing in what areas Norway may fish quantities available to it, are missing or incorrect. Annex IA to that Regulation should therefore be amended.

(7)

Articles 15 and 17 of Regulation (EU) 2022/2056 of the European Parliament and of the Council (4) prohibit to retain on board, tranship, store on a fishing vessel or land any oceanic whitetip shark (Carcharhinus longimanus) or any silky shark (Carcharhinus falciformis) whole or in part in the area covered by the Convention on the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPFC). In order to avoid overlapping provisions on the same subject matter, it is appropriate to delete Article 45 of Regulation (EU) 2023/194.

(8)

Under several recommendations of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), the Union may, upon request, carry over a percentage of its unused quota of stocks in the ICCAT Convention Area from the penultimate or the preceding year to a given year, according to rules for each ICCAT stock as laid down by ICCAT. Council Regulation (EU) 2022/109 (5) and Regulation (EU) 2023/194 set Union quotas for ICCAT stocks for 2022 and 2023 respectively in line with the outcome of the ICCAT annual meeting in the preceding year, which take into account the carry-overs of unused Union quotas, where applicable. It should not be possible to combine those carry-overs with the transfers of quotas under Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 847/96 and the use of such transfers should therefore be prohibited for that period.

(9)

Five Member States transmitted modifications to their farming management plans to the Commission in accordance with Article 6(3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1627 of the European Parliament and of the Council (6). Based on those modifications, the Commission transmitted the modified Union farming management plan for 2023 to the ICCAT Secretariat on 9 May 2023 and ICCAT published those modifications to that Union plan on 11 May 2023. The Union’s maximum farming input and capacity should therefore be amended in line with those modifications.

(10)

Regulations (EU) 2023/194 and (EU) 2022/109 should therefore be amended accordingly.

(11)

In order to allow fishing to continue on 1 July 2023 and beyond, this Regulation should enter into force without delay.

(12)

The provisions of this Regulation amending certain provisions of Regulation (EU) 2023/194 should apply from 1 January 2023, in line with the application period of those amended provisions. The provisions of this Regulation concerning fishing opportunities for anchovy and sprat and the deletion of Article 45 of Regulation (EU) 2023/194 should apply from 1 July 2023. The provisions of this Regulation concerning ICCAT and amending certain provisions of Regulation (EU) 2022/109 should apply from 1 January 2022, in line with the application period of those amended provisions. Such retroactive application does not affect the principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations, as either the fishing opportunities concerned are increased by those amendments or the relevant quantities have not yet been transferred under Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 847/96,

(1)

The Commission has examined the application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the Protected Geographical Indication ‘Extremadura’, forwarded by Spain in accordance with Article 105 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013.

(2)

The Commission has published the application for the approval of the amendments to the specification in the Official Journal of the European Union (2), as required by Article 97(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013.

(3)

No statement of objection has been received by the Commission under Article 98 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013.

(4)

The amendments to the specification should therefore be approved in accordance with Article 99 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013.

(5)

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

(1)

The Commission has examined the application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the Protected Designation of Origin ‘Balaton / Balatoni’, forwarded by Hungary in accordance with Article 105 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013.

(2)

The Commission has published the application for the approval of the amendments to the specification in the Official Journal of the European Union (2), as required by Article 97(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013.

(3)

No statement of objection has been received by the Commission under Article 98 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013.

(4)

The amendments to the specification should therefore be approved in accordance with Article 99 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013.

(5)

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

(1)

In accordance with Article 97(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, the Commission has examined the application to register the name ‘Canelli’ forwarded by Italy and has published it in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

(2)

No statement of objection has been received by the Commission under Article 98 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013.

(3)

In accordance with Article 99 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, the name ‘Canelli’ should be protected and entered in the register referred to in Article 104 of that Regulation.

(4)

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

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 (3) lays down detailed rules for implementing the system of additional import duties and fixes representative prices in the poultrymeat and egg sectors and for egg albumin.

(2)

Regular monitoring of the data used to determine representative prices for poultrymeat and egg products and for egg albumin shows that the representative import prices for certain products should be amended to take account of variations in price according to origin.

(3)

Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 should therefore be amended accordingly.

(4)

Given the need to ensure that this measure applies as soon as possible after the updated data have been made available, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication,

(1)

Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 lays down a Union list of food additives approved for use in foods and their conditions of use.

(2)

Commission Regulation (EU) No 231/2012 (3) lays down specifications for food additives that are listed in Annexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008.

(3)

The Union lists of food additives and the specifications may be updated in accordance with the common procedure referred to in Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008, either on the initiative of the Commission or following an application.

(4)

Glycerol (E 422), polyglycerol esters of fatty acids (E 475) and polyglycerol polyricinoleate (E 476) are substances authorised in accordance with Annexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008.

(5)

On 15 March 2017, the European Food Safety Authority (‘the Authority’) issued a scientific opinion on the re-evaluation of glycerol (E 422) as a food additive (4), which concluded that there was no need for a numerical acceptable daily intake and that the food additive was of no safety concern for the reported uses. The Authority recommended some modifications to the specifications for E 422 set out in Regulation (EU) No 231/2012 and that more information on the uses and use levels is made available to the Authority.

