text
stringlengths 566
850k
| labels
sequence | label2idx
stringclasses 1
value | idx2label
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
*****
COMMISSION DECISION
of 18 July 1990
authorizing Spain to exclude from Community treatment, for a limited period, coal of third country origin imported after having been put into free circulation in another Member State
(Only the Spanish text is authentic)
(90/444/ECSC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community, and in particular Article 71 thereof,
Whereas in 1987, 1988 und 1989 the Spanish Government sent the Commission applications to exclude from Community treatment coal of third country origin which is imported after being put into free circulation in another Member State;
Whereas the Commission granted the relevant authorization to the Spanish Government by applying the provisions relating to mutual assistance, but for a limited period on each occasion. An authorization of this type for 1989 expired on 31 December 1989;
Whereas by letter of 27 November 1989 the Spanish Government made another application to extend its restrictive measures on coal of third country origin to include coal in free circulation in another Member State. This application requested authorization of unlimited duration;
Whereas current Spanish law allows limited quantities of coal of third country origin to be imported at a zero rate of duty. For coal other than anthracite the duty-free quota for 1990 would be increased to 12 million tonnes. The duty-free import quota for anthracite would remain limited at 12 000 tonnes;
Whereas imports in excess of the zero-duty quota attract duty of up to 14 %;
Whereas in principle, Article 71 of the Treaty leaves the Governments of the Member States their powers in matters of commercial policy. National rules remain therefore applicable as regards direct imports from non-member countries. However, Member States shall afford each other such mutual assistance as is necessary to implement measures recognized by the Commission as being in accordance with the Treaty and with existing international agreements;
Whereas under the provisions of the Treaty the principle of free movement applies equally to products in free circulation in a Member State;
Whereas where differences in commercial policy between Member States call for measures waiving the principle of the free movement of goods within the Community, such measures may be authorized only in exceptional circumstances and for a limited period, given the fundamental importance of the principle of free movement;
Whereas according to the notification from the Spanish Government, the commercial policy measures on coal are intended to protect Spanish collieries, which are in a difficult economic situation as a result of competition from coal of third country origin, and to increase their productivity;
Whereas to ease the difficulties affecting the coal industry, the Community has created instruments to support improvements in the competitiveness of the industry, thus helping to ensure better security of supply and to solve the social and regional problems related to the changes in the coal industry;
Whereas this was the objective of Commission Decision No 2064/86/ECSC (1), establishing Community rules for State aid to the coal industry; this regime creates the favourable conditions required for the Community coal industry to adapt to the realities of the energy market;
Whereas the abovementioned measures permit the abandonment of market protection and the abolition of controls at internal Community frontiers;
Whereas a withdrawal of the protective measures for coal originating in third countries and imported after having been put into free circulation in another Member State could however, without a period of transition, give rise to difficult problems of adaptation in the short term, for both economic and administrative reasons;
Whereas it therefore seems advisable to authorize the Spanish Government to apply, on a temporary basis, the measures set out above;
Whereas in order that the Commission may carry out a final assessment of the issue, the Spanish Government should be asked to send the Commission a report on the implementation of these policy measures,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
Spain is hereby authorized to apply to coal of third country origin imported after having been put into free circulation in another Member State, imports of which exceed the zero-duty quota of 12 000 tonnes for anthracite or 12 million tonnes for coal other than anthracite, a customs duty of up to 14 %.
Article 2
This Decision shall apply until 31 December 1990.
Article 3
Spain shall, before 31 December 1990, send the Commission a report on the implementation of the measure referred to in Article 1.
Article 4
This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Spain.
Done at Brussels, 18 July 1990. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 262/2002
of 12 February 2002
establishing unit values for the determination of the customs value of certain perishable goods
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2700/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council(2),
Having regard to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 993/2001(4), and in particular Article 173(1) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Articles 173 to 177 of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 provide that the Commission shall periodically establish unit values for the products referred to in the classification in Annex 26 to that Regulation.
(2) The result of applying the rules and criteria laid down in the abovementioned Articles to the elements communicated to the Commission in accordance with Article 173(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 is that unit values set out in the Annex to this Regulation should be established in regard to the products in question,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The unit values provided for in Article 173(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 are hereby established as set out in the table in the Annex hereto.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 15 February 2002.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 12 February 2002. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 1224/89 of 3 May 1989 fixing the minimum price for potatoes to be paid by the starch manufacturer to the potato producer for the 1989/90 cereals marketing year
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1008/86 of 25 March 1986 laying down detailed rules for production refunds applicable to potato starch (1), as amended
by Regulation (EEC) No 1223/89 (2), and in particular Article 1 (1) therof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,
Whereas, as provided for in Regulation (EEC) No 1008/86, the Council is to fix a minimum factory-gate price to be paid by the starch manufacturer to the potato producer for potatoes used to manufacture potato starch; whereas the premium is to be granted to the starch manufacturer subject to the payment of that minimum price;
Whereas the link between the supply prices of raw materials for the manufacture of cereals starch and potato starch should be maintained, in order to ensure equality in the conditions for competition between the potato and cereals starch industries,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1 The minimum factory-gate price for potatoes to be paid by the starch manufacturer to the potato producer for the quantity of potatoes required to manufacture one tonne of potato starch shall be ECU 256,80 for the 1989/90 cereals marketing year.
This price shall be adjusted on the basis of the potato starch content.
Article 2 The detailed rules for implementing this Regulation shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 26 of Regulation (EEC) No 2727/75 (3).
Article 3 This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
It shall apply from 1 July 1989.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 3 May 1989. | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 800/93 of 1 April 1993 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2919/92 on the sale by the procedure laid down in Regulation (EEC) No 2539/84 of bone-in beef held by certain intervention agencies and intended for export after processing
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3813/92 of 28 December 1992 on the unit of account and the conversion rates to be applied for the purposes of the common agricultural policy (1), and in particular Article 13 (1) thereof,
Whereas Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2919/92 provides for the sale of forequarters held by the Italian, French and German intervention agencies for processing and subsequent export; whereas Article 5 of the said Regulation lays down, in particular, that the refunds and the agricultural conversion rate to be used should be those applying on 15 October 1992;
Whereas application of the provisions of Regulation (EEC) No 3813/92 has changed certain of the economic conditions for the conclusion under Regulation (EEC) No 2919/92 of sales contracts from 1 January 1993; whereas Article 13 (1) lays down transitional measures to facilitate the initial application of Regulation (EEC) No 3813/92; whereas to correct the economic conditions for the abovementioned contracts, it should be laid down, as a transitional measure, that the refund and the agricultural conversion rate to be used should be those applying on the day the export declaration for the products exported is accepted;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Beef and Veal,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2919/92 is hereby amended as follows:
(1) The following sentence is added to the second paragraph of Article 5:
'This shall not apply, however, to sales contracts concluded with the intervention agency from 1 January 1993.` (2) The following paragraph is added to Article 5:
'The national authorities shall take all measures necessary to ensure the effective application of Article 1, in particular by ensuring that processed products are accurately identified to enable the relationship between quantities covered by contracts concluded from 1 January 1993 and exported products to be established.`
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
It shall apply from 1 January 1993.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 1 April 1993. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
*****
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 2793/89
of 15 September 1989
re-establishing the levying of customs duties on cortisone, hydrocortisone, prednisone, prednisolone and acetates of cortisone or hydrocortisone, falling within CN codes 2937 21 00 and 2937 29 10, originating in China, to which the preferential tariff arrangements set out in Council Regulation (EEC) No 4257/88 apply
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 4257/88 of 19 December 1988 applying generalized tariff preferences for 1989 in respect of certain industrial products originating in developing countries (1), and in particular Article 15 thereof,
Whereas, pursuant to Articles 1 and 12 of Regulation (EEC) No 4257/88, suspension of customs duties shall be accorded to each of the countries or territories listed in Annex III other than those listed in column 4 of Annex I within the framework of the preferential tariff ceiling fixed in column 7 of Annex I;
Whereas, as provided for in Article 13 of that Regulation, as soon as the individual ceilings in question are reached at Community level, the levying of customs duties on imports of the products in question originating in each of the countries and territories concerned may at any time be re-established;
Whereas, in the case of cortisone, hydrocortisone, prednisone, prednisolone and acetates of cortisone or hydrocortisone, falling within CN codes 2937 21 00 and 2937 29 10, the individual ceiling was fixed at ECU 700 000; whereas, on 14 July 1989, imports of these products into the Community, originating in China, reached the ceiling in question after being charged thereagainst; whereas, it is appropriate to re-establish the levying of customs duties in respect of the products in question against China,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
As from 19 September 1989, the levying of customs duties, suspended pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 4257/88 shall be re-established on imports into the Community of the following products originating in China:
1.2.3 // // // // Order No // CN code // Description // // // // 10.0370 // 2937 21 00 // Cortisone, hydrocortisone, prednisone (dehydrocortisone) and prednisolone (dehydrohydrocortisone) // // 2937 29 10 // Acetates of cortisone or hydrocortisone // // //
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 15 September 1989. | [
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
Council Regulation (EC) No 1648/2003
of 18 June 2003
amending Regulation (EEC) No 1360/90 establishing a European Training Foundation
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 308 thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission(1),
Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament(2),
Having regard to the opinion of the Court of Auditors(3),
Whereas:
(1) Certain provisions of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1360/90 of 7 May 1990 establishing a European Training Foundation(4) should be brought into line with Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities(5) (hereinafter referred to as "the general Financial Regulation") and in particular Article 185 thereof.
(2) The general principles and limits governing right of access to documents provided for in Article 255 of the Treaty have been laid down by Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents(6).
(3) When Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 was adopted, the three institutions agreed in a joint declaration that the agencies and similar bodies should implement rules conforming to those of the Regulation governing access to their documents.
(4) Appropriate provisions should therefore be included in Regulation (EEC) No 1360/90 to make Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 applicable to the European Training Foundation, as should a provision for appeals against a refusal of access to documents.
(5) Regulation (EEC) No 1360/90 should therefore be amended accordingly,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Regulation (EEC) No 1360/90 is hereby amended as follows:
1. The following Article shall be inserted:
"Article 4a
Access to documents
1. Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents(7) shall apply to documents held by the Foundation.
2. The Governing Board shall adopt practical arrangements for implementing Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 within six months of entry into force of Council Regulation (EC) No 1648/2003 amending Regulation (EEC) 1360/90 of 18 June 2003 establishing a European Training Foundation(8).
3. Decisions taken by the Foundation pursuant to Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 may form the subject of a complaint to the Ombudsman or of an action before the Court of Justice, under the conditions laid down Articles 195 and 230 of the Treaty respectively."
2. Article 5(9) shall be replaced by the following:
"9. The Governing Board shall adopt the Foundation's annual report and forward it by 15 June at the latest to the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Court of Auditors. The report shall also be forwarded to the Member States and, for information, to the eligible countries.
10. The Foundation shall forward annually to the budgetary authority any information relevant to the outcome of the evaluation procedures."
3. The third indent of Article 7(1) shall be replaced by the following:
"- for the preparation of the draft estimate of the Foundation's revenue and expenditure and the execution of its budget".
4. Article 10 shall be replaced by the following:
"Article 10
Budgetary procedure
1. Each year the Governing Board, on the basis of a draft drawn up by the Director, shall produce an estimate of revenue and expenditure for the Foundation for the following financial year. This estimate, which shall include a draft establishment plan, shall be forwarded by the Governing Board to the Commission by 31 March at the latest.
2. The estimate shall be forwarded by the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council (hereinafter referred to as the 'budgetary authority') together with the preliminary draft general budget of the European Union.
3. The Commission shall examine the estimate, having regard to the vocational training priorities in the eligible countries and to the overall financial orientations on economic aid to these countries. On the basis of the estimate, the Commission shall enter in the preliminary draft general budget of the European Union the estimates it deems necessary for the establishment plan and the amount of the subsidy to be charged to the general budget, which it shall place before the budgetary authority in accordance with Article 272 of the Treaty.
It shall establish on this basis, and within the proposed limits of the overall amount to be made available for economic aid to the eligible countries, the annual contribution for the budget of the Foundation to be included in the preliminary draft general budget of the European Union.
4. The budgetary authority shall authorise the appropriations for the subsidy to the Foundation.
The budgetary authority shall adopt the establishment plan for the Foundation.
5. The budget of the Foundation shall be adopted by the Governing Board. It shall become final following final adoption of the general budget of the European Union. Where appropriate, it shall be adjusted accordingly.
6. The Governing Board shall, as soon as possible, notify the budgetary authority of its intention to implement any project which may have significant financial implications for the funding of its budget, in particular any projects relating to property such as the rental or purchase of buildings. It shall inform the Commission thereof.
Where a branch of the budgetary authority has notified its intention to deliver an opinion, it shall forward its opinion to the Governing Board within a period of six weeks from the date of notification of the project."
5. Article 11(2), (3) and (4) shall be replaced by the following:
"2. By 1 March at the latest following each financial year, the Foundation's accounting officer shall communicate the provisional accounts to the Commission's accounting officer together with a report on the budgetary and financial management for that financial year. The Commission's accounting officer shall consolidate the provisional accounts of the institutions and decentralised bodies in accordance with Article 128 of the general Financial Regulation.
3. By 31 March at the latest following each financial year, the Commission's accounting officer shall forward the Foundation's provisional accounts to the Court of Auditors, together with a report on the budgetary and financial management for that financial year. The report on the budgetary and financial management for that financial year shall also be forwarded to the European Parliament and the Council.
4. On receipt of the Court of Auditors' observations on the Foundation's provisional accounts, pursuant to Article 129 of the general Financial Regulation, the Director shall draw up the Foundation's final accounts under his own responsibility and forward them to the Governing Board for an opinion.
5. The Governing Board shall deliver an opinion on the Foundation's final accounts.
6. The Director shall, by 1 July at the latest following each financial year, forward these final accounts to the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission and the Court of Auditors, together with the Governing Board's opinion.
7. The final accounts shall be published.
8. The Foundation's Director shall send the Court of Auditors a reply to its observations by 30 September at the latest. He shall also send this reply to the Governing Board.
9. The Director shall submit to the European Parliament, at the latter's request, any information required for the smooth application of the discharge procedure for the financial year in question, as laid down in Article 146(3) of the general Financial Regulation.
10. The European Parliament, on a recommendation from the Council acting by a qualified majority, shall, before 30 April of year N + 2, give a discharge to the Director in respect of the implementation of the budget for year N."
6. Article 12 shall be replaced by the following:
"Article 12
Financial Rules
The financial rules applicable to the Foundation shall be adopted by the Governing Board after the Commission has been consulted. They may not depart from Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002 of 19 November 2002 on the framework Financial Regulation for the bodies referred to in Article 185 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities(9) unless specifically required for the Foundation's operation and with the Commission's prior consent."
