(1)

It is incumbent upon the Council to establish the total allowable catches (TAC) by fishery or group of fisheries. Fishing opportunities should be distributed among Member States in such a way as to ensure the relative stability of each Member State’s fishing activities for all stocks or fisheries and having due regard to the objectives of the common fisheries policy established by Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy (1).

(2)

Council Regulation (EU) No 53/2010 (2) established the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks, including anchovy, in the Bay of Biscay (ICES Zone VIII) for 2010.

(3)

The new TAC for the 2010/11 fishing season should be established on the basis of scientific advice available, taking into account biological and socioeconomic aspects and ensuring fair treatment between fishing sectors. For the anchovy stock in the Bay of Biscay, the advice from the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) of 16 July 2010 is based on a fishing season running from 1 July each year until 30 June of the following year.

(4)

For the purposes of suitable stock management and simplification, it is appropriate to set a new TAC for this stock and to set new Member State quotas in accordance with the abovementioned dates for the 2010/11 fishing season.

(5)

In order to provide for a multiannual plan for the anchovy stock in the Bay of Biscay covering the fishing season and establishing the harvest rule applying for the fixing of fishing opportunities, on 29 July 2009 the Commission presented a proposal for a regulation establishing a long-term plan for the anchovy stock in the Bay of Biscay and the fisheries exploiting that stock. The advice from the STECF estimated the stock biomass to be approximately 51 350 tonnes. Having regard to that Commission proposal and considering that the impact assessment underlying that proposal provided for the most recent assessment of the impact of decisions on the fishing opportunities for the anchovy stock in the Bay of Biscay, it is appropriate to fix a TAC for that stock accordingly. Consequently, the TAC for the fishing season running from 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2011 should be established at 15 600 tonnes.

(6)

In view of the specific scope and time of application of the fishing opportunities for anchovy, it is appropriate to establish those fishing opportunities by way of a separate regulation and to amend Regulation (EU) No 53/2010 accordingly. The fishery should nevertheless remain subject to the general provisions of Regulation (EU) No 53/2010 concerning the conditions for the use of quotas.

(7)

In accordance with Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 847/96 of 6 May 1996 introducing additional conditions for year-to-year management of TACs and quotas (3), it is necessary to establish to what extent the stock of anchovy in the Bay of Biscay is subject to the measures laid down in that Regulation.

(8)

In view of the start of this fishing season and for the purpose of the annual reporting of catches, this Regulation should enter into force immediately and apply from 1 July 2010. For that same purpose, the amendment of the fishing opportunities established by Regulation (EU) No 53/2010 should apply from 1 January 2010,

(1)

Regulation (EC) No 2187/2005 sets specific technical measures for the conservation of fishery resources in the Baltic Sea, the Belts and the Sound. That Regulation provides specific provisions relating to size and type of all components of fishing gear, including mesh sizes, among other measures.

(2)

Council Regulation (EC) No 1226/2009 of 20 November 2009 fixing the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks applicable in the Baltic Sea for 2010 (2), provides for an increase in the mesh size and the length of the Bacoma window and the mesh size of the T90 trawl in ICES subdivisions 22-32. As Regulation (EC) No 1226/2009 is limited to 2010, and since those provisions are of a permanent nature since they constitute selectivity improvements, it is appropriate to incorporate those increases into Regulation (EC) No 2187/2005 as from January 2011 and to amend it accordingly.

(3)

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

(1)

Article 103d(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides for the grant of financial assistance to be capped at either 4,1 % or 4,6 % of the value of the marketed production of each producer organisation.

(2)

Article 52 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 (2) lays down detailed rules on the calculation of the value of marketed production for a producer organisation. Pursuant to point (a) of paragraph 6 of that Article, a producer organisation is to invoice the marketed production of fruit and vegetables at the ‘ex-producer organisation’ stage, where applicable, as product which is packaged, prepared, or has undergone first-stage processing.