(6)

On 23 November 2018, the Commission launched a public call for technical data on the food additive glycerol (E 422), targeting the data needs identified by the Authority.

(7)

Following the data submission by interested business operators, the Commission requested the Authority to provide a scientific opinion to confirm that the technical data provided by interested business operators adequately supported an amendment to the specifications for the food additive glycerol (E 422) to bring them in line with current standards, as recommended by the Authority.

(8)

In its scientific opinion adopted on 18 May 2022 (5), the Authority concluded that the current specifications for glycerol (E 422) were to be adapted in particular by reducing the maximum limits for toxic elements (arsenic, lead, mercury and cadmium), by deleting the identification method based on acrolein formation during heating, by deleting the test for the presence of acrolein, by including a maximum limit for acrolein and by modifying the definition of glycerol (E 422).

(9)

It is therefore appropriate to amend the specifications for glycerol (E 422). The definition of the food additive should be amended to restrict it to the manufacturing processes for which data were assessed by the Authority. The current maximum limits for toxic elements should be reduced in accordance with the scientific opinion of the Authority, taking into account the currently achievable levels by the application of good manufacturing practices. The identification method for glycerol based on acrolein formation during heating should be deleted considering that the content of glycerol in E 422 is to be determined by an appropriate analytical method. The test for the presence of acrolein should be deleted and a maximum numerical limit for acrolein should be included in accordance with the scientific opinion of the Authority and taking into account the level which is currently achievable by the application of good manufacturing practices.

(10)

Considering that the Authority did not identify an immediate health concern linked to the presence of toxic elements and acrolein, it is appropriate to allow during a transitional period the use of the food additive glycerol (E 422) lawfully placed on the market before the date of the entry into force of this Regulation.

(11)

For the same reasons, it is appropriate that foods containing the food additive glycerol (E 422) that has been lawfully placed on the market before the date of entry into force of this Regulation may continue to be placed on the market during a transitional period and to remain on the market until their date of minimum durability or ‘use-by-date’.

(12)

On 20 December 2017, the Authority issued a scientific opinion on the re-evaluation of polyglycerol esters of fatty acids (E 475) as a food additive (6), which concluded that there was no need for a numerical acceptable daily intake and that the food additive was of no safety concern at the reported uses and use levels. The Authority recommended some modifications to the specifications for E 475 set out in Regulation (EU) No 231/2012.

(13)

On 23 November 2018, the Commission launched a public call for technical data on the food additive polyglycerol esters of fatty acids (E 475), targeting the data needs identified by the Authority.

(14)

Following the data submission by interested business operators, the Commission requested the Authority to provide a scientific opinion to confirm that the technical data provided by interested business operators adequately supported an amendment to the specifications for the food additive polyglycerol esters of fatty acids (E 475) to bring them in line with current standards, as recommended by the Authority.

(15)

In its scientific opinion adopted on 1 April 2022 (7), the Authority concluded that the current specifications for polyglycerol esters of fatty acids (E 475) were to be adapted in particular by reducing the maximum limits for toxic elements, by including maximum limits for impurities and constituents of safety concern and by modifying the definition of polyglycerol esters of fatty acids (E 475).

(16)

It is therefore appropriate to amend the specifications for polyglycerol esters of fatty acids (E 475). The definition of the food additive should be amended in order to restrict the use of glycerol for the production of the food additive to glycerol compliant with the specifications for the food additive (E 422). The current maximum limits for toxic elements should be reduced and maximum limits for the sum of 3-monochloropropanediol (3-MCPD) and 3-MCPD fatty acid esters (expressed as 3-MCPD), glycidyl fatty acid esters (expressed as glycidol) and erucic acid should be established in accordance with the scientific opinion of the Authority and taking into account the level which is currently achievable by the application of good manufacturing practices.

(17)

As new manufacturing techniques resulting in the production of the food additive polyglycerol esters of fatty acids (E 475) with lower levels of glycidyl fatty acid esters (expressed as glycidol) are being implemented, it is appropriate to provide the manufacturers of food additives with a transitional period to reach a maximum level of 5 mg/kg for glycidyl fatty acid esters (expressed as glycidol) in the food additive (E 475). However, given that glycidyl fatty acid esters are genotoxic and carcinogenic, an intermediate maximum level of 10 mg/kg for glycidyl fatty acid esters (expressed as glycidol) should apply from the date of entry into force of this Regulation.

(18)

Considering that the Authority did not identify an immediate health concern linked to the presence of toxic elements, 3-monochloropropanediol (3-MCPD), 3-MCPD fatty acid esters, erucic acid and glycidyl fatty acid esters, it is appropriate to allow during a transitional period the use of the food additive polyglycerol esters of fatty acids (E 475) lawfully placed on the market before the date of entry into force of this Regulation and to allow foods containing such food additive, to continue to be placed on the market for the same transitional period and to remain on the market until their date of minimum durability or ‘use-by-date’.

(19)

For the same reasons and considering its reduced content of glycidyl fatty acid esters, the food additive polyglycerol esters of fatty acids (E 475) legally placed on the market after the date of entry into force of this Regulation and complying with the reduced intermediate maximum level for glycidyl fatty acid esters (expressed as glycidol) should be allowed to be used until the exhaustion of stocks and foods containing such food additive should be allowed to be placed on the market and to remain on the market until their date of minimum durability or ‘use-by-date’.