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the first day of the month following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Luxembourg, 18 June 2003. | [
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 121/98
of 16 January 1998
amending Annexes I, II and III to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 laying down a Community procedure for the establishment of maximum residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin
(Text with EEA relevance)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 of 26 June 1990 laying down a Community procedure for the establishment of maximum residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin (1), as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1850/97 (2) and in particular Articles 6, 7 and 8 thereof,
Whereas, in accordance with Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90, maximum residue limits must be established progressively for all pharmacologically active substances which are used within the Community in veterinary medicinal products intended for administration to food-producing animals;
Whereas maximum residue limits should be established only after the examination, within the Committee for Veterinary Medicinal Products, of all the relevant information concerning the safety of residues of the substance concerned for the consumer of foodstuffs of animal origin and the impact of residues on the industrial processing of foodstuffs;
Whereas, in establishing maximum residue limits for residues of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin, it is necessary to specify the animal species in which residues may be present, the levels which may be present in each of the relevant meat tissues obtained from the treated animal (target tissue) and the nature of the residue which is relevant for the monitoring of residues (marker residue);
Whereas, for the control of residues, as provided for in appropriate Community legislation, maximum residue limits should usually be established for the target tissues of liver or kidney; whereas, however, the liver and kidney are frequently removed from carcasses moving in international trade, and maximum residue limits should therefore also always be established for muscle or fat tissues;
Whereas, in the case of veterinary medicinal products intended for use in laying birds, lactating animals or honey bees, maximum residue limits must also be established for eggs, milk or honey;
Whereas danofloxacin, cefazolin and trimethoprim should be inserted into Annex I to Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90;
Whereas lini oleum, folic acid, betain and cefazolin should be inserted into Annex II to Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90;
Whereas, in order to allow for the completion of scientific studies, the duration of the validity of the provisional maximum residue limits previously defined in Annex III to Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 should be extended for penethamate;
Whereas a period of 60 days should be allowed before the entry into force of this Regulation in order to allow Member States to make any adjustment which may be necessary to the authorisations to place the veterinary medicinal products concerned on the market which have been granted in accordance with Council Directive 81/851/EEC (3), as last amended by Directive 93/40/EEC (4), to take account of the provisions of this Regulation;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Veterinary Medicinal Products,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Annexes I, II and III to Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the 60th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 16 January 1998. | [
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1787/95 of 24 July 1995 opening and providing for the administration of a Community tariff quota for rum, tafia and arrack originating in the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) States (second half 1995)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 113 thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,
Whereas the Fourth ACP-EEC Convention (1) entered into force on 1 September 1991;
Whereas Protocol 6 of that Convention stipulates that products originating in the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) States which fall within CN codes 2208 40 10, 2208 40 90, 2208 90 11 and 2208 90 19 shall, until the entry into force of a common organization of the market in spirits, be allowed into the Community free of customs duties under conditions such as to permit the development of traditional trade flows between the ACP States and the Community; whereas the Community shall until 31 December 1995 fix each year the quantities which may be imported free of customs duties;
Whereas by Regulation (EC) No 1989/94 (2) the Council opened, for the period 1 July 1994 to 30 June 1995, a Community tariff quota (Order No 09.1605) for rum, tafia and arrack of 244 87 hl of pure alcohol;
Whereas pursuant to Article 2 (a) of the said Protocol 6 the volume of the tariff quota for the period from 1 July 1995 to 31 December 1995 will be equivalent to half that of the previous year increased by 10 000 hl of pure alcohol;
Whereas Article 2 (c) of the said Protocol provides that, in cases where the application of that provision hampers the development of a traditional trade flow between the ACP States and the Community, the latter should take appropriate measures to remedy that situation, and Article 2 (d) thereof provides that to the extent that the consumption of rum increases significantly in the Community, the Community undertakes to carry out a new examination of the annual rate of increase;
Whereas economic data currently available leads to the conclusion that the traditional trade flows between the ACP States and the Community with respect to rum have greatly increased;
Whereas taking into account in particular the consumption requirements of the three new Member States ,the quota should be aligned in accordance with Article 2 (d) of the said Protocol,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
From 1 July 1995 to 31 December 1995 the following products originating in the ACP States shall be imported into the Community free of customs duty within the limits of the relevant Community tariff quota shown below:
TABLE
Article 2
The tariff quota referred to in Article 1 shall be administered by the Commission which may take all administrative measures to ensure the effective administration thereof.
Article 3
If an importer presents in a Member State a declaration of entry for free circulation together with a request for preferential treatment for a product referred to in Article 1 and the declaration is accepted by the customs authorities, the Member State concerned shall inform the Commission and draw an amount corresponding to these requirements from the quota volume.
Requests to draw from the quota, indicating the date of acceptance of the said declarations, must be transmitted to the Commission without delay.
Drawings shall be granted by the Commission by reference to the date of acceptance by the customs authorities of the Member State concerned, of the declarations of entry for free circulation, provided the residual balance so permits.
If a Member State does not use the quantities drawn, it shall return them to the quota as soon as possible.
If the quantities requested are greater than the available balance of the quota volume, allocation shall be made on a pro rata basis. The Member States shall be informed by the Commission of the drawings granted.
Article 4
Each Member State shall ensure that importers of the products concerned have equal and continuous access to the quota volume as long as the residual balance so permits.
Article 5
The Member States and the Commission shall cooperate closely to ensure that this Regulation is complied with.
Article 6
Council Regulation (EEC) No 3705/90 of 18 December 1990 on the safeguard measures provided for in the Fourth ACP-EEC Convention (1) shall apply to the products covered by this Regulation.
Article 7
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
It shall apply from 1 July 1995.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 24 July 1995. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
Commission Decision
of 9 July 2001
modifying Decision 98/634/EC establishing the ecological criteria for the award of the Community eco-label to bed mattresses
(notified under document number C(2001) 1610)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2001/540/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1980/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 July 2000 on a revised Community eco-label award scheme(1), and in particular Articles 3, 4 and 6 thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1980/2000 provides that the eco-label may be awarded to a product possessing characteristics which enable it to contribute significantly to improvements in relation to key environmental aspects.
(2) Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1980/2000 provides that specific eco-label criteria shall be established according to product groups.
(3) Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1980/2000 provides that the review of the eco-label criteria as well as of the assessment and verification requirements related to the criteria shall take place in due time before the end of the period of validity of the criteria specified for each product group and shall result in a proposal for prolongation, withdrawal or revision.
(4) By Decision 98/634/EC(2), the Commission established ecological criteria for the award of the Community eco-label to bed mattresses, which, according to Article 3 thereof expire 1 October 2001.
(5) It is appropriate to prolong the period of validity of the definition of the product group and the ecological criteria without change, for a period of 18 months.
(6) The measures set out in this Decision have been developed and adopted under the procedures for the setting of eco-label criteria as laid down in Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 1980/2000.
(7) The measures set out in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the committee set up under Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1980/2000,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
Article 3 of Commission Decision 98/634/EC shall be replaced by the following text: "The product group definition and the criteria for the product group shall be valid from 2 October 1998 until 1 April 2003."
Article 2
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 9 July 2001. | [
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
*****
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE
of 24 January 1983
amending Directive 78/176/EEC on waste from the titanium dioxide industry
(83/29/EEC)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN
COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Articles 100 and 235 thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,
Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (1),
Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee (2),
Whereas there have been difficulties for the Commission to submit, within the time limit stipulated in Article 9 (3) of Directive 78/176/EEC (3), suitable proposals for the harmonization of the programmes for the progressive reduction of pollution; whereas it is therefore necessary to extend the time limit concerned,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:
Article 1
In Article 9 (3) of Directive 78/176/EEC, the phrase 'The programmes referred to in paragraph 1 shall be sent to the Commission by 1 July 1980 at the latest so that it may, within a period of six months after receipt of all the national programmes, submit suitable proposals to the Council . . .' shall be replaced by 'By 1 July 1980 at the latest the programmes referred to in paragraph 1 shall be sent to the Commission, which, before 15 March 1983, shall submit suitable proposals to the Council . . .'.
Article 2
This Directive is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 24 January 1983. | [
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
COMMISSION DECISION of 8 June 1994 declaring the compatibility of a concentration with the common market (Case No IV/M. 269 - Shell/Montecatini) (Only the English text is authentic) (94/811/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (1), and in particular Article 8 (2) thereof,
Having regard to the Commission decision of 7 February 1994 to initiative proceedings in this case,
Having given the undertakings concerned the opportunity to make known their views on the objections raised by the Commission,
Having regard to the opinion of the Advisory Committee on Concentration (2),
Whereas:
(1) These proceedings concern a proposed joint venture in the polyolefins sector (Sophia) between Shell Petroleum NV (hereinafter referred to as 'Shell') and Montedison Nederland NV (hereinafter referred to as 'Montedison') which was notified to the Commission on 4 January 1994 pursuant to Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Merger Regulation').
(2) On 26 January 1994 the Commission decided to continue the suspension of the notified concentration pursuant to Article 7 (2) of the Merger Regulation, and on 7 February 1994, initiated proceedings in this case pursuant to Article 6 (1) (c) of that Regulation.
I. THE PARTIES AND THE OPERATION The parties (3) Shell is a holding company within the Royal Dutch/Shell group of companies. Montedison belongs to the Ferruzzi group of companies. Its polyolefins interests are owned by Montecatini Nederland BV through two subsidiaries, Himont Incorporation (polyolefins) and Mopletan Spa (downstream applications).
The operation as notified (4) Under the original concentration plan notified to the Commission, Montedison would transfer to sophia, which is to be owned 50 % by Shell and 50 % by Montedison, all of its polyolefins interest word-wide, including production and marketing assets, intellectual property rights and R& D facilities, as well as all upstream and downstream activities. Montedison would retain only residual activities in one of the markets of the joint venture, namely the rights to license the Spheripol process for the manufacture of polypropylene (hereinafter referred to as 'PP') to third parties in the United States of America. As to its pre-existing joint ventures in the PP production sector, Montefina Himont/Petrofina) and NSP (Himont/Statoil), under the original concentration plan, Montedison would either transfer Himont's shareholding to the other joint-venture partner (i.e. Petrofina or Statoil) or Himont's interests would be owned by Sophia.
(5) Shell would contribute to the jont venture the major part of its world-wide PP and polythylene (hereiafter referred to as 'PE') business. Shell would retain outside the joint venture:
- its polyolefins business in the United States of America (a PP production plant and 50 % participation in a joint venture between Shell and Union Carbide Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'UCC') operating a PP plant at Seadrift, Texas),
- its interests in three joint ventures, one of which, ROW, is in Europe. ROW is a joint venture between Shell and BASF engaged in the production and sale of a wide range of olefins and polyolefins,
- all its existing upstream interests, in particular steam crackers producing ethylene and propylene with the exception of the Aubette platform at Berre in France,
- certain downstream activities (Wavin BV and Symalit AG),
- its non-polyolefins polymer interests.
The operation as subsequently amended (6) Following the Commission's Communication pursuant to Article 18 of the Merger Regulation and in order to meet the competition concerns expressed therein, the parties amended the original concentration plan by entering into commitments vis-à-vis the Commission set out in recitals 116 to 119. Upon fulfilment of these commitments, the original operation would be modified as follows:
- Montedison's world-wide PP technology business would remain outside Sophia by its transfer to a company (Technipol) under the sole ownership and control of Montedison. Technipol's assets would inter alia comprise Montedison's world-wide PP technology licensing business - including licensing contracts, the exercise of the corresponding intellectual property rights, sales, marketing and support staff - the corresponding R& D staff and facilites relating to both process and catalyst technology, as well as a PP pilot plant for PP technology development and testing.
- Montedison/Himont would withdraw from Montefina and would sell its shareholding therein to Petrofina or a third party.
- Montedison would contribute to Sophia its remaining world-wide polyolefins interests, including its world-wide assets relating to the production and sale of PP, and its world-wide activities in other polyolefins sectors, including all upstream and downstream assets. Shell's contribution to Sophia would be as originally planned.
- Technipol would have all the financial or other resources necessary to enable it to conduct its business on an on-going, viable and competitive basis, independent of Sophia and Shell. Any relationship between Sophia or Shell on the one hand and Technipol on the other hand would be on arm's length basis and on normal commercial terms.
II. COMMUNITY DIMENSION (7) The proposed concentration has a Community dimension. In 1992, the combined aggregate world-wide turnover of Shell and Montedison was more than ECU 5 000 million and each of the undertakings achieved more than ECU 250 million of their turnover in the Community. The parties did not achieve more than two-thirds of their Community-wide turnover in one and the same Member State.
III. CONCENTRATION (8) The notified operation, as amended on the basis of the undertakings given by the parties, is a concentration within the meaning of Article 3 of the Merger Regulation, because, as explained below, Sophia will perform, on a lastings basis, all the functions of an autonomous economic entity and there will be no appreciable scope for coordination of the competitive behaviour of the parents between themselves or with the joint venture within the meaning of that Article.
Joint control (9) Sophia will be owned 50 % by Shell and 50 % by Montedison. The joint-venture agreement provides that major decisions must be approved by both parties. These include: the overall annual capital budget, fundamental changes to the joint venture's policy or strategy, borrowings in excess of US $ [. . .] (3) per annum, investments or investments in excess of US $ [. . .] million and entering into or extending feedstock arrangements. Therefore Shell and Montedison have joint control over Sophia.
(10) Shell is expected to assume a leading role in the management of the entreprise, because inter alia it will have the final say on the appointment of the Chief Executive Officer of the joint venture and the Shell-nominated directors will be able to decide all general matters except for those of fundamental or strategic importance.
Joint venture performing on a lasting basis all the functions of an autonomous
economic entity
(11) Sophia will have all the assets and resources necessary to enable in to perform all the functions of an autonomous economic entity in the polyolefins sector. With regard in particular to the PP production sector, although Montedison's PP technology business will remain outside the joint venture, this does not negate the character of the joint venture as an autonomous economic entity on the PP technology but operate under licence by a pp technology provider. Moreover, Sophia will continue to employ its existing PP technology and the extent that it may need to purchase technological improvements or other technical services from Technipol, it is provided in the commitments given by the parties that this will be undertaken on an arm's length basis and on normal commercial conditions.
Absence of coordination of competitive behaviour (12) Sophia will be active in the following sectors: production and sale of PP; production and sale of PE and PE technology; production and sale of ethylene and propylene; and downstream activities in the areas of film and fibres. According to the amendments introduced to the original concentration plan, Sophia will not remain active on the market for PP technology as defined in this Decision, because Montedison's world-wide technology business will be transferred to Technipol and Shell's existing activities on the PP technology market, wich are based on its cooperation with UCC, will not be contributed to Sophia.
(13) As stated above, Montedison will contribute to Sophia all of its world-wide polyolefin interests, with the exeption of its PP technology business, and will thus withdraw from the markets of the joint venture. Sophia's other parent, Shell will remain active in some of the joint venture's markets, since it will retain certain of its polyolefin interests outside Sophia. However, since Shell will assume the overall industrial responsability for the joint venture, there is, in this respect, no appreciable scope for coordination between Shell and Sophia within the meaning of Article 3 (2) of the Merger Regulation.