(3)

Point (i) of Article 21(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 contains a definition of ‘first-stage processing’. However, that definition has given rise to difficulties of interpretation. Since legal certainty requires clear rules on the calculation of the value of marketed production, that definition should be deleted and the definition of ‘by product’ should be adapted accordingly.

(4)

The calculation of the value of fruit and vegetables intended for processing has proven difficult. For control purposes and for the sake of simplification, it is appropriate to introduce a flat rate for the purposes of calculating the value of fruit and vegetables intended for processing, representing the value of the basic product, namely fruit and vegetables intended for processing, and activities which do not amount to genuine processing activities. Since the volumes of fruit and vegetables needed for the production of processed fruit and vegetables differ largely between groups of products, those differences should be reflected in the applicable flat rates.

(5)

In the case of fruit and vegetables intended for processing that are transformed into processed aromatic herbs and paprika powder, it is also appropriate to introduce a flat rate for the purposes of calculating the value of fruit and vegetables intended for processing, representing only the value of the basic product.

(6)

In order to ensure the smooth transition to the new system for the calculation of the value of the marketed production for fruit and vegetables intended for processing, operational programmes approved by 20 January 2010 should not be affected by the new calculation method, without prejudice to the possibility to amend those operational programmes in accordance with Articles 66 and 67 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007. For the same reason, the value of the marketed production for the reference period of operational programmes approved after that date should be calculated under the new rules.

(7)

In order to allow for more flexibility in the use of market withdrawals, it is appropriated to increase the annual margin of overrun set out in Article 80(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007.

(8)

In order to facilitate free distribution, it is appropriate to provide for the possibility to allow charitable organisations and institutions to ask a symbolic contribution from the final recipients of products subjected to market withdrawals, in case those products have undergone processing.

(9)

The flat-rate amounts for transport, sorting and packaging costs for free distribution of fruit and vegetables withdrawn from the market set out in Article 83(1) and Annex XI of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 should be updated.

(10)

Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 should therefore be amended accordingly.

(11)

The Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chairman,

1.

Article 21(1) is amended as follows:

2.

Article 52 is amended as follows:

3.

in Article 53(7), the following subparagraphs are added:

‘However, for operational programmes approved by 20 January 2010, the value of the marketed production for the years until 2007 shall be calculated on the basis of the legislation applicable in the reference period, whereas the value of the marketed production for the years from 2008 shall be calculated on the basis of the legislation applicable in 2008.

For operational programmes approved after 20 January 2010, the value of the marketed production for the years from 2008 shall be calculated on the basis of the legislation applicable at the time the operational programme has been approved.’;

4.

in Article 80(2), the third subparagraph is replaced by the following:

‘The percentages referred to in the first subparagraph shall be annual averages over a three year period, with 5 percentage points of annual margin of overrun.’;

5.

in Article 81(2), the following subparagraph is inserted after the first subparagraph:

‘Member States may allow the charitable organisations and the institutions referred to in points (a) and (b) of Article 103d(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 to ask a symbolic contribution from the final recipients of products subjected to market withdrawals, in case those products have undergone processing.’;

6.

in Article 83, paragraphs 1 and 2 are replaced by the following:

7.

Annex VIa, as set out in Annex I to this Regulation, is inserted;

8.

Annex XI is replaced by the text in Annex II to this Regulation;

9.

Annex XII is replaced by the text in Annex III to this Regulation.

(1)

The representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2009/10 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 (3). These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 666/2010 (4).

(2)

The data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 951/2006,

(1)

Article 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 states that the import duty on products falling within CN codes 1001 10 00, 1001 90 91, ex 1001 90 99 (high quality common wheat), 1002, ex 1005 other than hybrid seed, and ex 1007 other than hybrids for sowing, is to be equal to the intervention price valid for such products on importation increased by 55 %, minus the cif import price applicable to the consignment in question. However, that duty may not exceed the rate of duty in the Common Customs Tariff.

(2)

Article 136(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 lays down that, for the purposes of calculating the import duty referred to in paragraph 1 of that Article, representative cif import prices are to be established on a regular basis for the products in question.