(20)

On 24 March 2017, the Authority issued a scientific opinion on the re-evaluation of polyglycerol polyricinoleate (E 476) as a food additive (8). The Authority concluded that the data set gave reason to increase the acceptable daily intake to 25 mg/kg bw per day. The Authority recommended some modifications to the specifications for E 476 set out in Regulation (EU) No 231/2012.

(21)

On 23 November 2018, the Commission launched a public call for technical data on the food additive polyglycerol polyricinoleate (E 476), targeting the data needs identified by the Authority.

(22)

On 18 March 2020, an application was submitted for the authorisation of the use of polyglycerol polyricinoleate (E 476) as an emulsifier in edible ices for fat and oil emulsion of water-in-oil type and emulsified sauces with a fat content of more than 20 %. The application was subsequently made available to the Member States by the Commission pursuant to Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008.

(23)

Polyglycerol polyricinoleate (E 476) is capable of producing stable water-in-oil emulsions with smaller droplet sizes that can be frozen to produce soft, creamy, edible ices requiring less energy in the manufacturing process and having enhanced stability in the frozen supply chain. It allows the use of low saturated fats and oils and lower amounts of sugars in edible ices. The level of polyglycerol polyricinoleate (E 476) needed to achieve the intended technological function is 4 000 mg/kg.

(24)

Polyglycerol polyricinoleate (E 476) also enables oil reduction in emulsified sauces (e.g. mayonnaise or salad dressings) without having the negative effect on mouthfeel. The currently authorised maximum level of 4 000 mg/kg is not sufficient for products with a fat content of more than 20 %. The level of use of polyglycerol polyricinoleate (E 476) needed to achieve the intended technological function in products with a fat content of more than 20 % is 8 000 mg/kg.

(25)

Following the data submission by interested business operators in response to the public call for technical data and the submission of the application on the extension of use of polyglycerol polyricinoleate (E 476), the Commission requested the Authority to provide a scientific opinion to confirm that the technical data provided by interested business operators adequately supported an amendment to the specifications for the food additive polyglycerol polyricinoleate (E 476) to bring them in line with current standards, as recommended by the Authority.

(26)

In its scientific opinion adopted on 30 March 2022 (9), the Authority concluded that the proposed extension of use would not give rise to a safety concern. The Authority also concluded that the current specifications for polyglycerol polyricinoleate (E 476) were to be adapted in particular by reducing the maximum limits for toxic elements, by including maximum limits for impurities of safety concern and by modifying the definition of polyglycerol polyricinoleate (E 476).

(27)

It is therefore appropriate to authorise polyglycerol polyricinoleate (E 476) in food category 03 ‘Edible ices’ at a maximum level of 4 000 mg/kg, increase the authorised maximum level in food category 12.6 ‘Sauces’ to 8 000 mg/kg for emulsified sauces with a fat content of 20 % or more and amend its specifications in light of the Authority’s scientific opinion. The definition of the food additive should be amended in order to restrict the use of glycerol for the production of the food additive to glycerol compliant with the specifications for the food additive (E 422). The current maximum limits for toxic elements should be reduced and maximum limits for the sum of 3-monochloropropanediol (3-MCPD) and 3-MCPD fatty acid esters (expressed as 3-MCPD) and glycidyl fatty acid esters (expressed as glycidol) should be established in accordance with the scientific opinion of the Authority and taking into account the level which is currently achievable by the application of good manufacturing practices.

(28)

Considering that the Authority did not identify an immediate health concern linked to the presence of toxic elements, 3-monochloropropanediol (3-MCPD), 3-MCPD fatty acid esters and glycidyl fatty acid esters, it is appropriate to allow during a transitional period the use of the food additive polyglycerol polyricinoleate (E 476) lawfully placed on the market before the date of entry into force of this Regulation.

(29)

For the same reasons, it is appropriate that foods containing the food additive polyglycerol polyricinoleate (E 476) that has been lawfully placed on the market before the date of entry into force of this Regulation may continue to be placed on the market during a transitional period and to remain on the market until their date of minimum durability or ‘use-by-date’.

(30)

Regulations (EC) No 1333/2008 and (EU) No 231/2012 should therefore be amended accordingly.

(31)

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

(1)

By Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/763 (2), the European Commission ('the Commission') imposed anti-dumping duties on imports of certain lightweight thermal paper originating in the Republic of Korea (‘the original measures’). The investigation that led to the imposition of the original measures will hereinafter be referred to as ‘the original investigation’. The measures took the form of fixed duty rates at the level of EUR 104,46 per tonne net, for both the sole cooperating exporting group and for all other companies.

(2)

The judgments in cases T-383/17 (3) and C-260/20 P (4) entailed the annulment of the measures for the sole cooperating exporting group. By Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/593 (5), the European Commission re-imposed the anti-dumping duties on imports of certain lightweight thermal paper originating in the Republic of Korea at the revised level of EUR 103,16 per tonne net, for both the sole cooperating exporting group and for all other companies.

(3)

Following the publication of a notice of impending expiry (6) the Commission received a request for a review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation.