(14) Following the concentration, Sophia's parents will remain active on the market for PP technology, Montedison through Technipol and Shell as a contributor to the Unipol PP technology that combines UCC's process and Shell's catalysts. Although this market is situated upstream from the joint venture's market for the production and sale of PP, the Commision considers that the parents would coordinate their behaviour with regard to PP technology licensing within the meaning of Article 3 (2) of the Merger Regulation.
(15) In the specific circumstances of this particular case, there are a number of factors indicating that the parents' ownership of Sophia would not be likely to lead to the coordination of their competitive behaviour on the PP technology market. The turnover of the business to be transferred to Technipol represents only a small percentage of Montedison's total annual PP turnover approximately [. . .], and it is even Smaller in terms of Sophia's total turnover. Moreover, according to the parties' commitment, Technipol will be operated completely independently of Sophia and Shell and will have sufficient own financial resources. Shell will have no shareholding in Technipol, so that 100 % of Technipol's profits will accrue to Montedison [. . .]. Consequently, Montedison, which will alone control Technipol's commercial strategy would seem to have a genuine interest in continuing an active licensing policy in order to maximize the return on its investment in Technipol.
(16) At the same time it must be acknowledged that the other parent of Sophia, Shell also conducts a PP technology licensing business, However, the relationship between the two technologies, Spheripol and Unipol, will be a distant one. Whereas Montedison's licensing business will be directly conducted through a fully-owned and controlled subsidiary, Shell's activities on that market will be based on a cooperation agreement with a third party, UCC, which shares control of these activities whith Shell and which, subsequent to the concentration, would continue to have an interest in active licensing. Shell Oil would also seem to have an interest in active licensing, since it has made substantial investments in a new catalyst plant for the Unipol technology [. . .]. With respect to Shell, it is currently using Unipol in some of its own PP plants and would this seem to have an incentive to maintain the viability of that technology.
(17) Futhermore, from the financial perspective, Shell has no interest in Montedison's PP technology business and Montedison has none in Shell's PP technology business with UCC. In The PP technology market there is a relatively limited number of contracts each with high value (of the order of ECU 10 million). The incentive to win an individual licensing contract is, as a result, strong. In a bidding situation for new PP licensing contracts, each of Unipol and Spheripol would therefore have an interest to bid and thus compete against the other, since it is only in the event of a contract award that the successful licensor will receive any licensing income and thus realize a return on its investment.
In the specific circumstances of this case, it appears therefore that coordination between the parents within the meaning of Article 3 (2) of the Merger Regulation is not likely to occur.
IV. COMPETITIVE ASSESSMENT OF CONCEN- TRATION AS NOTIFIED (18) The present analysis relates to the competitive effects of the concentration as notified to the Commission. According to the original concentration plan, the businesses contributed to the joint venture would relate to the following economic sectors: production and sale of PP and PP technology; production and sale of PE and PE technology; production and sale of ethylene and propylene; production and sale of flexible films for consumer goods packaging, flexible films for good packaging, melt spun fibres, non-women fibres, and tapes/fibrillated tapes.
(19) There is no overlap between the activities of the parties with regard to: (i) ethylene and propylene (upstream markets in relation to polyethylene and polypropylene), because Montedison does not produce ethylene and has no free market sales of propylene; (ii) dowstream activities (flexible films for consumer goods packaging; flexible films for good packaging; melt spun fibres; non-woven fibres; and tapes/fibrillated tapes).
(20) PE is one of the businesses contributed to Sophia. PE is derived from ethylene through polymerization. There are three different types of PE, high density polyethylene (hereinafter referred to as 'HDPE'), low density polyethylene (hereinafter referred to as 'LDPE') and linear low density polyethylene (hereinafter referred to as 'LLDPE'). According to the notifying parties, the market, while LDPE and LLPDE should be considered to form another relevant product market. As to the geographic market definition, it appears that the production and sale of PE takes place throughout western Europe, with both customers and suppliers being located throughout the region. It is not, however, necessary to decide on the exact product and geographic market definition in this case, because, as exlained below, even on the basis of a narrow market definition in this case, because, as explained below, even on the basis of a narrow market definition the proposed concentration will not create or reinforce a dominant position in the common market or substantial part thereof.
(21) Shell produces LDPE and LLDPE. Its market share in western Europe in terms of capacity is below 10 %. Montedison has not yet started producing PE, [. . .] and its strenght in this area lies in PE process technology (Spherilene), which it will contribute to the joint venture. However, it does not appear that dominance will be created for the following reasons: (i) with regard to the production and sale of PE, there are number of other players more important than Shell, including companies such as Enichem, BP, Borealis and Dow Chemical; and (ii) with regard to PE technology, alternative technologies are available, such as that offered by UCC, which can be regarded as adequate alternatives.
(22) In the light of the above, the following analysis will focus on the effects of the concentration on the market for the production and sale of PP and the market for PP technology.
A. Product market definition (i) Production and sale of PP
(23) PP belongs to the category of polyolefins, that is a family of thermoplastics derived from a particular group of base chemicals known as olefins, which also includes PE and polybutelene (PB). Olefins are typically derived from oil or natural gas. The production of polyolefins involves the following main stages. In the first stage, hydrocarbon feedstocks for base chemicals (naphtha, ethane, etc.) are obtained from oil or natural gas. The base chemicals such as olefins (e. g. ethylene and propylene) are then produced by means of steam cracking or dehydrogenation. Polyolefins are derived from olefins through polymerization, a process during which monomers (olefins) are reacted with each other to produce long chains of a repeated series of monomers (polymers). Polyolefins are further processed by the plastics industry to manufacture a wide range of consumer goods, including films, fibres, moulded and extruded products.
(24) PP is used by the plastics processing industry for a large number of applications, the most important of which are film, fibres, automotive components such as bumpers and dashboard systems, domestic appliances, garden furniture, crates, cases and pails, caps, closures and thin-walled packaging containers, waste and chemical pipe applications, tapes and sheets used in packaging and construction, food packaging. The special characteristics of PP include the lowest density of all thermoplastics, easier colouring, high temperature resistance, high frictional resistance, more flexible design.
(25) According to the notifying parties, although there is some degree of fringe substitutability between PP and PE, especially HDPE, or other materials, PP is not fully substitutable by other materials for all applications. The Commission's investigations also confirm that PP is not sufficiently substitutable by other thermoplastics or other materials for most applications because of its special properties and its advantageous cost/performance ratio. Therefore, the relevant product market is the market for the production and sale of PP.
(26) There are three main types or families of PP, namely homopolymers, which account for approximately 70 to 75 % of PP consumption, random copolymers which account for approximately 5 % of PP consumption and impact or block copolymers which account for approximately 25 % of PP consumption. The properties and end uses of the three types of PP are not the same. Homopolymers are made in commodity and speciality grades. They are more rigid and have better resistance than copolymers but their impact strength is inferior. Block copolymers are particularly suitable for applications where very high impact strength is required (such as in the automotive sector). PP random copolymers are mainly used in films (document folders, packaging and laminating, heat sealable layers) due to their transparency, good resistance to heat distortion and ease of processing. On the supply side, all three types of PP are made by polymerizing propylene, although ethylene is also added during the polymerization of impact and random copolymers. Homopolymers and random copolymers are produced in the same reactor (homopolymer reactor), but a second reactor (copolymer reactor) is needed for the production of block copolymers. Since not all PP plants are equipped with a copolymerization reactor, there appears to be limited supply-side substitutability between block copolymers and other types of PP, with the result that block copolymers may be considered as a separate product market. This question can, however, be left open, because regardless of a broader or narrower market definition, as explained below, the assessment of the effects of the merger does not change.
(27) Within these three different families of PP there are a variety of different grades. There are a number of distinguishing factors between PP grades, including viscosity as measured by the melt flow ratio, the presence of different chemicals and additives, molecular weight distribution, crystallinity and morphology. Speciality grades are often developed at the request of or in cooperation with customers. Since PP grades differ in terms of their characteristics, price and intended use, they are not interchangeable from a demand-side point of view. On the other hand, it appears, that within each family of PP (i. e. homopolymers, block copolymers and random copolymers), PP manufacturers can relatively easily switch production from one grade of PP to another by varying the conditions of polymerization (reactor pressure, temperature), or by using different additives. Economic considerations play a role in this respect, but it appears that PP plants can be operated in a way which avoids unnecessary switches between different grades and thus minimizes the production of off-grade material. Due to the very high degree of supply-side substitutability, it therefore appears that, within each PP family, different grades cannot be regarded as constituting separate relevant product markets.
(ii) PP technology
(28) PP is made by polymerizing liquid propylene (bulk polymerization) or propylene gas (gas-phase polymerization). For the production of certain types of PP, ethylene (or another monomer) is added either at the onset of polymerization (random copolymers) or at a later stage (block or impact copolymers). Additives or modifiers may also be added to further enhance or change certain characteristics of the polymer desirable for specific applications. In all cases, the polymerization of propylene in order to produce PP involves at least the following elements: (i) the raw material, propylene; (ii) a suitable catalyst, that is a chemical substance used in polymerization to promote the chemical reaction without being itself affected by it; (iii) the technology and know-how necessary for the use of the catalyst in polymerization; and (iv) the process technology and know-how necessary to design and use equipment in which polymerization takes place.
(29) Following the development of the basic catalysts for PP production in the 1950s, PP catalyst, process and product technology has advanced in the last 30 years largely due to catalyst improvements. The transition from the old slurry processes to the more advanced bulk and gas-phase processes was a consequence of important innovations in the area of catalysts. In particular, this resulted in substantially higher catalyst yield. In the early 1960s a kilogram of catalyst yielded about 1 000 kgs of polymer, while catalyst developments have improved that yield to between 20 000 and 50 000 kgs of polymer. Similar improvements have been the development of superior properties of the PP and the simplification of the process by reduction of the polymerization steps (e. g. the increase in catalyst yield reduced the catalyst quantity left in the reactor to such an extent that removal of catalyst residue became unnecessary).
(30) Substantial research is currently carried out mainly in the area of 'advanced materials', i. e. materials extending or combining the characteristics of different polyolefins and thus suitable for certain specific applications. However, it is not expected that a fundamentally new PP resin production process will be developed and commercialized within the next 10 years. A number of companies are also currently working on a new generation of catalysts, namely metallocenes. It cannot be precisely predicted at the moment how widely this new generation of catalysts will be used. Current research in this area is aimed at enhancing the properties of PP for certain specific applications (e. g. syndiotactic PP) within the context of existing PP processes. According to industry sources, several years' more research and development will be required before the innovative potential of these catalysts can be fully exploited. In any case, it appears that metallocene catalysts will not be fully commercialized for at least another five to seven years. As regards Himont's own research and development efforts, they are mainly concentrated on advanced materials combining properties belonging to different polymers on the basis of its newly developed Catalloy and Hivalloy technology.
Intellectual property rights
(31) The development of new or improved PP technologies is patented or otherwise protected by intellectual property rights. A PP manufacturer who has not developed his own technology will operate under a licence from a PP technology provider on the basis of which technical information (know-how) relating to both the process and the catalyst will be disclosed and immunity under the relevant patents will be granted. In return, the licensee is obliged to treat all technical information as confidential and proprietary information unless it is or becomes public knowledge.
(32) In the area of intellectual property rights, ownership of patents for the basic invention as well as subsequent improvements may prove to be a barrier to entry into the technology market. Improvements can themselves represent a significant technological breakthrought (e. g. the introduction of electron donors that resulted in a substantial increase in the catalyst yield). These patents can delay or even indefinitely postpone new entry by operators who seek to develop new technology that does not infringe them. In this respect, the risk of lengthy and expensive patent litigation would seriously undermine future licensing activities, because both the licensor and the licensee could be sued by the owner of the intellectual property right for patent infringement. A non-assertion agreement with the initial patent holder would remove this uncertainty but this in fact makes potential entry and its conditions dependent on the patent holder's consent.
Market structure
(33) There is a significant amount of licensing activity in the PP industry, PP manufacturers being either licensors or licensees of PP technology. This licensing activity takes place in a market separate from that for the production of PP. Customers in this market are PP producers who need the technology required to manufacture PP and suppliers are as a rule PP manufacturers (although UCC is not an active PP supplier) who have developed and are willing to license PP technology.
Suppliers
(34) On the supply side, the provider of technology discloses to the customer the techical knowledge necessary to design, construct and operate a plant for the production of PP and allows him to sell the PP produced by giving him and his customers immunities under the relevant patents. Refinements or optimizations of the technology but not revolutionary improvements are normally communicated to the licensee from time to time. This basic service is accompanied by associated services such as technical support, customer assistance or engineering services - in some cases the plant itself is constructed by the licensor. The catalyst included in the package is either provided directly by the licensor or manufactured by the licensee under licence from and on the basis or technical knowledge communicated by the licensor.
Customers
(35) On the demand side, customers are normaly PP manufacturers who do not have their own PP technology. In view of the substantial costs represented by original research and development, the prior expertise needed and the uncertain results of development work, a number of PP producers prefer not to develop their own R& D and therefore need a licence from companies who have the required technology.
(36) Companies with in-house R& D may also be potential customers. For instance, companies who have developed their own catalysts may need to obtain a patent settlement agreement or a bare patent licence before they are allowed freely to operate these catalysts and, in any event, they lack a process for the manufacture of PP which they need to license from a third party. Moreover, since for technical reasons, the harmonization of separate catalyst and process technologies to achieve efficient production is complicated and expensive, the practice of such companies is to purchase initially an overall technology package and to seek subsequently to replace the licensor's catalyst. As a result, these companies are, in the Commission's view, on the market for PP technology. Even companies who have developed their own PP process and catalyst combination may select another technology package if it is more efficient or better suited to their product requierements.
(37) Customers for licences may be new entrants to the PP industry or existing licensees who want to expand their current PP capacity. Provisions of existing licensing agreements regarding future capacity expansion vary. In some cases the licensee has the option, in return for additional royalties, to use licensed technology for a capacity increase at the same plant, while in other cases this option also covers a capacity increase realized by the construction of new plants within the territory of the agreement (usually one or several countries). In any event, the Commission considers that the option holder is impervious to the relative merits of other market alternatives . On the contrary, the value of the option is precisely determined by these alternatives. If effective competition on the market for PP technology licensing means that a different licensing contract is more attractive, the option holder will not exercise the option and will purchase another licence. Alternatively the option holder may renegotiate the terms of the option with the original licensor on terms that are more favourable and reflect the competitive pressure from the other licensing contract. In conclusion, an option holder is, in the Commission's view on the market for technology licensing and benefits from the presence of effective competition therein.