(3)

Under Article 2(2) of Regulation (EU) No 642/2010, the price to be used for the calculation of the import duty on products of CN codes 1001 10 00, 1001 90 91, ex 1001 90 99 (high quality common wheat), 1002 00, 1005 10 90, 1005 90 00 and 1007 00 90 is the daily cif representative import price determined as specified in Article 5 of that Regulation.

(4)

Import duties should be fixed for the period from 1 August 2010 and should apply until new import duties are fixed and enter into force,

(1)

According to Article 126(1) of the Treaty, Member States shall avoid excessive government deficits.

(2)

The Stability and Growth Pact is based on the objective of sound government finances as a means of strengthening the conditions for price stability and for strong sustainable growth conducive to employment creation.

(3)

The excessive deficit procedure (EDP) under Article 126 of the Treaty, as clarified by Council Regulation (EC) No 1467/97 of 7 July 1997 on speeding up and clarifying the implementation of the excessive deficit procedure (1) (which is part of the Stability and Growth Pact), provides for a decision on the existence of an excessive deficit. The Protocol on the excessive deficit procedure annexed to the Treaty sets out further provisions relating to the implementation of the EDP. Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2009 (2) lays down detailed rules and definitions for the application of the provision of the said Protocol.

(4)

The 2005 reform of the Stability and Growth Pact sought to strengthen its effectiveness and economic underpinnings as well as to safeguard the sustainability of the public finances in the long run. It aimed at ensuring that, in particular, the economic and budgetary background was taken into account fully in all steps in the EDP. In this way, the Stability and Growth Pact provides the framework supporting government policies for a prompt return to sound budgetary positions taking account of the economic situation.

(5)

Article 126(5) of the Treaty requires the Commission to address an opinion to the Council if the Commission considers that an excessive deficit in a Member State exists or may occur. Having taken into account its report in accordance with Article 126(3) and having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Financial Committee in accordance with Article 126(4), the Commission concluded that an excessive deficit exists in Bulgaria. The Commission therefore addressed such an opinion to the Council in respect of Bulgaria on 6 July 2010 (3).

(6)

Article 126(6) of the Treaty states that the Council should consider any observations which the Member State concerned may wish to make before deciding, after an overall assessment, whether an excessive deficit exists. In the case of Bulgaria, this overall assessment leads to the following conclusions.

(7)

According to the data notified by the Bulgarian authorities in April 2010, the general government deficit in Bulgaria reached 3,9 % of GDP in 2009, thus exceeding the 3 % of GDP reference value. The deficit was not close to the 3 % of GDP reference value but the excess over the reference value can be qualified as exceptional within the meaning of the Treaty and the Stability and Growth Pact. In particular, it results from a severe economic downturn in the sense of the Treaty and the Stability and Growth Pact, as the global economic and financial crisis hit hard the economy of Bulgaria and the negative annual GDP volume growth reached 5 % in 2009. According to the Commission services’ spring 2010 forecast, the general government deficit would fall below the reference value already in 2010 with the stabilisation of the economy and as a result of the fiscal consolidation measures undertaken by the government. However, on the basis of the revised deficit target for 2010 (3,8 % of GDP according to the notification of 22 June 2010 by the Bulgarian authorities), significantly above the Commission services’ spring forecast of 2,8 % of GDP, the breach of the reference value may not remain temporary. The deficit criterion in the Treaty is not fulfilled.

(8)

According to the data notified by the Bulgarian authorities in April 2010, the general government gross debt remains well below the 60 % of GDP reference value and stood at 14,8 % of GDP in 2009. The Commission services’ spring 2010 forecast projects the debt ratio to increase over the 2010-2011 period, but to remain below 19 % of GDP. In a notification submitted on 22 June 2010, the Bulgarian authorities further revised the planned debt for 2010 to 15,3 % of GDP. The debt criterion in the Treaty is fulfilled.