(4)

The request for review was submitted on 1 February 2022 by the European Thermal Paper Association (‘the applicant’) on behalf of the Union industry of certain lightweight thermal paper in the sense of Article 5(4) of the basic Regulation. The request for review was based on the grounds that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in continuation or recurrence of dumping and continuation or recurrence of injury to the Union industry.

(5)

Having determined, after consulting the Committee established by Article 15(1) of the basic Regulation, that sufficient evidence existed for the initiation of an expiry review, on 3 May 2022 the Commission initiated an expiry review with regard to imports into the Union of certain lightweight thermal paper originating in the Republic of Korea (‘the country concerned’) on the basis of Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation. It published a Notice of Initiation in the Official Journal of the European Union (7) (‘the Notice of Initiation’).

(6)

The investigation of continuation or recurrence of dumping covered the period from 1 January 2021 to 31 December 2021 (‘review investigation period’). The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of the likelihood of a continuation or recurrence of injury covered the period from 1 January 2018 to the end of the review investigation period (‘the period considered’).

(7)

In the Notice of Initiation, interested parties were invited to contact the Commission in order to participate in the investigation. In addition, the Commission specifically informed the applicant, the known producer in the Republic of Korea and the authorities of the Republic of Korea, known importers, users and traders, about the initiation of the expiry and invited them to participate.

(8)

Interested parties had an opportunity to comment on the initiation of the expiry review and to request a hearing with the Commission and/or the Hearing Officer in trade proceedings.

(9)

The Commission received comments on initiation from Hansol Paper Co. Ltd. (‘Hansol Paper’). This party claimed that the data in the request do not show that the Union industry is suffering material injury.

(10)

The Commission recalled that Hansol Paper had carried out an examination of the request in accordance with Article 11(2) and other relevant paragraphs of Article 11 of the basic Regulation, coming to the conclusion that the requirements for initiation of an investigation were met, i.e., that the adequacy and accuracy of the evidence presented by the applicants were sufficient evidence tending to show likelihood of continuation or recurrence of injurious dumping.

(11)

In this respect, it also recalled that at the stage of the request it is not necessary that the Commission has before it the same evidence of likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury of a quantity and quality that would be necessary for the extension of the measures. An anti-dumping investigation is a process where certainty on the existence of the elements necessary to adopt or prolong a measure or to terminate a proceeding is reached gradually as the investigation moves forward. Furthermore, it is not excluded that certain errors or inaccuracies may exist in the application. However, their existence does not necessarily have an impact on the overall conclusion that the request contains sufficient evidence of a likelihood of continuation or recurrence of injurious dumping, and that the file merits investigation.

(12)

Furthermore, the legal standard of evidence required for a request (sufficient evidence) makes it clear that the quantity and quality of information in the request is not the same as the one available at the end of an investigation. It is not excluded that changes will occur between the stage of the request and the conclusion of the investigation. However, such changes do not necessarily have an impact on the overall conclusion that the file merits an investigation since there is sufficient evidence of likelihood of continuation or recurrence of injurious dumping.

(13)

With regard to the claim that the data in the request would not show that the Union industry is suffering material injury, Hansol Paper submitted that the economic indicators provided in the request would show that imports from Korea are at non-injurious levels, Korea’s market share is negligible and the Union industry is performing well in terms of sales volume, market share, investments and operating efficiency. According to Hansol Paper, the request acknowledged that sales prices of the Union producers have declined over the period considered but submitted that this is due to other market-wide factors that have nothing to do with imports from Korea.

(14)

The Commission clarified that in the request the applicant alleges the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of injury from the country concerned. The Commission indeed considered that, in the request, the applicant provided sufficient evidence demonstrating that, following an initial period of recovery, the Union industry was injured when the imports from the country concerned increased between 1 October 2020 until 30 September 2021. In this respect, it recalled that a finding of material injury requires an examination, inter alia, of the relevant factors as described in Article 5(2)(d) of the basic Regulation. Indeed, the wording of Article 5(2) of the basic Regulation states that the complaint shall contain the information on changes in the volume of the allegedly dumped imports, the effect of those imports on prices of the like product on the Union market and the consequent impact of the imports on the Union industry, as demonstrated by relevant (not necessarily all) factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the Union industry, such as those listed in Articles 3(3) and 3(5). This is applicable mutatis mutandis to the likelihood analysis in an expiry review. Equally, not all factors must show a deterioration in order for material injury (and hence, likelihood of continuation or recurrence thereof) to be established. Furthermore, the existence of other factors which may have an impact on the situation of the Union industry does not necessarily imply that the effect of dumped imports on this industry is not material (again, this is similarly applicable to the likelihood analysis). This is all the more true in the case of an expiry review where the focus lies on what would happen should measures be repealed. Moreover, in the case of expiry reviews, anti-dumping measures may have a certain positive effect even if injury continues overall. In any event, the Commission further noted that the request contained sufficient evidence on likelihood of recurrence of injury. In particular, it showed that the Korean market is characterised by significant production overcapacity. The Korean domestic market is unable to absorb this excess production. Therefore, the Union market, which is globally the largest thermal paper market is attractive to Korean exporters in terms of size. In addition, other export markets are difficult to access for several reasons (8). On this basis, the Commission was entitled to initiate the investigation.