(38) PP manufacturers naturally benefit from the availability of high-performance and cost-effective technologies. Access to technology is of itself vital, because otherwise new entry or capacity expansion by existing players dependent on technology licensing cannot be realized. The selection of a technology for a plant has long-term implications given the substantial costs involved and the 20 to 30 year life time of a plant once built. Competition on the technology market ensures that the best outcome in terms of price, quality and other competitive parameters is reached with regard to an indispensable element of PP production.
Demand for licences
(39) An increase in actual or expected demand for PP leads to plant expansion and to a demand for licences. In practice demand has tended to concentrate within certain periods ('licensing rounds') due to the simultaneous decision of a number of producers to expand their capacity on the basis of demand forecasts. However, a more limited amount of licensing activity also takes place between those periods. A 'licensing round' took place from 1985 to 1989. Licensing activity was subsequently reduced due to excess PP capacity in the industry.
(40) According to industry sources, over the next 10 years the world PP market is projected to grow at an average rate of 6 to 7 % per annum. The western European and the North American markets are projected to grow at a rate of 5 to 6 % per annum, while in the rest of the world growth is projected at 10 to 15 % per annum. As a result, it is expected that additional PP capacity will be needed in the industry. Expansion of current PP capacity can take different forms, including de-bottlenecking of existing plants or construction of new plants, depending inter alia on the size of the planned increase (e.g. expansion through de-bottlenecking may have capacity limitations) and the strategy of the companies concerned (e.g. a company planning to act as a player in several countries may choose to built a plant in a different location to its existing one). In any case it is expected that the need for capacity expansion will lead to a substantial increase in the demand for technology licences world-wide. A number of companies already have concrete plans for expansion and they have started considering the available technologies with a view to obtaining a licence. The question of demand for licences in western Europe in particular will be dealt with below.
'Process-plus-catalyst' package
(41) As a rule PP technology is developed and licensed as a package made up of a polymerization process and a catalyst. The role of the catalyst in polymerization is important, because it determines the properties of the PP. The design of the process is influenced by the catalyst to be used and the introduction of a different catalyst will normally affect the resulting product range.
(42) In practice some licencees of a PP package have developed their own catalyst in order to change the properties of the final product for certain specific applications. However, this does not imply that, for the purposes of product market definition, a distinction should be made between process and catalyst. It has been the practice of licencees to purchase an overall technology package and to seek to develop catalysts that can complement or replace the catalyst originally licensed only subsequent to the purchase of the initial package. According to the Commission's investigations, if PP manufactures wished to build a new plant today, they would also normally seek a single licence comprising the whole package as opposed to separate licences for the process and the catalyst. This is the case because catalyst development normally takes at least several years (typically a minimum of three to five years), requires considerable R& D expenditure and substantial prior technological expertise and is risky. Moreover, the licensor's perfomance guarantee will only cover the 'process-and-catalyst' package as originally licensed. On the basis of the above, and notwithstanding the possibility that some PP licences may wish to purchase process and catalyst technology separately, the Commission considers that, for the purposes of this decision, the definition of the relevant product market for PP technology can be based on the package represented by 'process-and-catalyst' technology.
Slurry processes distinguished from advanced gas-phase or bulk processes
(43) Gas-phase and bulk processes are a more simplified and efficient PP production route compared with the older slurry processes which were widely used in the industry until the 1980s. Bulk and gas-phase processes involve fewer processing steps, because the use of a high-efficiency catalyst makes it unnecessary to remove catalyst residue or the atactic component of the final polymer. Other advantages of the bulk and gas-phase processes include lower energy consumption, lower capital investment per tonne of capacity and better environmental protection. Some producers still continue to operate the older, existing slurry plants (about 25 % of total western European PP capacity), usually in combination with a performance-enhancing high-yield/high-stereospecificity catalyst since these plants are fully depreciated. However, no new slurry plants are being built. According to the Commission's investigations, if PP producers wished to expand their PP production capacity by building a new plant today, they would seek to obtain a licence for a new generation process - bulk or gas-phase - as opposed to an old slurry process. It appears, therefore, that the relevant product market for PP technology should be defined on the basis of advanced technology only (bulk and gas-phase) and that slurry technology should be excluded from this definition.
Conclusion
(44) On the basis of the above, it appears that the licensing of advanced PP technology and other associated services as defined above constitute a distinct product market upon which the effects of the proposed joint venture should be assessed. This is an upstream market in relation to the market for the production and sale of PP. Dominance in the PP technology market would enable a PP technology provider to exercise market power with regard to an essential element of PP production.
B. Geographic market definition (i) Manufacture and sale of PP
(45) According to the Commission's enquiries, many customers purchase PP from several sources located in different Member States, rather than purchasing solely from one supplier. On the other hand, customers for PP in western Europe rely on producers with plants located within that area for the vast majority of their supplies.
(46) In their replies to the Commission's questionnaires, customers stated that PP transport costs have an important influence on the choice of supplier. Transport costs depend inter alia on the mode of transportation and the location of the customer vis-à-vis the location of the supplier. The main mode of transportation of PP is by truck and, to a lesser extent, by rail, sea or the combined use of sea/truck and truck/rail modes, with the destination of the shipment influencing the choice of transportation mode to reduce costs based on the most efficient means of transportation.
(47) PP is usually supplied either in bulk truckloads by road tankers or the same tonnage is packaged in 25 kg polyethylene sacks stacked on pallets and shrink-wrapped. Transport costs are also substantially affected by the availability of return loading of the vehicle (i.e. the possibility of back-hauling), as well as local country regulations and the competitive hauling situation.
(48) According to the replies to the Commission's questionnaires, transport costs are sufficiently high that customers do not consider producers from outside western Europe, e.g. the United States of America or Japan, to be alternative sources of supply. In addition, it appears that current import duties - amounting to 12,5 % on imports from developed countries, to be gradually reduced to 6,5 % within a period of five years starting from 1995 insulate the western European market to some extent and that the need for after-sales technical support also limits the geographical choice of suppliers. It appears, therefore, that the relevant geographic market for the production and sale of PP is western Europe.
(ii) PP technology
(49) Competition in the licensing of PP technology takes place on a wider geographic market than competition in the manufacture and sales of PP itself, specifically, on a world-wide basis. Licensors of PP technology can compete for business wherever a potential customer seeks to license technology and these licensors can offer their technology to customers located anywhere in the world.
(50) The licensing of the package of PP technology generally includes certain input from R& D and technical personnel of the licensor who will be on-site at the new plant of the licensee and such technical staff will always be required to travel to new plant sites. The costs of providing technical personnel at the new plant during start-up and subsequent technical support are generally borne by the licensee and they do not appear to be sufficiently substantial to deter a potential license from choosing a licensor not located within his geographical area.
(51) Licensors are generally active world-wide, and although as explained above the intensity of their activity depends on their position in the downstream PP market, this does not affect the conclusion that the market for licensing of PP technology is a world market.
C. The effects of the concentration as notified (52) Dominance on the technology market have a restraining effect on the PP industry's future plans and opportunities for expansion and would thus have negative repercussions on the downstream market for the production and sale of PP. Therefore, the Commission will assess first the competitive effects of the joint venture on the market for PP technology.
(i) PP technology
(53) As indicated above, PP technology is, as a rule, developed and licensed as a package involving a production process and a catalyst. The two leading package technologies in the PP industry, accounting for about [ . . . ] (4) of plant capacity under licence, are the Spheripol technology licensed by Himont and the Unipol technology which combines a process developed by UCC and a catalyst developed by Shell.
(54) Himont, Montedison's subsidiary, has been at the forefront of PP technology (both process and catalyst) since the early years of PP production. Himont research goes back to the development and commercial exploitation of the first industrial process for the production of PP based on the modification of Ziegler's catalyst in 1954 by Nobel Prize Winner Giulio Natta, a consultant to Himont's research team at Ferrara. Himont's Spheripol process is currently the most widely licensed PP technology. It is a hybrid process consisting of a first-stage loop reactor (bulk polymerization) for the production of homopolymers and random copolymers and a second-stage gas-phase reactor for the production of impact copolymers operating in series with the first reactor. On the basis of a 1975 agreement, Himont and the Japanese company Mitsui Petrochemical Industries (hereinafter referred as 'Mitsui') jointly developed catalysts that resulted in high product yield and high stereospecificity (HY/HS catalysts). Subsequently, both parties have continued their collaboration on HY/HS catalysts. Today each party has its own process technology, Spheripol (Himont) ans Hypol-stirred bed reactor (Mitsui), but both use jointly developed catalysts. The licensing activities of the parties with regard to both the Hypol and Spheripol process as well as related catalysts are the object of a Research and Development Cooperation Agreement between himont and Mitsui which is further analysed below.
The Shell Oil/UCC relationship
(55) Shell has developed its own PP process, Lippshac, but has not licensed it to third parties, other than joint ventures in which Shell has an interest. On the other hand, shell contributes its high-yield SHAC catalysts to a joint venture with UCC, which includes a PP plant in seadrift, Texas. The basis of the cooperation between Shell and UCC is a Cooperative Undertaking Agreement (hereinafter referred to as 'the CUA') signed in 1983 between UCC and Shell Chemical, a division of Shell Oil Company. Shell Oil is a US company controlled by Shell Petroleum Incorporation, a 100 % subsidiary of the Royal Dutch/Shell group of companies.
(56) According to the CUA, which expires in [ . . . ], the purpose of the agreement is to combine UCC's fluidized-bed process and Shell's SHAC catalyst with a view to developing a PP technology package and licensing it to third parties. The abovementioned seadrift demonstration plant [ . . . ] is used as a [ . . . ] manufacturing facility [ . . . ]. UCC is not otherwise active in PP production and relies on Shell Oil for PP market know-how. The initial laboratory experiments relating to the original SHAC catalyst took place [ . . . ]. The resulting technology package, Unipol, has been to date the main competitor of Himont's Spheripol technology.
(57) Shell Oil's contribution to the current Unipol technology package is important. Shell Oil supplies the catalysts used in the Unipol package and is responsible for their improvement. It is involved in the marketing of the Unipol technology, including technical presentation of the catalyst to potential customers. Finally, it provides customer support/technical assistance with regard to the catalyst, prices the catalyst, invoices catalyst sales and shares licensing revenues with UCC.
(58) As a result of joint venture between Shell and Montedison as originally notified, two fully-owned subsidiaries of the Royal Dutch/Shell group of companies would be linked with the two leading PP package technologies in the industry. In particular, Shell would be the industrial leader of Sophia which, under the original concentration plan, would develop and market the Spheripol technology whilst at the same time Shell Oil would provide the catalyst used in the Unipol technology package.
(59) According to Shell, Shell Oil is managed as an autonomous entity within the Royal Dutch/Shell group and competes with the other subsidiaries of that group. Whilst it could appear that Shell Oil may have conducted its business with a certain degree of autonomy in relation to the Royal Dutch/Shell group, from the point of view of the application of the Merger Regulation, the parties' argument cannot be accepted on structural grounds. Under the provisions of that Regulation, a fully-owned subsidiary must be considered to fall under the ultimate control of the parent company of the group.
(60) In the particular case, Royal Dutch/Shell's control over the competitive behaviour of its two subsidiaries would have an important effect on the PP technology market. Prior to the concentration the rivalry between Spheripol and Unipol was the main competitive relationship on the market. Subsequent to the original concentration, these two technologies would no longer be sufficiently independent of each other, since Himont's PP technology business would have been included in Sophia.
Market shares
(61) Spheripol and Unipol are two leading technologies in the PP industry. Out of the total number of non-slurry PP technology (bulk and gas-phase) licences granted to date, Himont licensees account for about [ . . . ] (5) of world-wide PP plant capacity operating under licence (excluding licences to licensor's own plants and to joint ventures in which the licensor has a 50 % or more interest), Unipol licensees for about [ . . . ] (5), BASF licensees for about [ . . . ] (6), Mitsui licensees for about [ . . . ] (6) and others (Sumitomo, Acomo) for about [ . . . ] (7).
(62) The notifying parties have argued that these high market shares reflect the relative success of Spheripol and Unipol in the 1980s and are not a reliable indicator of future market power. However, the high market shares of the two technologies are confirmed by recent licensing decisions. Out of the total number of licences granted in the last five years world-wide, Himont licensees account for about [ . . . ] (5) of world-wide PP plant capacity, Unipol licensees for about [ . . . ] (5), BASF licensees for about [ . . . ] (6), Mitsui licensees for about [ . . . ] (6) and others (Sumitomo, Amoco) for about [ . . . ] (7).It is the view of the Commission that these high market shares reflect the importance of Spheripol and Unipol as a competitive force on the technology market due to a variety of factors that are analysed below.
Arguments put forward by the parties
(63) According to the parties, the concentration will not create or strengthen dominance because:
1. as to the supply side: (i) the supply of PP technology is competitive today and will remain so; (ii) the technology market is inherently volatile and fast changing. New entry is possible and likely;
2. as to the demand side: (i) there is likely to be no or only minimal demand for new licences in western Europe until the end of the century; (ii) in western Europe most current and potential licenses are increasingly technologically sophisticated.
(64) For the reasons explained below, however, the Commission considers that:
1. as to the supply side: (i) other advanced technologies currently offered for licence do not appear to be able significantly to constrain the parties' competitive behaviour; (ii) although the technology market is to some extent dynamic, new entry is not likely to occur in a manner capable of constraining quickly and significantly the exercise of market power;
2. as the demand side: (i) it is expected that demand for licences in western Europe until the end of the century will be significant; (ii) the technological sophistication of western European producers cannot significantly constrain the exercise of market power by a dominant technology provider.
Criteria for selection of technology
(65) In their replies to the Commission's questionnaires, PP manufacturers identified a number of factors which are considered to be important when selecting a PP technology:
(i) Product range/product characteristics: a technology must be suited to the product needs of the prospective licensee based on his strategy to gain access to or reinforce his presence in different PP market segments. In well-developed markets, such as Western Europe, all product types and a number of identified grades within each product type will normally be required by manufacturers building new plants. In this context, it is important that plants operating on the basis of the technology under consideration do exist and have already produced a number of commercial grades approved on the marketplace. In this respect, a distinction in sometimes made between, on the one hand, the capability of a technology to produce a number of grades because of its ability to manufacture PP with properties that these grades have and, on the other hand, the fact that a technology has already developed a number of commercially qualified grades sold in the marketplace. It appears that for a potential licensee the second criterion is important when assessing the comparative merits of alternative technologies. To a prospective licensee the existence of commercially qualified grades produced on the basis of a technology is a reassurance that he will have the possibility to enter a new market on an equal footing with established players or to continue serving its existing customers without having to go through the risky and time-consuming process of re-qualifying grades.
(ii) Simplicity of operation including flexibility in switching between different grades.
(iii) Cost/performance ratio evaluated on the basis of the expenditure needed for the construction of the plant and operating costs including royalties.