(9)

According to Article 2(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1467/97, ‘relevant factors’ can only be taken into account in the steps leading to the Council decision on the existence of an excessive deficit in accordance with Article 126(6) if the double condition — that the deficit remains close to the reference value and that its excess over the reference value is temporary — is fully met. In the case of Bulgaria, this double condition is not met. Therefore, relevant factors are not taken into account in the steps leading to this Decision,

(1)

Pursuant to Article 6 of Joint Action 2008/851/CFSP, the Council authorised the Political and Security Committee (PSC) to take decisions on the appointment of the EU Force Commander.

(2)

On 23 March 2010, the PSC adopted Decision Atalanta/2/2010 (2) appointing Rear Admiral (LH) Jan THÖRNQVIST as EU Force Commander for the European Union military operation to contribute to the deterrence, prevention and repression of acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast.

(3)

The EU Operation Commander has recommended the appointment of Rear Admiral Philippe COINDREAU as the new EU Force Commander for the European Union military operation to contribute to the deterrence, prevention and repression of acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast.

(4)

The EU Military Committee supports that recommendation.

(5)

In accordance with Article 5 of Protocol (No 22) on the position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark does not participate in the elaboration and the implementation of decisions and actions of the Union which have defence implications,

(1)

On 15 September 2008, the Council adopted Joint Action 2008/736/CFSP on the European Union Monitoring Mission in Georgia, EUMM Georgia (1).

(2)

Joint Action 2008/736/CFSP was last extended by Joint Action 2009/572/CFSP (2) until 14 September 2010. The financial reference amount provided for to cover the expenditure related to EUMM Georgia until that date was set at EUR 49 600 000. The financial reference amount should be increased by EUR 2 500 000 in order to allow for additional operational needs of the Mission.

(3)

Joint Action 2008/736/CFSP should be amended accordingly,

(1)

The cross-border use of advanced electronic signatures supported by a qualified certificate and created with or without a secure signature creation device has been facilitated through Commission Decision 2009/767/EC of 16 October 2009 setting out measures facilitating the use of procedures by electronic means through the ‘points of single contact’ under Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on services in the internal market (2) which obliges Member States to make available information necessary for the validation of these electronic signatures. In particular, Member States must make available in their so-called ‘trusted lists’ information on certification service providers issuing qualified certificates to the public in accordance with Directive 1999/93/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 1999 on a Community framework for electronic signatures (3) and supervised/accredited by them and on the services they offer.

(2)

A number of practical tests with the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) have been organised to allow Member States to check the conformity of their trusted lists with the specifications set out in the Annex to Decision 2009/767/EC. These tests have demonstrated that some technical changes are needed in the technical specifications in the Annex to Decision 2009/767/EC, to ensure functioning and interoperable trusted lists.

(3)

These tests also confirmed the need for Member States to make publicly available not only the human readable versions of their trusted lists as required by Decision 2009/767/EC but also the machine processable forms of these. The manual use of the human readable form of the trusted lists can be relatively complex and time consuming when Member States have a high number of certification service providers. The publication of the machine processable forms of trusted lists will facilitate their use by allowing for their automated processing and thereby enhance their use in public electronic services.

(4)

In order to facilitate access to the national trusted lists, Member States should notify to the Commission information related to the location and protection of their trusted lists. This information should be made available by the Commission to other Member States in a secure manner.

(5)

The results of these practical tests on Member States’ trusted lists should be taken into account in order to allow for an automated use of the lists and to facilitate access to them.

(6)

Decision 2009/767/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.

(7)

For the purpose of allowing Member States to carry out the required technical changes to their current trusted lists it is appropriate that this Decision applies as of 1 December 2010.

(8)

The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Services Directive Committee,

1.

Article 2 is amended as follows:

2.

the Annex is amended as set out in the Annex to this Decision.

(1)

On 31 October 2007, Syngenta Seeds SAS on behalf of Syngenta Crop Protection AG submitted to the competent authority of the United Kingdom an application, in accordance with Article 5 and Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, for the placing on the market of foods, food ingredients, and feed containing, consisting of, or produced from Bt11xGA21 maize (the application).