(15)

As to Hansol Paper allegations regarding the positive development of some injury indicators in the request, e.g., market share and sales volume, the Commission noted that anti-dumping measures often have a positive effect on the state of the Union industry — a factor which was of course taken into account in the Commission’s analysis.

(16)

Regarding the comment on Union interest, the Commission has no legal obligation to examine Union interest at the initiation stage.

(17)

In the Notice of Initiation, the Commission stated that it might sample the interested parties in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation.

(18)

In the Notice of Initiation, the Commission stated that it had provisionally selected a sample of Union producers. The Commission selected a sample of three Union producers. The criteria used for the selection of the sample where the largest representative volume of sales and production of the like product in the EU between 1 January 2021 and 31 December 2021. The sampled Union producers accounted for 86 % of the estimated total volume of production and sales in the Union. In accordance with Article 17(2) of the basic Regulation, the Commission invited interested parties to comment on the provisional sample. One comment was received from the Union association who supported the provisional sample. The sample was confirmed on 12 May 2022. The sample is representative of the Union industry.

(19)

To decide whether sampling was necessary and, if so, to select a sample, the Commission asked unrelated importers to provide the information specified in the Notice of Initiation. No unrelated importers submitted the requested information. Consequently, the Commission decided that sampling was not necessary.

(20)

The Commission invited the three sampled Union producers and the main known exporting producer in Korea to fill in the relevant questionnaires made available online (9) on the day of the initiation.

(21)

Questionnaire replies were received from the three sampled Union producers, the main known exporting producer, Hansol Paper, and its related importers Hansol Europe B.V. and Hansol America Inc. Moreover, the applicant provided a questionnaire reply with macro-data.

(22)

The Commission sought and verified all the information deemed necessary for the determination of likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury and of the Union interest. Verification visits pursuant to Article 16 of the basic Regulation were carried out at the premises of the following companies:

Union producers

Exporting producer in the Republic of Korea

Related importers

(23)

On 27 April 2023, the Commission disclosed the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it intended to maintain the anti-dumping duties in force. On 10 May 2023, the Commission sent an update of the undercutting calculation to Hansol Paper only. All parties were granted a period within which they could make comments on the disclosure. Comments were received from the applicants and Hansol Paper.

(24)

The comments made by interested parties were considered by the Commission and taken into account, where appropriate. No parties requested a hearing.

(25)

Given the limited number of parties that submitted data, some of the figures presented below had to be in the form of ranges in order to avoid confidentiality breaches. The data from the sole cooperating exporting producer are also given in ranges as it is the only company that cooperated.

(26)

The product under review is the same as in the original investigation, namely certain lightweight thermal paper weighing 65 g/m2 or less; in rolls of a width of 20 cm or more, a weight of the roll (including the paper) of 50 kg or more and a diameter of the roll (including the paper) of 40 cm or more (‘jumbo rolls’); with or without a base coat on one or both sides; coated with a thermo-sensitive substance on one or both sides; and with or without a top coat (‘the product under review’), currently falling under CN codes ex 4809 90 00, ex 4811 90 00, ex 4816 90 00 and ex 4823 90 85 (TARIC codes: 4809900010, 4811900010, 4816900010, 4823908520).

(27)

Lightweight thermal paper is a specialty paper. It has a thermal active coating which reacts to form an image when heat is applied by printers with thermal printheads. Lightweight thermal paper is used for point-of-sale applications such as the receipts issued by retail, but also for self-adhesive labels for e-commerce packaging, tickets and tags.

(28)

Lightweight thermal paper can be produced with several types of chemical developers. All types are concerned by the present investigation.

(29)

The product concerned by this investigation is the product under review originating in the Republic of Korea.

(30)

As established in the original investigation, this expiry review investigation confirmed that the following products have the same basic physical and technical characteristics as well as the same basic uses:

(31)

These products are therefore considered to be like products within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.

(32)

In a submission of 1 July 2022, the exporting producer requested a clarification whether new product types produced by Union industry would be included or excluded from the scope of the expiry review. These new product types do not use any chemical developer and the image is released based on physics instead of a chemical process. A note to the file dated 19 September 2022 clarified the scope of the investigation in the sense that only lightweight thermal paper with a chemical developer is covered by the proceeding.

(33)

During the review investigation period, imports of lightweight thermal paper from the Republic of Korea continued, albeit at lower levels than in the investigation period of the original investigation (i.e. from 1 January 2015 to 31 December 2015). According to table 2 below, imports of lightweight thermal paper from the Republic of Korea accounted for 2,7 % of the Union market in the review investigation period compared to 13,6 % market share during the original investigation.

(34)

Hansol Paper cooperated with the investigation. It accounted for (close to) all imports of the product under review from the Republic of Korea. No other exporting producer came forward. The findings with regard to the continuation of dumping are based on the verified data of Hansol Paper.

(35)

The Commission first examined whether the total volume of domestic sales of the cooperating exporting producer was representative, in accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation. The domestic sales are representative if the total domestic sales volume of the like product to independent customers on the domestic market per exporting producer represented at least 5 % of its total export sales volume of the product under review to the Union during the review investigation period. On this basis, the total sales by the exporting producer of the like product on the domestic market were representative.