(iv) Track record of licensor, proven value of his technology: the existence of a large number of plants operating on the basis of a technology and serving various PP market segments or geographic markets is a guarantee that that technology is capable of producing commercially qualified and accepted grades. Moreover, a prospective licensee would be able futher to asses the value of the technology by visiting a number of operating plants of various capacities designed by the licensor and by using prior licensees as reference contacts. As a result, the risk factor in the selection process would be minimized. This is important, since licensing decisions involve substantial investment costs and are made for the lifetime of the plant (20 to 30 years). Even sophisticated licensees such as Western European PP producers regard the track record of the licensor as a significant factor in the selection process.
(v) Proven ability to construct larger plants. The size of a plant is important for the realization of economies of scale. In Western Europe for instance, new plants would today normally have a capacity of at least 120 000 to 160 000 tonnes and in a number of cases even larger plants would be required.
(vi) A large licensing pool in the context of which improvements to the licensed technology can be exchanged. Although sophisticated licensees with in-house technology may decide not to participate in a licensing pool so that they will not be obliged to communicate their own improvements in return, a large licensing pool appears to be important for less sophisticated licensees who rely on the licensor for technology updates. Communication of improvements appears to be particulary important with regard to the application of the catalyst used.
Advantages of Spheripol and Unipol
(66) The final choice in each case will result from a global judgment balancing the respective advantages of the various technologies. It appears, in this context, that Spheripol and Unipol are the two technologies that best combine the above elements and are generally considered to be broadly equivalent alternatives. Spheripol and Unipol have the most extensive grade coverage, they enjoy the best commercial track record, they have constructed a number of plants of various sizes operating on the market and they are truly global licensors with presence in and knowledge of the specificities of different geographic markets and of the product needs of licensees. Active competition between Spheripol and Unipol has been in the past the main driving force on PP technology market.
(67) The large number of licences that Spheripol and Unipol granted to date is important in terms of licensing revenue which can support their licensors' future research and development efforts in the area of PP technology. In addition, it appears that there are advantages in choosing the technology already used in existing plants for an expansion of capacity. These advantages are technological - e.g. knowledge of the capabilities and operation of the technology - or other - e.g. avoidance of delays due to the need to retrain staff and re-qualify grades for established customers - and they translate into cost saving and optimal production results for the potential licensee. Provided that the technology used in existing plants in up-to-date and suited to the licensee's future product range, it appears that 'installed capacity' has an influence on future licensing decisions and tends to reinforce the current market position of established players. On that basis, existing Spheripol and Unipol licensees may have a disincentive to switch to alternative technology providers.
Patent rights
(68) Himont is the owner or co-owner of all important patents for the basic intervention as well as subsequent improvements of the current generation of PP catalysts, namely supported catalysts, The exercise of patent rights may act as a barrier to entry into the PP technology market. In practice, there has been a series of patent disputes between Himont and new or potential catalyst producers regarding the validity of the latter's catalysts under Himont's patents. In all cases, these catalyst producers, including [. . .], have found it necessary to conclude non-assertion agreements with Himont in return for the payment of a lump sum or a percentage of the royalties obtained from the future sale of the catalyst, in order to avoid the risk of patent litigation. The duration of Himont's improvement patents in the area of supported catalysts which extend into the next century will continue to enable Himont to influence the possibility and conditions of new entry and thus entrench its current position on the technology market.
Views of PP manufacturers
(69) According to the Commission's investigations, Spheripol and Unipol are perceived as the two leading technologies in the industry and a number of PP manufacturers would be concerned if competition were eliminated between them. Spheripol and Unipol are considered to be commercially proven technologies, well known in the market and fully available for licence. They are relatively straightforward processes with a full product range and proven ability to construct plants with adequate economies of scale. Although alternatives were available, continued competition between Spheripol and Unipol was important and should be safeguarded. Other technologies were either more appropriate for speciality end uses, more complex processes with a less advantageous cost/performance ratio, not fully proven on the market place, or not fully available for licence.
(70) The concern was expressed that, as a result of the concentration, two different companies of Shell would be involved in two major packages and that the risk of restriction of the available technologies could not therefore be discarded. This restriction would be all the more significant, because Himont already controlled to a very large extent catalyst developments on the basis of its patents. Licensees would depend to a large extent on a single company for their technology and catalyst supply. Moreover, the joint venture would gain an additional competitive advantage through access to technology information and feedback from the much larger licensing pool of both leading technologies.
(71) The combination of the technological strength of Shell and Himont and the established position of their technologies on the market would place other licensors at a significant competitive disadvantage. Inter alia a newcomer would have to overcome the following obstacles: (i) lack of history in the market related to established reputations; (ii) development of adequate infrastructure (R& D, engineering support); (iii) development of catalyst production points with back-up supply capability. Moreover, the licensees' familiarity with Spheripol and Unipol combined with the provisions of existing agreements that give licensees the option to increase capacity in the same or new plants may also act a disincentive for them to switch to alternative technology providers.
Competition from other advanced technology providers
(72) Apart from Spheripol and Unipol, the notifying parties identified the following providers of advanced PP technology packages today: Mitsui, BASF, Amoco/Chisso and Sumitomo. The Commission considers that the mere existence of alternative technologies does not constitute adequate grounds for concluding that no dominance will be created on the technology market as a result of the concentration. Dominance is the ability to behave to a significant extent independently of one's competitors and customers. It is the view of the Commission based on its investigations in this case that for the reasons explained below, these alternative technology providers are not likely to form a significant constraint on the exercise of market power created by the concentration in the short to medium term.
(73) One of these technology providers accounting for about [. . .] (8) of licensed capacity, namely Mitsui, cannot, in the Commission's opinion, be regarded as a fully independent competitor likely significantly to constrain Himont's behaviour. Mitsui offers its Hypol process for licence together with catalysts jointly developed with Himont. Since 1975 Mitsui is involved in a Research and Development Cooperation Agreement with Himont concerning Hypol and Spheripol as well as related catalysts. Under the current version of this agreement [. . .], the parties cooperate on virtually all aspects of technology development and licensing [. . .].
(74) The agreement provides [. . .].
(75) This agreement is an expression of the long-standing cooperation arrangements between Himont and Mitsui and of the common economic interests and incentives that they share in the area of PP technology. This seems to be borne out by the fact that Mitsui has not secured a single licence in western Europe to date. On the basis of the above, it does not appear that Mitsui can be considered as an effective competitor likely significantly to constrain Himont's competitive behaviour.
(76) Other existing licensors include BASF, Amoco and Sumitomo. BASF currently offers a gas-phase process (vertical stirred bed reactor) for license. The older version of the BASF technology became commercially available in 1974. The product range has since been broadened, especially since the incorporation of a proprietary supported catalyst in the BASF technology package in 1991, [. . .]. BASF has not granted any licences in western Europe since 1978. Its only licensee in Europe is ICI, whose PP business BASF has recently acquired.
(77) Sumitomo has developed a bulk process as well as a more recent gas-phase process (fluid bed reactor). Its bulk process became available for licence in the early 1980s and its gas process in the mid-1980s. Sumitomo has a very limited number of licensees world-wide for both processes.
(78) Amoco began development work on a gas-phase process in the 1970s in collaboration with Chisso Corporation of Japan. The first Amoco plants using the earlier version of this technology was built in the late 1970s. The Amoco/Chisso technology which is currently offered for license is an improved version of the earlier technology based on the development of a proprietary high activity catalyst in the 1980s [. . .].
(79) Although the Commission would not question the credibility of the abovementioned alternative technology suppliers from a purely technological perspective, and leaving aside contractual and other relationships with the notifying parties, it appears that these technology suppliers are not likely to significantly constrain the market power of Spheripol and Unipol for the following reasons. First, alternative technologies have a more limited number of qualified grades than Spheripol or Unipol both on the whole and within each specific PP family. In addition, some of these technologies are better suited for the manufacture of certain PP products and their grade coverage is correspondingly much weaker in other areas. This can be explained by the licensor's prior expertise and the product requirements of the geographical areas where he is mainly active. These technologies are as a result perceived to be less flexible by prospective licensees. By comparison Spheripol and Unipol have a more balanced grade coverage.
(80) Second, it was mentioned above that today prospective licensees may require larger plants in the interest of substantial economies of scale. According to the Commission's enquiries, the capital cost of a 200 kt plant is only approximately one and a half that of a 100 kt plant. In this respect, it is important to note that some of these alternative technologies have design capacity limitations compared with Spheripol or Unipol which prevent them from satisfying the requirements of some potential licensees.
(81) Third, in view of the limited number of their licensees to date these alternative technologies lack references and a proven commercial record in the market place. In some cases presence in the market but limited success in licensing can even be seen an indication of a market preference for unipol and Spheripol. In other cases where an improved version of a technology has only recently become available, lack of market knowledge of the technology works to the advantage of established players.
(82) Fourth, it appears that at least some of these alternative technology providers do not consider PP technology licensing as a core business in the context of their total operations. As a result, these companies have not pursued in the past an aggressive licensing policy. There is no indication that the current strategy of these companies in the PP licensing sector will change in the future.
(83) Finally, the ability of alternative technology providers to compete against Spheripol and Unipol could be limited by the following factors: (i) lack of catalyst production points sufficient to satisfy future demand for licences; (ii) relatively small size of licensing infrastructure that could limit a licensor's ability to offer services required by prospective customers, including e.g. engineering services, training, start-up and technical assistance, customer support in product development.
(84) On the basis of the above it appears that other existing technology providers are not likely significantly to constrain the parties' power to behave to a significant degree independently of their competitors.
Potential entry
(85) A number of companies are currently engaged in R& D in the PP sector. The focus of this research depends on the expertise and financial or other resources of the company. In most cases, research will tend to focus on market-driven product differentation, while a company with a substantial fundamental research effort, such as Himont, may also develop new products or processes which can supersede existing technologies and create new market opportunities. A number of companies are currently working on a new generation of catalysts, metallocenes. However, this does not affect the Commission's competition assessment in this case, since the potential of metallocenes cannot be precisely determined and in any case it is not expected to be fully exploited in the short to medium term.
(86) The parties argue that there are a number of potential entrants who could, within a very short period of time enter the PP technology market. According to the parties, potential entrants can be: (i) PP producers with in-house technology who could decide to develop and license a technology package; or (ii) PE technology suppliers who could, within a short period of time, adapt their PE process and catalysts, in order to license their technology for PP resin production.
(87) The parties argue that a number of PP producers are technologically sophisticated and have substantial financial resources. According to the parties, technological sophistication facilitates new entry. It is true that a number of PP producers have their own in-house R& D. However, according to the Commission's investigations, it does not appear likely that a new PP technology package will become available on the market in the short to medium term for the following reasons.
(88) Some of the PP producers who are mentioned as potential entrants have only developed or are in the process of developing their own catalysts for use in conjunction with a technology package that they have licensed. These producers have not developed nor are in the process of developing a process with the result that their entry into the market with a new technology package is not likely in the short to medium term. A small number of PP producers are currently developing both a process and a catalyst, but research and development work has not yet been completed with the result that entry is uncertain or will at least be delayed for a considerable period of time. Patent issues will also have to be considered and until the vital question of the validity of patent claims has been resolved, entry will be further delayed or even indefinitely postponed.
(89) In the very few cases where proprietary technologies already exist but are not currently licensed, these technologies are subject to one or more of the handicaps mentioned in recitals 72 et seq. For instance, were new entry to occur, the lack of track record of the new entrant would pose the same difficulties as for existing alternative providers in competing against Spheripol and Unipol.
(90) As far as PE technology providers are concerned, although it is technically possible to adapt certain PE technology to manufacture PP, according to the Commission's investigations, entry by PE manufacturers into the PP technology market is not likely in the short to medium term for the following reasons: (i) the length of time required for development, commercialization, including grade qualification, and commercial acceptance; (ii) obstacles likely to deter potential entry, including catalyst selection, the need to develop a technology capable of competing with established licensors, the costs involved in develop a technology capable of competing with established licensors, the costs involved in development and commercialization, the difficulty of entering an established market as a new entrant and gaining market acceptance, and not least the uncertain return in relation to one's investment.
(91) It appears therefore that potential entry into the technology market that could significantly constrain market power would not be likely in the short to medium term.
Demand for new licences in western Europe
(92) In the light of the continuing growth of PP demand - which is in fact the fastest growing sector in the pastics business - and the results of the Commission's market enquiries, the Commission has concluded that there will be demand for PP technology licences in western Europe in the period running up to the year 2000. This view was contested by the parties. In particular, the parties submitted a report prepared by independent business consultants in order to demonstrate there would be negligible, if any, demand for PP technology licences up to the year 2000.
(93) The essential parameters governing the forecast contained in the report were that: (i) current (i.e. 1993) PP capacity in western Europe is [. . .] million tonnes per annum; (ii) current capacity utilization is [. . .]; (iii) demand for PP is expected to grow at [. . .] per annum, which the report indicated lay in the range of other industry commentators; (iv) de-bottlenecking (net of plant closure) could increase the existing pool of capacity to 6,5 million tonnes per annum. Using these parameters the report calculated that 'to bring the supply/demand balance to [. . .] operating levels about six new plants will be required by 2000'.
(94) Although the Commission does not think it would be necessary, having regard to the following assessment, to challenge the forecast parameters and methodology it is, however, inclined to the view that the report has a greater tendency to underestimate than overestimate the likely future demand for PP technology licences. This view is based on three considerations.
(95) First, in the light of other technical information made available to the Commission and the allowance made in the report itself, the size of future plant closures would seem to be underestimated so that the net capacity increase due to de-bottlenecking may be overstated. Secondly, it would appear that the report asumes that the current net PP exports amounting to 300 000 tonnes will completely disappear. If net exports were to remain at their current level, this would correspond to demand for an additional two PP plants. Thirdly, and more importantly, the report fails to take into consideration the very long lead time required for negotiation of a technology licence before the corresponding new PP plant comes on stream. The parties themselves have pointed out that 'based on industry practice, . . . PP technology licences are granted some four years before a new PP plant is commissioned' (point 6.9 of the parties' Response to the Commission's Statement of 28 March 1994). As a result, a forecast for demand for PP technology licences in the period up to the year 2000 would logically have to consider what would be the likely demand for PP up to the year 2004 and not 2000.
(96) Nevertheless, these points can be left aside since it is sufficient to assess the nature of the PP technology licensing demand arising from the report conclusions in more detail. The conclusion of the report is that six new plants each having a capacity of about 160 kilotonnes per annum will be required. However, the report and parties go on to consider that this will not give rise to demand for PP technology licensing, because two of the six plants will be constructed by producers already having their own technology, a further three plants will be built by producers enjoying an option under existing PP technology licensing contracts to increase capacity on broadly pre-ordained terms, and the sixth producer would be interested in a PP technology licence but the terms and conditions of his licence are likely already to have been determined.