(2)

The application also covers the placing on the market of products other than food and feed containing or consisting of Bt11xGA21 maize for the same uses as any other maize with the exception of cultivation. Therefore, in accordance with Article 5(5) and Article 17(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, it includes the data and information required by Annexes III and IV to Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC (2) and information and conclusions about the risk assessment carried out in accordance with the principles set out in Annex II to Directive 2001/18/EC. It also includes a monitoring plan for environmental effects conforming with Annex VII to Directive 2001/18/EC.

(3)

On 22 September 2009, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) gave a favourable opinion in accordance with Article 6 and Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003. It considered that maize Bt11xGA21 is as safe as its non-genetically modified counterpart with respect to potential effects on human and animal health or the environment. Therefore it concluded that it is unlikely that the placing on the market of the products containing, consisting of, or produced from Bt11xGA21 maize as described in the application (the products) will have any adverse effects on human or animal health or the environment in the context of their intended uses (3). In its opinion, EFSA considered all the specific questions and concerns raised by the Member States in the context of the consultation of the national competent authorities as provided for by Article 6(4) and Article 18(4) of that Regulation.

(4)

In its opinion, EFSA also concluded that the environmental monitoring plan, consisting of a general surveillance plan, submitted by the applicant is in line with the intended use of the products.

(5)

Taking into account those considerations, authorisation should be granted for the products.

(6)

A unique identifier should be assigned to each GMO as provided for in Commission Regulation (EC) No 65/2004 of 14 January 2004 establishing a system for the development and assignment of unique identifiers for genetically modified organisms (4).

(7)

On the basis of the EFSA opinion, no specific labelling requirements other than those provided for in Article 13(1) and Article 25(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, appear to be necessary for foods, food ingredients and feed containing, consisting of, or produced from Bt11xGA21 maize. However, in order to ensure the use of the products within the limits of the authorisation provided for by this Decision, the labelling of feed containing or consisting of the GMO and products other than food and feed containing or consisting of the GMO for which authorisation is requested should be complemented by a clear indication that the products in question must not be used for cultivation.

(8)

The authorisation holder should submit annual reports on the implementation and the results of the activities set out in the monitoring plan for environmental effects. Those results should be presented in accordance with Commission Decision 2009/770/EC of 13 October 2009 establishing standard reporting formats for presenting the monitoring results of the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms, as or in products, for the purpose of placing on the market, pursuant to Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (5).

(9)

The EFSA opinion does not justify the imposition of specific conditions or restrictions for the placing on the market and/or specific conditions or restrictions for the use and handling, including post-market monitoring requirements for the use of the food and feed, or of specific conditions for the protection of particular ecosystems/environment and/or geographical areas, as provided for in Article 6(5)(e) and Article 18(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003.

(10)

All relevant information on the authorisation of the products should be entered in the Community register of genetically modified food and feed, as provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003.

(11)

Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1830/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 concerning the traceability and labelling of genetically modified organisms and the traceability of food and feed products produced from genetically modified organisms and amending Directive 2001/18/EC (6), lays down labelling requirements for products consisting of, or containing GMOs.

(12)

This Decision is to be notified through the Biosafety Clearing House to the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity, pursuant to Article 9(1) and Article 15(2)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1946/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2003 on transboundary movements of genetically modified organisms (7).

(13)

The applicant has been consulted on the measures provided for in this Decision.

(14)

The Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health has not delivered an opinion within the time limit laid down by its Chairman.

(15)

At its meeting on 29 June 2010, the Council was unable to reach a decision by qualified majority either for or against the proposal. The Council indicated that its proceedings on this file were concluded. It is accordingly for the Commission to adopt the measures,

(a)

foods and food ingredients containing, consisting of, or produced from SYN-BTØ11-1xMON-ØØØ21-9 maize;

(b)

feed containing, consisting of, or produced from SYN-BTØ11-1xMON-ØØØ21-9 maize;

(c)

products other than food and feed containing or consisting of SYN-BTØ11-1xMON-ØØØ21-9 maize for the same uses as any other maize with the exception of cultivation.