(36)

The Commission subsequently identified the product types sold domestically that were identical or comparable with the product types sold for export to the Union for the exporting producer with representative domestic sales.

(37)

The Commission then examined whether the domestic sales by the exporting producer on its domestic market for each product type that is identical or comparable with a product type sold for export to the Union were representative, in accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation. The domestic sales of a product type are representative if the total volume of domestic sales of that product type to independent customers during the review investigation period represents at least 5 % of the total volume of export sales of the identical or comparable product type to the Union. The Commission established that, for some product types that were exported to the Union during the review investigation period, there were no domestic sales and were thus not representative.

(38)

The Commission next defined the proportion of profitable sales to independent customers on the domestic market for each product type during the review investigation period in order to decide whether to use actual domestic sales for the calculation of the normal value, in accordance with Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation.

(39)

The normal value is based on the actual domestic price per product type, irrespective of whether those sales are profitable or not, if:

(40)

In this case, the normal value is the weighted average of the prices of all domestic sales of that product type during the review investigation period.

(41)

The normal value is the actual domestic price per product type of only the profitable domestic sales of the product types during the review investigation period, if:

(42)

The analysis of domestic sales showed that, depending on the product type, between 32 % and 100 % of all domestic sales volume were profitable and that the weighted average sales price of each product type was higher than the cost of production. Accordingly, depending on the product type, the normal value was calculated as a weighted average of the price of all domestic sales during the review investigation period or as a weighted average of the profitable sales only.

(43)

Where a product type was not sold on the domestic market, and in the absence of a domestic sales price of such product type by any other exporting producer, the Commission constructed the normal value in accordance with Article 2(3) and (6) of the basic Regulation.

(44)

Normal value was constructed by adding the following to the average cost of production of the like product of the cooperating exporting producer during the review investigation period:

(45)

Hansol Paper exported the product under review to the Union either directly to independent customers or through its related company Hansol Europe.

(46)

For sales of the exporting producer directly to independent customers in the Union, the export price was the price actually paid or payable for the product under review when sold for export to the Union, in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation.

(47)

For sales of the exporting producer to the Union through Hansol Europe acting as an importer, the export price was established on the basis of the price at which the imported product was first resold to independent customers in the Union, in accordance with Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation. In this case, adjustments to the price were made for all costs incurred between importation and resale, including SG&A expenses, and for profits accruing.

(48)

With respect to the profit margin used, in line with established case-law of Union courts, (10) the Commission did not use the profit margin of the related company as it is considered unreliable. In the absence of any other information, it resorted to the profit margin of 4,5 % which had also been used in the original investigation. (11)

(49)

The Commission compared, per product type, the normal value and the export price of the exporting producer on an ex-works basis.

(50)

Where justified by the need to ensure a fair comparison, the Commission adjusted the normal value and/or the export price for differences affecting prices and price comparability, in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation. Adjustments for transport costs, handling and loading costs, bank charges, EU customs duties, year-end rebates, commissions and for a duty drawback were deducted from domestic and/or export sales prices, where they were reported and found to be justified. The Commission found the claims for adjustments relating to packing costs and credit costs unjustified.

(51)

The packing for export and for domestic sales was basically identical, therefore there was no reason to grant the adjustment claim.

(52)

Article 2(10)(g) of the basic Regulation provides that when credit is a factor taken into account in the determination of the prices charged, an adjustment may be justifiable. The Commission rejected the credit cost adjustment based on the reasoning which, due to its sensitive nature, was disclosed only to the exporting producer. The Commission concluded that the cost of credit granted was not a factor taken into account by the party in the determination of the prices charged.

(53)

The Commission compared the weighted average normal value of each type of the like product with the weighted average export price of the corresponding type of the product under review, in accordance with Article 2(11) and (12) of the basic Regulation.

(54)

On this basis, the weighted average dumping margin expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid, was 29 % for Hansol Paper. It was therefore concluded that dumping continued during the review investigation period.

(55)

Following final disclosure, Hansol Paper noted that most of the dumping derived from a label-grade thermal paper and pointed at the difference in terms of product mix between its sales into the Union in the original investigation and the review investigation. The Commission recalls that the normal value and the export price were compared per product type, as described in the sections above, and that, ultimately, only one single dumping margin had to be established for the sales of all the products covered by the measures in force. Therefore, the difference in the product mix between the original investigation and the review was taken into account when establishing the dumping margin.

(56)

Further to the finding of the existence of dumping during the review investigation period, the Commission investigated, in accordance with Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, the likelihood of continuation of dumping, should the measures be repealed. The following elements were analysed: the production capacity and spare capacity in the Republic of Korea and the attractiveness of the Union market versus other markets.

(57)

According to market intelligence, Hansol Paper was by far the largest producer of the product under review in the Republic of Korea. Its production capacity varied depending on the source. The 2019 Hansol Paper Sustainability Report established it at 355 000 tonnes per year for the division including lightweight thermal paper (12). In the course of the investigation, while admitting that that figure was the designed capacity of thermal coating, Hansol Paper submitted production capacity figures in the range of 250 000 – 300 000 tonnes per year. During the on-spot verification, the company claimed that the figure quoted in the 2019 Report was inaccurate. The company considered that the capacity figures in the Thermal Paper 2019-2024 World Market Study of Laves Chemie Consulting were more accurate. That study estimated Hansol Paper’s thermal paper production capacity at 260 000 tonnes per year (13).