(97) The Commission disagrees with this line of reasoning. First, even on the basis of the information submitted by the parties there is doubt as to which producers will undertake the required expansion. A second report by different industry consultants submitted by the parties and assessing which companies were most likely to build new plants considered expansion likely by two companies not mentioned in the first report. In any event, it is a matter for each market player to decide individually whether or not it will increase capacity in the expectation of acquiring a share of the expected growth in PP demand in western Europe. In this regard the continued availability of effective competition in the PP technology licensing market is a crucial factor since the large majority of western European PP producers are potential customers for technology licences.
(98) Secondly, as regards contractual options to increase production, the Commission notes that not all of the PP producers with claimed licensing technology options do in fact enjoy such an option. In any case, as explained above, the Commission considers that the mere existence of an option does not imply that the option holder is not on the market for technology licensing. An option holder is likely to compare offers from other technology providers before making his choice and thus benefits from the presence of effective competition on the technology market,
(99) In conclusion, the Commission considers that, the analysis carried out above using the material submitted by the parties, demonstrates that significant demand for PP technology licensing can be expected in the near future. In fact, according to the Commission's market enquiries, some PP producers in western Europe are already interested in new PP technology licensing.
Sophisticated buyers as countervailing power to a dominant firm
(100) The parties argue that potential customers for PP technology in western Europe are predominantly technologically sophisticated with substantial financial resources. As a result, in the event that a dominant technology provider tried to exercise market power, PP producers would have a powerful incentive to take action in order to avoid the costs of dominance. However, in the Commission's view, the ability of these producers to exercise countervailing power to a dominant technology provider should not be overestimated.
(101) The Commission considers that the development of proprietary technologies as an alternative to buying licences is at most a long-term solution for a very small number of players in view, inter alia, of the length of time and substantial investments required for successful completion of development work. In most cases research and development efforts of PP producers are normally related to catalyst improvement. These producers would still require a matched process which they are unlikely to develop in the short to medium term. More importantly, the validity of catalyst improvements under pre-existing patent rights may have to be settled and past experience demonstrates the importance of such rights. In conclusion, the Commission considers that technological sophistication could not act as a significant constraint on the exercise of market power by a dominant technology provider in the short to medium term.
Conclusion
(102) In the light of the above, the Commission concluded that the original concentration would lead to the creation of a dominant position as a result of which effective competition would be significantly impeded on the market for PP technology. Dominance on the technology market might have a restraining effect on the PP industry's future plans and opportunities for expansion. It would deprive PP manufacturers of the benefits of competition with regard to price, quality and other parameters with negative repercussions on the PP production market. However, in view of the commitments offered by the parties regarding the establishment of Montedison's separate Technipol subsidiary (see recital 116) the Commission's concerns regarding Sophia's acquisition of a dominant position on the PP technology market have been resolved.
(ii) Production and sale of PP
(103) The joint venture will be the world leader in the PP market with a global capacity of [ . . . ] million tonnes, representing approximately [ . . . ] (9) of PP world-wide capacity. It will also be the leading supplier of PP in western Europe accounting for about [ . . . ] (10) of capacity and about [ . . . ] (10) of free sales (i.e. sales excluding captive use).
(104) Subsequent to the concentration there will be more than 10 producers of PP in western Europe apart from the merged entity. However, Sophia's market share will be more than double the market share of its next competitor, Borealis (about [ . . . ] (9) of capacity and about [ . . . ] (9) of free sales). In terms of capacity, Hoechst will account for about [ . . . ] (11), PCD/OMV and Appryl for abourt [ . . . ] (11) each, BASF and ICI together for about [ . . . ] (9). Other suppliers of the western European market, each with a share [ . . . ] (11), will include Amoco, Petrofina, Exxon, Repsol, DSM, Vestolen and Solvay.
(105) As to the impact of the merged entity on the production of different types of PP, the PP businesses of Montedison and Shell are largely complementary: [ . . . ] of Shell's free market sales are in commodity homopolymers, while [ . . . ] of Montedison's sales are in speciality homopolymers and copolymers. In block copolymers, which as indicated above, could be considered to form part of a distinct product market within PP, there is some overlap between the activities of the parties. However, their combined market share in this area does not exceed their abovementioned share of the entire PP market. Therefore, the following analysis will focus on the effects of the concentration on the market for the production and sale of PP taken as a whole.
Joint venture links between PP producers
(106) In view of the increasing degree of concentration on the market for the production and sale of PP, it is appropriate to take into consideration the joint-venture links between Montedison and Shell on the one hand and other producers on the other hand. Montedison and Shell have a number of joint ventures with other polyolefin producers, three of them which relate to PP: Montefina, a joint- venture between Montedison's subsidiary, Himont and Petrofina with a capacity of about 380 kts/y, NSP (Himont/Statoil) with a capacity of about 200 kts/y and ROW (Shell/BASF) with a PP capacity of about 200 kts/y. Each of these joint ventures is based on a 50 % participation by the respective parent companies.
(107) Through their joint-venture links the parties may be able to influence the competitive behaviour of their joint-venture partners, who are important competitors on the PP production market and thus strenghten their position on that market - the total capacity of the PP producers involved in Montefina, NSP and ROW will account for [ . . . ] (12) of western European capacity ([ . . . ] (12) including BASF/ICI). [ . . . ].
(108) In any event, it appears that in the case of Montefina in particular, subsequent to the concentration Sophia would be able to exert a considerable restraining influence on Petrofina's competitive behaviour. Montefina is a 50/50 production joint venture created in 1976 to produce PP using technology licensed by Montedison. It currently has two production lines in Feluy, Belgium, whose output is shared by the parents and independently marketed by each of them. Petrofina's total PP production in western Europe comes from Montefina so that Petrofina's competitive position could be critically influenced by the behaviour of its new joint-venture partner.
(109) According to Petrofina, the Shell/Montedison transaction would be likely to cause a potential conflict of interest among the three Montefina parents. [ . . . ]. Petrofina believes that only a separation of Montefina from Sophia would remedy this non-competitive situation.
(110) [ . . . ]. Under the Montefina shareholding agreement, all important decisions must be agreed to between Himont and Montedison (or its successor in the joint venture). In the Commission's view, this enables Montedison to influence production and other important decisions in the context of the joint venture. With regard to the exchange of technological information, [ . . . ] it is the Commission's view that access by Montedison or Shell personnel at Montefina to Petrofina's technological information in the context of the joint venture remains and could act as a disincentive to the use of Fina's technology by Petrofina.
Other factors reinforcing Sophia's position on the PP production market
(111) The merged entity will combine on the one hand Himont's technological leadership and success in the development of new products and advanced polyolefin materials and on the other hand Shell's strong world wide presence as one of the largest petrochemical companies, feedstock availability and considerable financial resources. These to a large extent complementary strengths of the two partners will create a particularly powerful combination. Sophia will be able to offer the broadest product line in the industry, including all families of PP products and a very large variety of PP grades used in a wide range of applications. It will have the financial resources, strengthened by its technology position and licensing income, to focus on the development of specialized products and advanced materials. It could also use general profits to subsidize niche markets. The geographic spread and size of its existing plants are such that Sophia would enjoy particularly competitive production costs and efficient distribution in many geographic locations. In addition, it will have considerable advantages vis-à-vis its competitors because of the size of its sales and marketing organization and in particular its position with regard to technology.
(112) The merged entity will combine the substantial assets and expertise of its parent companies and will have a leading position on the PP technology market, as explained above. The ability to spread R& D costs over a large production base would place the parties at a considerable advantage in relation to other PP producers. The parties' advantageous position will be further strengthened as older PP products are replaced by new products with superior properties.
(113) Even more importantly, by controlling the two world-wide leading technologies, Sophia would be able to determine the pace of future development on the PP production market, because its licensing policy would be insufficiently controlled by other competitors. Sophia could thus for instance charge supra-competitive royalties or otherwise exercise market power. All innovation and product development could be retained for use by Sophia, since there would be no competitive pressure to license other PP producers. Sophia could thus negatively affect the conditions of competition on the PP production market.
Conclusion
(114) Although the combined market share of the parties is not itself very high, its considerable gap with the market share of the next largest competitor, combined with a number of other factors, that is the network of joint ventures, Sophia's high level of product coverage and especially Sophia's leading position in technology, will substantially reinforce the parties' position on that market. All these factors led the Commission to entertain serious doubts as to the possible creation of a dominant position on the PP production market. However, the Commission's concerns regarding Sophia's acquisition of a dominant position on the technology market have been resolved by the commitments offered by the parties regarding the establishment of Montedison's separate Technipol subsidiary (see recital 116). Moreover, the parties have also offered a commitment specifically relating to the PP production market, namely the dissolution of the Montefina joint venture. Accordingly, in view of those commitments the Commission considers that there is no longer any room for serious concerns as to the creation of a dominant position on this market.
V. MODIFICATIONS TO THE ORIGINAL CONCENTRATION PLAN (i) The undertakings entered into by the parties
(115) Following the Commission's communication pursuant to Article 18 of the Merger Regulation, and in order to remove the competition concerns expressed into the following commitments vis-à-vis the Commission:
(116) PP technology undertaking
'The notifying parties undertake the following:
Himont's existing PP technology business will remain outside Sophia by its transfer to a company, either new or existing, under the sole control of Montedison (The "Technipol Company"). Shell will have no financial investment in the Technipol Company. The Technipol Company will be established at the latest within [ . . . ] of the Commission's compatibility decision. In the intervening period, the PP technology business will be conducted and kept separate from both Shell and Sophia. This company will be a separate, full-functioning company capable of conducting PP technology business or an ongoing, viable and competitive basis enjoying its own financial resources and capable of continued independent PP technology development. It will be endowed with the following assets and charasteristics:
(i) the existing world-wide PP technology licensing business (including the irrevocable and exclusive right to licence the corresponding intellectual property rights, and the existing sales/marketing/support staff). The existing PP licensing contracts and related PP catalyst supply contracts will be transferred to the Technipol Company. To the extent that the transfer of such contract requires the consent of licensees, Montedison will use all reasonable endeavours in good faith to obtain such consent. The revenue from any transferred contracts will accrue to the Technipol Company [ . . . ]. The Technipol Company will be given sufficient resources to finance its R& D efforts. To the extent that such contracts are not transferred, Sophia will subcontract (subject to contractual constraints) in arm's length terms the performance of its obligations under those contracts to the Technipol Company;
(ii) the corresponding R& D staff and R& D facilities regarding all aspects of the PP technology business including licensing support, technological updating and further development of the PP technology (R& D relates to both PP process and catalyst technology);
(iii) the Technipol Company will own the intellectual property rights that are the fruits of its own research in PP technology, including in PP catalysts. However, this will not prevent the Technipol Company from entering into sponsored research contracts on usual industry terms. The Technipol Company will also have the exclusive right to enforce the intellectual property rights licensed to it by Sophia, and in particular to decide whether to pursue infringement proceedings against third parties (subject to legal constraints and requirements).
(iv) Sophia will dedicate exclusively to the Technipol Company such proportion of its catalyst manufacturing capacity as is required by the Technipol Company to supply the needs of its PP technology licensees. Sophia will accordingly manufacture PP catalysts on a toll manufacturing basis on terms and conditions that are customary in the industry. Sophia will not offer for sale such catalysts to any other third party. The Technipol Company and its licensees may obtain PP catalysts from third parties;
(v) the existing PP pilot plant for PP technology development and testing as well as access to a full scale PP production plant;
(vi) Sophia may purchase technological improvements to existing PP technology employed by Sophia, other technical services, catalysts or technology from the Technipol Company but only on an arm's length basis and on commercial terms equivalent to those offered to licensees; and
(vii) neither Sophia nor Shell shall have access to Technipol Company's privileged information of the type that would not be made available to a competitor, in particular regarding business and commercial secrets such as pricing, customer lists and negotiations, sales data.
References to PP technology in these untertakings shall mean Himont's PP process and catalyst technology as currently licensed and any developments in PP technology.'
(117) PP production undertaking
'Montedison undertakes the following concerning the Montefina joint venture:
(i) Withdrawal of Himont from Montefina within [. . .] of the Commission's compatibility decision. This period may be extended by the Commission if the Commission is satisfied that despite bona fide efforts by Montedison, Montedison has not been able to sell its investment in Montefina. Each request for an extension shall be duly motivated.
(ii) Montedison, on behalf of the Technipol Company, shall reaffirm Montefina's right to the benefit of the most favoured licensee clause as regards the catalyst supply and the licence agreements. [. . .]
No provision of any new licence and no other intellectual property right of Himont or of Sophia shall be construed so as to prevent or hinder Montefina or Petrofina from entering into merger or alliance discussions with a third party, provided that Montefina or Petrofina shall protect the Technipol Company's, Himont's and Sophia's legitimate intellectual property rights and business and commercial secrets.
(iii) The operations of Montefina will be kept separate from those of Sophia. During the period prior to formal withdrawal, Himont's rights in Montefina will be exercised by Montedison. No person on the Sophia payroll or agent of Sophia shall be present on the Feluy site except with Montefina's prior consent.
During the withdrawal period as well as thereafter, knowledge of the business and commercial secrets of Petrofina and Montedison acquired through the common operation of Montefina shall remain secret and in no circumstances be communicated to Sophia or any other party except any bona fide potential purchaser of Montedison's interest in Montefina and its advisers. In particular, no data files, business records or other confidential documents relating to Montefina shall be transferred to Sophia.
(iv) During the transitional period, Montedison shall undertake every effort consistent with the past functioning of the plant to ensure the smooth, efficient and commercial operation of Montefina, compatible with the reasonable interest of both parties and provided bona fide efforts are made by Petrofina to such effect.
(v) A detailed report shall be provided by Montedison at three monthly intervals on the state of progress of sale negotiations and the withdrawal implementation.'
(118) Review of PP technology remedy
'The parties reserve their rights under Community law to request the Commission to review the whole or any specific undertakings relating to PP technology set out above, [. . .].'
(119) Implementation of undertakings
'These undertakings will take effect from the date of the Commission's decision under Article 8 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89.'
(ii) Assessment of the undertakings
(120) These undertakings have been taken into account by the Commission in its assessment of the effects of the proposed concentration. As explained above, were the operation to be implemented as notified, both leading PP technologies, Unipol and Spheripol would fall within the decisive influence of a single decision centre, namely Shell. However, the implementation of the parties' commitment relating to PP technology will change this anti-competitive situation. Montedison's world-wide PP technology business will be transferred to a separate company, Technipol, which will be structurally and financially independent of Sophia and Shell. Technipol will be endowed with all the necessary assets and characteristics enabling it to operate as an on-going, viable and competitive business. Montedison's PP process and catalyst technology, whether already developed or in the process of development, will be transferred to Technipol. Technipol will be responsible for the licensing, updating and further development of such technology. Any relationship between Technipol and Sophia will be on an arm's length basis and on terms equivalent to those offered to third parties. In particular, Technipol will be expected to undertake its own research efforts in the area of PP process and catalyst technology thus securing its future as an active licensor.
