(1)

The introduction of an updated classification system is central to the Commission’s ongoing efforts to maintain the relevance of European statistics, by taking into account developments and changes in the area of education.

(2)

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (Unesco) has revised the version of the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) used hitherto (ISCED 1997) with the objective of ensuring that it is consistent with developments in the policies and structures of education and training.

(3)

The need for international comparability of educational statistics requires that the Member States and the institutions of the European Union use classifications of education which are compatible with the revised International Standard Classification of Education ISCED 2011 (ISCED 2011), as adopted by the Unesco Member States at their 36th General Conference in November 2011.

(4)

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1051/2011 (2) should therefore be amended accordingly.

(5)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the European Statistical System Committee,

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 2092/2004 of 8 December 2004 laying down detailed rules of application for an import tariff quota of dried boneless beef originating in Switzerland (2) has been substantially amended several times (3). In the interests of clarity and rationality the said Regulation should be codified.

(2)

The Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on trade in agricultural products (4) (‘the Agreement’), which was approved on behalf of the Community by Decision 2002/309/EC, Euratom of the Council and of the Commission (5), provides for duty-free imports of a quantity of 1 200 tonnes per annum for meat of bovine animals, boneless, dried, falling under CN code ex 0210 20 90.

(3)

Detailed rules should therefore be laid down on an annual basis for the relevant duty-free import tariff quota.

(4)

To be eligible for the benefit of that tariff quota, the products concerned should originate in Switzerland in conformity with the rules referred to in Article 4 of the Agreement. A precise definition of the eligible products should be provided. For reasons of control, imports under that quota should be subject to the presentation of a certificate of authenticity certifying that the meat corresponds exactly to the eligible definition. It is necessary to establish a model for those certificates and lay down detailed rules for their use.

(5)

The arrangements should be managed using import licences. To this end, rules should be laid down on the submission of applications and the information to be given on applications and licences, where necessary by derogation from Commission Regulation (EC) No 376/2008 of 23 April 2008 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of import and export licences and advance fixing certificates for agricultural products (6) and from Commission Regulation (EC) No 382/2008 of 21 April 2008 on rules of application for import and export licences in the beef and veal sector (7).

(6)

In order to ensure the proper management of the imports of the products concerned, provision should be made for import licences to be issued subject to verification, in particular of entries on certificates of authenticity.

(7)

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

(1)

Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations, the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products and periods stipulated in Annex XVI, Part A thereto.

(2)

The standard import value is calculated each working day, in accordance with Article 136(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011, taking into account variable daily data. Therefore this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union,

(1)

Pursuant to Directive 95/46/EC, Member States are required to provide that the transfer of personal data to a third country may take place only if the third country in question ensures an adequate level of protection and if the Member States’ laws implementing other provisions of the Directive are complied with prior to the transfer.

(2)

The Commission may find that a third country ensures an adequate level of protection. In that case, personal data may be transferred from the Member States without additional guarantees being necessary.

(3)

Pursuant to Directive 95/46/EC the level of data protection should be assessed in the light of all the circumstances surrounding a data transfer operation or a set of data transfer operations and giving particular consideration to certain specified elements relevant for the transfer.

(4)

Given the different approaches to data protection in third countries, the adequacy assessment should be carried out, and any decision based on Directive 95/46/EC should be made and enforced in a way that does not arbitrarily or unjustifiably discriminate against or between third countries where like conditions prevail, nor constitute a disguised barrier to trade, regard being had to the Union’s present international commitments.

(5)

New Zealand is a former British colony. It became an independent Dominion in 1907, but did not formally sever its constitutional ties with Great Britain until 1947. New Zealand is a unitary State and does not have a written constitution in the conventional sense of an entrenched constitutive document. The country is a constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy on the Westminster model, with the Queen of New Zealand as the Head of State.

(6)

New Zealand operates on the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty. Nevertheless, by convention there are a number of statutes that are of particular constitutional importance and are regarded as ‘higher law’. This is in the sense that they form part of the constitutional background or landscape by informing government practice and the enactment of other legislation. Moreover, cross-political consensus would be expected in the event of amendment or repeal of this legislation. Several of these statutes — the Bill of Rights Act of 28 August 1990 (Public Act No 109 of 1990), the Human Rights Act of 10 August 1993 (Public Act No 82 of 1993), and the Privacy Act of 17 May 1993 (Public Act No 28 of 1993) — are relevant to data protection. The constitutional importance of this legislation is reflected by the convention that they must be taken into account when developing or proposing new legislation.

(7)

The legal standards for the protection of personal data in New Zealand are primarily set out in the Privacy Act, as amended by the Privacy (Cross-border Information) Ammendement Act of 7 September 2010 (Public Act No 113 of 2010). It predates Directive 95/46/EC, and is not limited to automatically processed data or structured data in a filing system, but covers all personal information in whatever shape or form. It covers the entire public and private sectors, with a few specific public interest exceptions that one would expect in a democratic society.

(8)

There are a number of regulatory frameworks in New Zealand for dealing with privacy issues in terms of policy, rules, or complaints jurisdictions. Some are statutory while others are self-regulating industry bodies, including media regulation, direct marketing, unsolicited electronic messages, market research, health and disability, banking and insurance and savings.

(9)

In addition to legislation enacted by the New Zealand Parliament, there exists a considerable body of common law whose roots stem from English common law, embodying common law principles and rules that are relevant to data protection. Among the fundamental common law principles is the principle that the dignity of the individual is a paramount concern of the law. This common law principle is a key element in the background context to judicial decision-making generally in New Zealand. New Zealand case-law based on common law also contains a number of other aspects of privacy including invasion of privacy, breach of confidence and incidental protection in the context of defamation, nuisance, harassment, malicious falsehood, negligence and others.

(10)

The legal data protection standards applicable in New Zealand cover all the basic principles necessary for an adequate level of protection for natural persons, and also provide for exceptions and limitations in order to safeguard important public interests. These legal data protection standards and the exceptions reflect the principles laid down in Directive 95/46/EC.

(11)

The application of the legal data protection standards is guaranteed by administrative and judicial remedies, and by independent supervision carried out by the supervisory authority, the Privacy Commissioner, who is endowed with the kinds of powers set out in Article 28 of Directive 95/46/EC, and who acts independently. Moreover, any interested party is entitled to seek judicial redress for compensation for damages suffered as a result of the unlawful processing of his personal data.

(12)

New Zealand should therefore be regarded as providing an adequate level of protection for personal data as referred to in Directive 95/46/EC.

(13)

This decision should concern the adequacy of protection provided in New Zealand with a view to meeting the requirements of Article 25(1) of Directive 95/46/EC. It should not affect other conditions or restrictions implementing other provisions of the Directive that pertain to the processing of personal data within Member States.

(14)

In the interest of transparency and in order to safeguard the ability of the competent authorities in the Member States to ensure the protection of individuals as regards the processing of their personal data, it is necessary to specify the exceptional circumstances in which the suspension of specific data flows may be justified, notwithstanding the finding of adequate protection.

(15)

The Working Party on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data established under Article 29 of Directive 95/46/EC has delivered a favourable opinion on the level of adequacy as regards protection of personal data in New Zealand (2), which has been taken into account in the preparation of this Implementing Decision.

(16)

The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established under Article 31(1) of Directive 95/46/EC,