(58)

According to the above-mentioned study by Laves Chemie Consulting, until recently there would have been three other thermal paper producers in the Republic of Korea with a total production capacity of 45 000 tonnes (14). However, it remains unclear to what extent this capacity might be activated for lightweight thermal paper if the market circumstances would give reason for that. According to Union producers, the only additional Korean producer still manufacturing thermal paper would be Donghwa Ind co. Ltd, with a production capacity of 15 000 tonnes per year (15).

(59)

In light of the above, whereas the Commission was unable to quantify the spare capacity in Korea overall, it could establish that production capacity is significant, being some 10 times bigger than domestic consumption in Korea and representing almost twice the Union consumption. Furthermore, Hansol Paper has repeatedly announced its intention to expand its thermal paper business, as shown in its financial report for the first half of 2021 (16) and subsequent financial reports (also in 2022 (17)). Such an expansion would represent an addition to the Korean thermal paper production capacity in the review investigation period, which was already significantly higher than lightweight thermal paper consumption in the Union (see Table 1).

(60)

Following final disclosure, Hansol Paper stated that the Commission’s findings on capacity in Korea were unsubstantiated and incorrect namely because: (i) Hansol Paper was the only producer of the product under review in Korea, (ii) the Commission had misinterpreted Hansol Paper’s expansion announcements and (iii) the Commission had exaggerated when establishing that Hansol Paper’s production capacity is significantly flexible.

(61)

The Commission disagreed. As to Hansol Paper allegedly being the only producer of the product under review in Korea, the Commission noted that this was contradicted by other information on the file including statements made by Hansol Paper itself in the course of the expiry review investigation (18). Whereas the Commission has consistently held that Hansol Paper was the sole cooperating exporting producer in this review investigation, the Commission had not concluded that Hansol Paper was the only producer of lightweight thermal paper in the Republic of Korea. To the contrary, as explained in recital (58) above, evidence on the file suggested that at least one other producer of the lightweight thermal paper in the Republic of Korea, namely Donghwa Ind co. Ltd, could be producing the product under review. The Commission noted that Donghwa Ind’s website (19) included references to thermal paper production in general and pictures of products such as point-of-sale receipts typically made of lightweight thermal paper. The Commission also noted that, in view of the evidence to the contrary, Hansol Paper failed to submit evidence to substantiate its claim of being the only producer of lightweight thermal paper in the Republic of Korea. The claim was therefore rejected.

(62)

The Commission disagreed that, as stated by Hansol, the spare capacity in Korea was nil. For instance, Hansol Paper provided such low capacity figures that its reported capacity utilisation would have exceeded 100 % in some years of the period considered.

(63)

As far as the alleged misinterpretation of Hansol Paper’s expansion announcements and the issue of the flexible production capacity, the Commission disagreed. Hansol Paper itself had repeatedly publicly announced in its financial reports its intention to expand its thermal paper business (20). The fact that the investment plans available at the time of the verification visit did not include investments aimed at increasing capacity does not preclude Hansol Paper from following through on its announcements at a later stage. In any case, the means for Hansol Paper to expand its thermal paper business are manifold, including switching capacities. As noted by the party itself in the 2022 Hansol Paper Sustainability Report (21), undeniably, Hansol Paper has flexible production facilities. Even if the quantification of the flexibility is not clearly available, the fact that it appeared in the report suggests that the flexibility is not minor and, thus, worth a public announcement. The product mix in Hansol Paper’s 2023 production plan does not prevent the party from switching a non-negligible amount of capacities to the product under review when needed.

(64)

The domestic market of the Republic of Korea is small, with an annual consumption ranging 20 000 - 37 200 tonnes (22). Hansol Paper’s annual production alone is 4 to 9 times bigger than the consumption of the product under review in its domestic market. The investigation established that, volume-wise, the domestic consumption is shrinking as the lightweight thermal paper domestic sales of Hansol Paper, the country’s dominant producer, dropped by 29 % during the period considered (23). Therefore, the Korean lightweight thermal paper industry is export-oriented. As to the profitability of Hansol Paper’s domestic sales, see section 3.2.1 above.

(65)

On the basis of the verified data of Hansol Paper, the Commission established that the volume of Korean exports to destinations other than the Union grew during the period under review (24). It also established that Korean exports, in particular to the US, were significant (25). However, the sales prices of Korean exports to destinations other than the Union dropped over the period under review. This is clearly visible on the US market (26). Moreover, the US authorities imposed anti-dumping measures on imports of thermal paper originating, inter alia, in the Republic of Korea on 27 September 2021 (27). For those reasons, in terms of prices, the US market has become less attractive to Korean exports.