(121) As described above, the Commision considers that the PP technology commitment offered by the parties will have the result that the business of one of the two leading PP technologies will fall outside the field of influence of Shell and will be able to remain an independent and viable competitor on the market. In order to ensure effective implementation of this commitment, the Commission considers it essential to be kept informed by the parties of progress made in this respect on the basis of quarterly reports prior to the establishment of Technipol and annual reports for the succeeding three years. The nature of these reports is described below.
The first quarterly report on the implementation of the PP technology commitment shall be submitted within four months of the date of this Decision. The report shall describe inter alia the detailed steps taken to establish the Technipol company, the expected financial resources of the company, its envisaged tangible and intangible assets and the likely staff resources divided into R& D, scientific and other staff. Letters or documentation sent to existing licensees describing the establishment of Technipol and correspondence relating to the endeavours taken to encourage licensees to transfer existing licence contracts to Technipol shall be appended to the report.
The second quarterly report shall be submitted after the establishment of Technipol and within seven months of the date of this Decision. This report shall take the same form as the first quarterly report except it shall relate to definitive financial resources, assets and staff, etc. In particular, details shall be provided of licence contracts transferred, not transferred (stating the reason therefor) and those pending. The expected financial income accruing to these contracts shall be identified. The financial remuneration provided to Sophia for transferred contracts shall be specified. A copy of the company's opening balance sheet and business plan shall be appended.
For the next three years, an annual report on Technipol shall be submitted within three months of the end of each financial year. These reports shall include:
- a copy of the annual accounts including balance sheets and profit and loss account for the year in question,
- separate identification of licensing revenue for contracts transferred and new contracts gained since establishment,
- details of other income including research sponsored by third parties,
- R& D expenditure and facilities,
- intellectual property rights,
- employee numbers subdivided into R& D, scientific and other staff,
- catalyst sales in volume and value terms,
- a summary of the company's commercial and scientific activities during the year.
Finally, the Commission has taken note of the parties' statement regarding the review of the technology remedy (point 3 of the parties' commitment) and confirms its willingness to undertake such review in accordance with Community competition law.
(122) The parties' PP technology commitment also has considerable relevance for the assessment of Sophia's position on the PP production market, where the Commission identified potential competition problems arising from Sophia's size, joint-venture links and especially its dominance on the PP technology market. The PP technology remedy along with the parties' commitment regarding Montefina, which will enable Montefina effectively to compete with Sophia, will have the result that the Commission's concerns in relation to the PP production market will also be resolved.
VI. FINAL CONCLUSION (123) For the reasons outlined above, the Commission considers that the proposed concentration, as subsequently amended by the inclusion of the commitments offered by the parties, would not lead to the creation or reinforcement of a dominant position on the markets for PP technology and PP production and sale, as a result of which effective competition would be significantly impeded in the common market within the meaning of Article 2 (3) of the Merger Regulation. The concentration can therefore be declared compatible with the common market subject to full compliance with conditions and obligations within the meaning of Article 8 (2) of the Merger Regulation.
(124) This Decision is without prejudice to the application of the general Community competition rules to pre-existing joint ventures and pre-existing contractual arrangements between the parties to the proposed concentration and third parties, in particular with respect to the implementation of the parties' commitments relating to the future of the Montefina joint venture,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
Subject to the conditions and obligations contained in the parties' commitments vis-à-vis the Commission set out in recital 116 of this Decision, the notified concentration between Shell and Montedison is declared compatible with the common market.
Article 2
The parties are required to keep the Commission informed of the implementation of the commitments set out in recital 116 of this Decision on the basis of the quarterly and annual reports described in recital 121 of this Decision.
Article 3
This Decision is addressed to:
Shell Petroleum NV,
30 Carel van Bylandtlaan,
NL - The Hague,
and
Montedison Nederland NV,
c/o Montecatini SpA,
Foro Buonaparte 31,
I-20121 Milano.
Done at Brussels, 8 June 1994. | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2541/2001
of 21 December 2001
amending Regulation (EC) No 2125/95 opening and providing for the administration of tariff quotas for preserved mushrooms, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1921/95 laying down detailed rules for the application of the system of import licences for products processed from fruit and vegetables
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organisation of the markets in processed fruit and vegetable products(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1239/2001(2), and in particular Article 11(2) and Article 15(1) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1921/95(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 308/2001(4), laid down detailed rules for the application of the system of import licences for products processed from fruit and vegetables and set out a list of products covered by that system. The aim of the system is to allow the Commission to ensure continuous monitoring of imports of the products in question in order to facilitate the adoption of appropriate measures in the event of disturbance or threatened disturbance of the Community market. This objective may be attained in a way that is less restrictive for importers by carrying out surveillance in accordance with Article 308d of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code(5), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 993/2001(6). Regulation (EC) No 1921/95 should therefore be repealed.
(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2125/95 of 6 September 1995 opening and providing for the administration of tariff quotas for preserved mushrooms(7), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2858/2000(8), refers to a number of provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1921/95. Such reference should therefore, subject to specific provisions to be specified, be replaced by reference to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1291/2000 of 9 June 2000 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of import and export licences and advance fixing certificates for agricultural products(9), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2299/2001(10).
(3) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Products Processed from Fruit and Vegetables,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Regulation (EC) No 2125/95 is hereby amended as follows:
1. Article 3 is replaced by the following:
"Article 3
1. Commission Regulation (EC) No 1291/2000(11) shall apply to the system introduced by this Regulation, subject to the special provisions thereof.
2. Import licences shall be valid for a period of nine months from the effective date of issue within the meaning of Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1291/2000, but shall not be valid after 31 December of the year concerned.
3. The amount of the security referred to in Article 15(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1291/2000 shall be EUR 24 per tonne net.
4. The country of origin shall be entered in box 8 of both the licence application and the import licence and the word 'yes' shall be marked with a cross. The import licence shall be valid only for imports originating in the country indicated."
2. Article 4(4) is replaced by the following:
"4. Notwithstanding Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1291/2000, the rights arising from import certificates shall not be transferable."
3. Article 6(1) is replaced by the following:
"1. Member States shall notify the Commission of the quantities for which import licence applications have been submitted, as follows:
- each Wednesday in the case of applications made on Monday and Tuesday,
- each Friday in the case of applications made on Wednesday and Thursday,
- each Monday in the case of applications made on Friday of the previous week.
These notifications shall be broken down by product, according to the combined nomenclature, and giving separate figures for the quantities applied for pursuant to Article 4(1)(a) and (b) respectively."
4. Article 9 is replaced by:
"Article 9
1. Article 35(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1291/2000 shall apply.
2. In the case of quantities imported within the tolerance referred to in Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1291/2000 the import duty provided for in the Common Customs Tariff (CCT) shall be levied in full."
Article 2
1. Regulation (EC) No 1921/95 is hereby repealed.
2. At the request of parties concerned, import licences issued under Regulation (EC) No 1921/95 shall be cancelled in respect of quantities unused on the date of entry into force of this Regulation. In such cases the security shall be released.
Article 3
This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 21 December 2001. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 292/2006
of 17 February 2006
opening an invitation to tender for the allocation of A3 export licences for fruit and vegetables (tomatoes, oranges, lemons and apples)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables (1), and in particular the third subparagraph of Article 35(3) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1961/2001 (2) lays down the detailed rules of application for export refunds on fruit and vegetables.
(2)
Article 35(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 provides that, to the extent necessary for economically significant exports, the products exported by the Community may be covered by export refunds, within the limits resulting from agreements concluded in accordance with Article 300 of the Treaty.
(3)
Pursuant to Article 35(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2200/96, care must be taken to ensure that the trade flows previously brought about by the refund scheme are not disrupted. For this reason and because exports of fruit and vegetables are seasonal in nature, the quantities scheduled for each product should be fixed, based on the agricultural product nomenclature for export refunds established by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3846/87 (3). These quantities must be allocated taking account of the perishability of the products concerned.
(4)
Article 35(4) of Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 provides that refunds must be fixed in the light of the existing situation and outlook for fruit and vegetable prices on the Community market and supplies available, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, prices on the international market. Account must also be taken of the transport and marketing costs and of the economic aspect of the exports planned.
(5)
In accordance with Article 35(5) of Regulation (EC) No 2200/96, prices on the Community market are to be established in the light of the most favourable prices from the export standpoint.
(6)
The international trade situation or the special requirements of certain markets may call for the refund on a given product to vary according to its destination.
(7)
Tomatoes, oranges, lemons and apples of classes Extra, I and II of the common quality standards can currently be exported in economically significant quantities.
(8)
In order to ensure the best use of available resources and in view of the structure of Community exports, it is appropriate to proceed by an open invitation to tender and to set the indicative refund amount and the scheduled quantities for the period concerned.
(9)
The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Fresh Fruit and Vegetables,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
1. An invitation to tender for the allocation of A3 export licences is hereby opened. The products concerned, the tender submission period, the indicative refund rates and the scheduled quantities are laid down in the Annex hereto.
2. The licences issued in respect of food aid as referred to in Article 16 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1291/2000 (4) shall not count against the eligible quantities in the Annex hereto.
3. Notwithstanding Article 5(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1961/2001, the term of validity of the A3 licences shall be two months.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 March 2006.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 17 February 2006. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
*****
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 783/84
of 27 March 1984
opening a standing invitation to tender for the export of 25 000 tonnes of common wheat not intended for human consumption and held by the British intervention agency and amending Regulation (EEC) No 1687/76
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN
COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2727/75 of 29 October 1975 on the common organization of the market in cereals (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1451/82 (2), and in particular Articles 7 (5) and 8 (4) thereof,
Having regard to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1836/82 of 7 July 1982 laying down the procedure and conditions for the disposal of cereals held by intervention agencies (3), and in particular Article 7 thereof,
Whereas Article 3 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2738/75 of 29 October 1975 fixing the general rules for intervention on the market in cereals (4) lays down that cereals held by the intervention agency shall be disposed of by invitation to tender;
Whereas fodder in the form of common wheat not intended for human consumption, is in demand on the international market; whereas, in the light of the market situation, specific management measures should be taken to meet the said demand;
Whereas, in view of the variety of treated products available, various methods should be proposed; whereas, in order to facilitate control, the treating operations should be carried out by the intervention agency before any of the wheat is released;
Whereas specific endorsements must be made in the export documents by means of which the whereabouts of the wheat can be monitored;
Whereas moreover, for the purposes of control, the provisions of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1687/76 of 30 June 1976 laying down common detailed rules for verifying the use and/or destination of products from intervention (5), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 2794/83 (6), shall apply; whereas the Annex to the said Regulation defines the special endorsements to be entered in the control copy; whereas the said Annex should be amended to include the endorsements to be entered in the control copy in the event where a specific destination for the cereals from intervention has been decided on;
Whereas the Management Committee for Cereals has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its chairman,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The British intervention agency may, on the conditions laid down in Regulation (EEC) No 1836/82, open a standing invitation to tender for the export of 25 000 tonnes of common wheat not intended for human consumption held by it.
Article 2
1. The invitation to tender shall cover a maximum of 25 000 tonnes of common wheat not intended for human consumption to be exported to all third countries.
2. The regions in which the 25 000 tonnes of common wheat not intended for human consumption are stored are listed in Annex I hereto.
3. The British intervention agency shall carry out the treatment of the common wheat held by it by one of the reference methods defined in Annex II to this Regulation before any of the common wheat is released.
In accordance with the provisions of the second subparagraph of Article 7 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1836/82, transport may be undertaken by the intervention agency for the purpose of delivering the goods to the operator at the port of exit.
4. The cost of treatment shall be borne by the intervention agency.
Article 3
The provisions of Article 13 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1836/82 shall not apply. The amount of the security provided for in Article 8 (2) (c) shall be the difference between the buying-in price plus 1 % and the offer price.
Article 4
1. The export licences shall be valid from their date of issue, within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation (EEC) No 1836/82, until the end of the second month following. Section 12 of both the applications for licences and the licences themselves shall bear the following endorsement:
'common wheat from intervention not intended for human consumption sold pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 783/84'.
2. Notwithstanding the terms of Article 9 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3183/80 (1), rights deriving from the licences referred to in paragraph 1 shall not be transferable.
Article 5
1. The time limit for submission of tenders under the first partial invitation to tender shall expire on 11 April 1984 at 1 p.m. (Brussels time).
2. The time limit for submission of tenders under the last partial invitation to tender shall expire on 30 May 1984 at 1 p.m. (Brussels time).
3. The tenders shall be lodged with the British intervention agency.
Article 6
The British intervention agency shall notify the Commission of the tenders received not later than two hours after expiry of the time limit for the submission thereof.
They shall be forwarded in accordance with the provisions of Annex III.
Article 7
Regulation (EEC) No 1687/76 is hereby amended as follows:
The following point and related footnote shall be added to the Annex, Section I 'Products to be exported in the same state as that in which they were when removed from intervention stock'.
'12. Commission Regulation (EEC) No 783/84 of 27 March 1984 opening a standing invitation to tender for the export of 25 000 tonnes of common wheat not intended for human consumption held by the British intervention agency (12).
(12) OJ No L 85, 28. 3. 1984, p. 26.'
Article 8
This Regulation shall enter into force on 28 March 1984.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 27 March 1984. | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
COUNCIL DECISION
of 20 December 2007
on the conclusion of an Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Community and New Zealand pursuant to Article XXVIII of the GATT 1994 relating to the modification of the WTO tariff quota for New Zealand butter provided for in EC Schedule CXL annexed to the GATT 1994
(2007/867/EC)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 133 thereof, in conjunction with the first sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 300(2) thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,
Whereas:
(1)
On 14 May 2007, the Council authorised the Commission to open negotiations under Article XXVIII of the GATT 1994 with a view to modifying the WTO tariff quota for New Zealand butter. Accordingly, the European Community notified the WTO on 3 August 2007 of its intention to modify the WTO tariff quota for New Zealand butter in EC Schedule CXL.
(2)
Negotiations have been conducted by the Commission in consultation with the Committee established by Article 133 of the Treaty and within the framework of the negotiating directives issued by the Council.
(3)
The Commission has successfully negotiated an agreement with New Zealand. The Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Community and New Zealand should therefore be approved,
HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Article 1
The Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Community and New Zealand pursuant to Article XXVIII of the GATT 1994 relating to the modification of the WTO tariff quota for New Zealand butter provided for in EC Schedule CXL annexed to the GATT 1994 is hereby approved on behalf of the Community.
The text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.
Article 2
The President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Agreement in order to bind the Community.
Article 3
This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Done at Brussels, 20 December 2007. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
COMMISSION DECISION
of 8 July 2009
on the groepsrentebox scheme which the Netherlands is planning to implement (C 4/07 (ex N 465/06))
(notified under document C(2009) 4511)
(Only the Dutch text is authentic)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2009/809/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 88(2) thereof,
Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,
Having called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to those provisions (1) and having regard to their comments,
Whereas:
I. PROCEDURE
(1)
By letter dated 13 July 2006, the Dutch authorities notified the groepsrentebox‘group interest box’ scheme, which provides for lower taxation and deductability of interest received or paid in the context of intra-group relations. The notification was made by the Dutch authorities only for the sake of legal certainty since they consider the scheme to be a general measure. Further information was provided by letters dated 5 September 2006 and 9 November 2006.