(66)

The Union market is the largest market for lightweight thermal paper in the world, accounting for some 25 % of global consumption, and it has a high growth potential in absolute terms (28). The investigation established that the Union market is attractive in terms of prices as compared to other markets. After the imposition of the anti-dumping measures in 2017, imports from the Republic of Korea dropped significantly and they amounted to 1 000 - 2 500 tonnes only in 2020. However, since then, and despite the anti-dumping duties in force, Korean sales to the Union increased again (29) and they amounted to 4 500 – 6 000 tonnes in the review investigation period, representing a market share of 2,7 %.

(67)

Following final disclosure, Hansol Paper requested the Commission to calculate a dumping margin for Hansol Paper’s sales to third country markets on the grounds that such calculation was a consistent practice in expiry reviews carried out by the Commission and that the Commission had not assessed whether Hansol Paper’s export prices to non-EU markets indicated dumping. The Commission clarified that, the purpose of an expiry review is to establish whether the expiry of measures would be likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. Given the finding of significant dumping during the review investigation period for sales to the Union and the subsequent conclusion on likelihood of continuation of dumping, the Commission was not required to perform any further dumping determination in the present investigation. As to Hansol Paper’s export prices to non-EU markets, they were analysed in recital (65) above. They are further analysed in the recitals below.

(68)

Following final disclosure, Hansol Paper alleged that the Commission should have found that the Union lightweight thermal paper market was no longer attractive in light of information already submitted by Hansol paper (and, allegedly, not sufficiently addressed by the Commission) and, in particular, the claims that Hansol Paper would no longer concentrate on the Union market, the importance of the US market for Hansol Paper, the level of US anti-dumping measures on thermal paper and that the Commission did not describe in this Regulation Hansol Paper’s activities in other third markets.

(69)

The Commission disagreed with the alleged unattractiveness of the Union market for Korean exports. The facts that during the review investigation period the Union market was not Hansol Paper’s main market volume-wise and that Hansol Paper had significant sales to the US do not undermine the attractiveness of the Union market. Also, the Commission maintained that the mere existence of anti-dumping measures in the US makes the US market less attractive than before any measures were imposed, even if the level of the measures is not prohibitive. As to Hansol Paper’s sales on other markets, the Commission was not able to disclose its sales volumes and prices on other markets per country in this Regulation to the extent that such information had been considered as sensitive by the party (i.e. the only source of the data in question). The Commission took nevertheless stock of Hansol Paper’s sales and price strategy on other markets, as shared with the party via the verification reports. In this respect, the Commission found that, worldwide, there is thermal paper production in a handful of countries, as shown in the Thermal Paper 2019-2024 World Market Study of Laves Chemie. Therefore, producers of the product under review face competition from local producers only in a few areas of the world. South and Central America, Africa, Australasia and most Asian countries were thus net importers of thermal paper (30), mainly from Korea. Even if, in principle, markets without (significant) domestic production would seem more attractive at first sight, the Commission found that, in broad terms, Hansol Paper’s sale prices of the product under review to non-EU export markets, including the US, decreased over the period considered by a similar degree as prices to the Union. A comparison of Hansol Paper’s sale prices to all non-EU export markets and Hansol Paper’s sale prices to the Union revealed that, during the period considered, EU prices were overall consistently higher than Hansol Paper’s sale prices to the rest of the world. The Commission therefore confirmed that the Union market, the largest market for lightweight thermal paper in the world and a market with a high growth potential in absolute terms, was volume- and price-wise an attractive market for Korean exports, regardless of the changes in Hansol Paper’s sales network since the original investigation.

(70)

In view of its findings on the continuation of dumping during the review investigation period as established in recital (54), the existence of non-negligible flexible production capacity in the Republic of Korea, the yet again growing Korean interest in the large Union market with attractive prices and the recently imposed anti-dumping measures on its currently main export market (31), a further increase of dumped imports of the product concerned can be expected if the measures are repealed. Therefore, the Commission concluded that there is a strong likelihood that the expiry of the anti-dumping measures on imports of the product concerned would result in the continuation of dumping.

(71)

The like product was manufactured by five producers in the Union during the period considered. They constitute the ‘Union industry’ within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the basic Regulation.

(72)

The total Union production during the review investigation period was established at around 360 727 tonnes. The Commission established the figure on the basis of all the available information concerning the Union industry, such as the questionnaire reply submitted by the applicant, cross checked against the individual questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers. As indicated in recital (18), three Union producers were selected in the sample representing 86 % of the total Union production of the like product.

(73)

The Commission established the Union consumption on the basis of: (a) the applicant’s data concerning Union industry’s sales of the like product, partially cross-checked with the sales volumes reported by sampled Union producers (32); and (b) imports of the product under review from all third countries as reported in the Eurostat and analysis of the export data of the co-operating exporting producer.

(74)

Union consumption developed as follows:

Table 1

Union consumption (tonnes)

(75)

Union consumption decreased by 8 % from 2018 to 2020. Union consumption was affected in 2020 due to the global COVID pandemic, however, Union consumption rebounded during the review investigation period and there is an overall decrease of 2 % over the period considered.

(76)

The Commission established the volume of imports on the basis of the questionnaire reply submitted by the co-operating exporting producer and Eurostat statistics. The market share of the imports was established on the basis of Union consumption.

(77)

Imports from the country concerned developed as follows:

Table 2

Import volume (tonnes) and market share