(2)
By letter dated 7 February 2007, the Commission informed the Netherlands that it had decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty in respect of the part of the aid scheme related to lower taxation and deductibility of intra-group interest (measure A).
(3)
In the same letter, the Commission also informed the Netherlands that it considered that the lower taxation on short-term deposits aimed at acquiring at least 5 % of a company (measure B) did not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
(4)
The Commission’s decision to initiate the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). The Commission called on interested parties to submit their comments.
(5)
The Dutch authorities provided their comments on the opening decision by letter dated 7 May 2007.
(6)
The Commission received comments from interested parties. It forwarded them to the Dutch authorities, who were given the opportunity to react; their comments were received by letter dated 29 June 2007.
(7)
Additional information was received from the Dutch authorities by letters dated 8 November 2007 and 29 January 2008.
(8)
On 7 October 2008, the Dutch authorities provided a legal opinion from Ms Leigh Hancher, professor of European Law at the University of Tilburg, on the question whether the notified measure involved State aid.
(9)
By letter dated 18 December 2008, the Dutch authorities informed the Commission that they had decided to amend the tax scheme.
II. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURE
II.1. Purpose
(10)
According to the Dutch authorities, the measure aims at reducing the difference in tax treatment between two instruments of intra-group financing, i.e. equity and debt.
(11)
In the current situation, when a company which is part of a group injects capital into another company which is part of the same group, it receives as remuneration dividends which are tax exempted by virtue of rules exempting shareholdings, whereas, when it lends money to a company which is part of the same group, the interest received is taxed at the standard corporate tax rate (25,5 %). At the level of the company which receives the funds, dividends paid on a capital injection are not deductible, whereas interest paid on a loan is deductible at the standard corporate tax rate.
(12)
The Netherlands points out that the choice of an organisational structure of legally independent organisations is usually prompted by company-law or economic reasons. The differences in civil law between equity and debt (liability, terms of repayment, security, voting rights, etc.) are largely irrelevant to group financing, whereas the tax consequences are significantly different. Within groups, financing conditions are chosen to achieve the lowest tax burden under the applicable tax system. As a result, the decision to provide loan capital or equity capital within groups is guided primarily by tax considerations.
(13)
In the legal opinion, Prof. Hancher underlines that the impact of the difference in the tax treatment of debt and equity at the corporate level, and the possible solutions to the adverse consequences this may have, are high on the policy agenda in many OECD countries. According to Prof. Hancher, calls for a fundamental reform of the Dutch corporation tax and for a neutral treatment of debt and equity financing within groups of companies have been repeatedly made in the Dutch tax literature.
(14)
The Dutch authorities emphasise that the differences in terms of tax treatment create forms of arbitrage between these two means of intra-group financing which are not economically desirable. Within a group the choice between additional equity financing or (additional) debt financing is arbitrary, but the tax consequences of the two types of financing are different. This can lead to arbitrage which distorts the neutrality of the tax system. The measure therefore seeks to prevent arbitrage between debt and equity financing and to increase the neutrality of the Dutch tax system.
(15)
The introduction of the group interest box will help to ensure that the financing method used in a group context is determined primarily by economic considerations. It brings the tax treatment of intra-group interest much more closely into line with the tax treatment of intra-group dividends, and therefore makes for greater neutrality between intra-group debt and intra-group equity financing.
(16)
The arbitrage problem does not arise in the case of financing outside a group context. Here the different consequences arising in civil law are indeed important, so that this form of arbitrage does not occur. Given the inherent differences between the situations within groups and outside groups, tax neutrality for financing transactions outside groups is not a requirement. In the nature of things, therefore, the measure is limited to group loans.
(17)
The Dutch authorities also point out that in recent times Dutch enterprises have been deducting more and more inordinate amounts of interest. The different tax treatment of group loans and equity is more and more being exploited by enterprises at the expense of the Treasury.
(18)
The measure is designed to counter this erosion of tax revenues by encouraging companies to use equity instead of loans, and to limit the deduction of interest in the Netherlands. The scheme is thus complementary to the Dutch thin capitalisation rules that have a similar objective, in that it discourages excessive financing with loan capital and prevents artificial reduction of the tax base in the Netherlands.
(19)
In the Dutch authorities’ opinion, the notified scheme constitutes a measure of a purely technical nature.
II.2. Legal basis
(20)
The legal basis of the measure is Article 12c of the 1969 Corporation Tax Act (Wet op de vennootschapsbelasting 1969). This provision was introduced with effect from 1 January 2007, but its entry into force has been postponed until the Commission has taken a position on compatibility with the State aid rules.
II.3. How the measure will work
(21)
In the Netherlands, corporation tax generally applies to company revenues at a rate of 25,5 % (3). The group interest box measure provides for different tax treatment for certain intra-group interest. Interest paid and received in the context of intra-group financing will not be subject to the standard corporate tax rate of 25,5 %. The positive balance between interest received and paid in the context of intra-group financing transactions will be taxed in a ‘group interest box’ at the rate of 5 %, instead of the 25,5 % standard corporate tax rate. If the balance of interest received and paid is negative it will be deductible, but at the reduced rate of 5 %, instead of the 25,5 % standard rate.
(22)
The amount that can be taxed or deducted at the reduced rate is limited to a percentage of the taxpayer’s net assets for tax purposes (fiscale vermogen). This limitation aims to prevent undercapitalised undertakings from abusing the measure and ensures that the reduced rate applies only where the yield on group loans has been financed with equity capital.
(23)
The interest box measure has several other anti-misuse provisions. In particular, interest formally due to a third party (a bank), but actually paid to a group organisation, is deemed to be intra-group interest paid. This applies, for example, in the case of a back-to-back construction (4). Interest that is due to a third party (a bank) is also deemed to be intra-group interest with limited deductibility, if the resources obtained by means of the loan are injected into the capital of used in a subsidiary so as to generate low-tax intra-group interest in the subsidiary.
(24)
In their initial notification, the Dutch authorities indicated that the scheme would be optional for a period of minimum three years. If chosen by one company belonging to a group, the scheme would apply to all the other companies of the group located in the Netherlands. Eligible companies, as defined in the initial interest box scheme, are those that belong to the one group, as specifically defined in the scheme itself, which requires one company to hold more than 50 % in another company. In other words, a group must be composed of at least two companies, the parent company controlling more than 50 % of the shares of the subsidiary. Each company must be subject to corporate tax in the Netherlands. This means that the scheme applies to any company established in the Netherlands or any company established outside the Netherlands with a permanent establishment in the Netherlands.
II.4. Amendments to the scheme
(25)
In the course of the proceedings, the Dutch authorities made it clear that they intended to make the scheme compulsory. This was confirmed by letter dated 18 December 2008. The group interest box would now apply to all entities subject to corporation tax in the Netherlands with respect to interest paid to group companies and interest received from group companies.
(26)
In that letter, the Dutch authorities also informed the Commission of two additional amendments to the scheme. The first amendment concerns a broader definition of a group for the purpose of the interest box scheme. The definition of related entities is amended to cover all arrangements whereby one entity has, directly or indirectly, effective control over the financing of the other entity, or whereby a third individual or entity has effective control over the financing of the two entities involved in the loan arrangement (5). The second amendment inserts a provision which would make it easier to step up a (second) company under Dutch civil law, so that the resulting group could benefit from the group interest box scheme. In particular, the current statutory minimum capital of EUR 18 000 for a limited liability company (besloten vennootschap - BV) would be abolished.
II.5. Budget
(27)
According to the initial notification, the annual budget of the notified measure was to amount to EUR 475 million. At a later stage, the Dutch authorities indicated that the compulsory interest box would be neutral from a budgetary point of view.
III. GROUNDS FOR INITIATING THE PROCEDURE
(28)
In its opening decision of 7 February 2007, the Commission expressed its doubts regarding the general nature of the measure. It stressed that only companies that were part of a group would take advantage of the lower taxation provided for by the scheme (de jure selectivity), and suspected that the scheme would benefit multinational groups, giving those groups a selective economic advantage (de facto selectivity).
(29)
The Commission indicated that in a purely national context, the measure would be likely to be neutral from a tax point of view. In the context of cross-border transactions, however, a Dutch company lending money to an affiliate established abroad would be subject to lower taxation at the rate of 5 %, while the affiliate abroad would not be subject to the Dutch rules limiting the deductibility of interest paid. The scheme would provide a de facto selective advantage, as only multinational groups of companies engaging in cross-border intra-group interest transactions in tax jurisdictions with a corporation tax rate superior to 5 % would have an incentive to use the scheme.
(30)
In so far as the measure was meant to constitute an exception to the application of the tax system, the Commission also doubted whether it was justified by the nature or general scheme of the tax system.
(31)
The Commission also considered that it could not be ruled out that the main beneficiaries of the scheme might be the former beneficiaries of the international financing activities scheme, which had been held to constitute incompatible State aid (6).
(32)
The Commission therefore took the view that the interest box scheme could be regarded as constituting aid in the sense of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty, and that none of the exemptions laid down in Article 87(2) and (3) applied.
IV. COMMENTS FROM THE NETHERLANDS
(33)
The comments from the Netherlands on the opening decision were received on 7 May 2007 and were supplemented by additional notes in 2007 and 2008, including a legal opinion delivered by Prof. Hancher.
(34)
The Dutch authorities submit that the approach taken by the Commission in its decision is incorrect on three points. Firstly, the Commission merges the separate ‘advantage’ and ‘selectivity’ criteria into one criterion, i.e. ‘selective advantage’. This is not consistent with normal Commission practice or with the case-law, which prescribe that the two must be applied separately.
(35)
Secondly, the Commission fails to assess the components of the group interest box separately. The possible aid component in a reduced rate for intra-group interest received and the possible aid component in a reduced rate for intra-group interest paid must be assessed separately.
(36)
Thirdly, the Commission is wrong when it looks at the net effect on the payer and recipient together, and concludes that the net effect is probably neutral for national groups when both the payer and the recipient are established in the Netherlands, while a net advantage arises for multinational groups when the payer is a foreign group company and the recipient is a domestic one. According to the Dutch authorities an equation of this nature has no foundation in Dutch tax law. Dutch companies belonging to a group are consolidated for tax purposes only in the case of share ownership of 95 % or more.
(37)
Furthermore, the Dutch authorities are of the opinion that the group interest box cannot be regarded as a deviation from the standard method of taxation. It is an adjustment in which an analytical element is added to the tax system. This results in a new standard taxation method and, consequently, no advantage is conferred.
(38)
The Dutch authorities deny that there is any advantage for another reason too. The net variation caused by the group interest box to multinational groups by comparison with national groups can be to the advantage of the multinationals, but also to their disadvantage. A multinational with a Dutch affiliate may incur an advantage or a disadvantage depending on its objective position as debtor or creditor and the tax rates applicable in other Member States and in the Netherlands.
(39)
Alternatively, if there is indeed an advantage, the Netherlands is of the opinion that the possible net advantage to multinational groups is the result not of a lower Dutch rate for intra-group interest received, but of unlimited deduction for intra-group interest paid abroad. This advantage is not imputable to the Dutch State and is not financed with Dutch State resources.
(40)
A possibly more advantageous net effect for multinational groups in comparison with national groups is not the consequence of the selective scope of the Dutch group interest box, but of a disparity resulting from different rules on the deductibility of group interest within the EU. The Netherlands is free to increase or decrease this difference by amending its tax system, as long as the amendments are generally applicable to all Dutch taxpayers who in the light of the objective pursued by the amendment in question are in a comparable legal and factual situation.
(41)
According to the Dutch authorities, the overall effect of tax amendments on multinational groups engaging in cross-border transactions will always be different from the effect on domestic groups conducting only domestic transactions. For purposes of State aid, this is of relevance only if the differences are caused by the measure of the Member State itself, e.g. where there is a lower tax rate only for foreign group interest income. It is not relevant in the case of a general measure applicable to all group interest income, domestic and foreign, which leads to cross-border differences.
(42)
The mere co-existence of non-harmonised tax systems can result in a situation where the net tax implications of cross-border transactions differ from the net effect of purely domestic transactions. This effect can be both disadvantageous (economic double taxation) and advantageous (economic non-taxation).
(43)
In the EC Treaty, Articles 94 and 95 offer a basis for directives or regulations aligning the existing arrangements if that is necessary for the establishment or the proper operation of the common market. Furthermore, Article 96 offers the Commission the opportunity to take action if a difference between the legislation in force in different Member States seriously distorts competition conditions in the common market.
(44)
In the further second alternative, the Dutch authorities are of the opinion that there is no selectivity. By assessing selectivity via a comparison of the foreign debtor and domestic creditor combination with the domestic debtor and domestic creditor combination, the Commission is choosing an incorrect reference framework. When assessing the selectivity of Dutch tax arrangements, the reference framework cannot extend beyond all Dutch taxpayers. In settled Commission practice, the reference framework cannot include companies that are not subject to tax in the Netherlands.
(45)
The Dutch authorities stress that the tax scheme is not restricted to certain undertakings, or certain activities or functions, or particular regions. In the scheme there is no distinction between resident and non-resident groups of companies. For qualification for the interest box, no eligibility thresholds linked to particular activities or functions apply.
(46)
In addition, in the light of the objective of the group interest box, only undertakings that form part of a group are in a comparable legal and factual situation. Only these undertakings would have the arbitrage problem described in section II.1.
(47)
The Netherlands points out that, within groups, financing decisions are designed to minimise the tax burden under the applicable tax system. The commercial distinction between equity and debt financing (terms of repayment, liability, security), as opposed to the tax distinction is largely irrelevant. Outside groups, the commercial differences between equity and debt financing are very relevant indeed, and may well overrule tax-driven motives.
(48)
The Dutch authorities insist that measures limited to groups are tax measures of a purely technical nature not constituting State aid: in a decision on a French taxation provision, they say, the Commission accepted that a measure which set aside the general rule that interest payments were deductible expenditure in inter-company loans was a general measure, but considered a further exception to that rule in favour of central corporate treasuries set up in France by multinational companies to be a selective advantage (7).
(49)
The Dutch authorities contend that broadening the scope for the group interest box would actually lead to selectivity. If interest received from third parties were also to be taxed at a reduced rate, this would result in an advantage to financial institutions.
(50)
It is also submitted that the assumption that specific tax rules for interest by themselves involve selectivity is incorrect. Financing within a group of organisations cannot be characterised as an economic activity, but simply an economic reality. Interest flows as such are not a separate economic activity or a line of business; they serve only to fund an economic activity or a line of business. Debt financing is a distinct activity in itself only in the case of financial institutions whose business consists of financing third parties. In addition, with respect to interest earned on short-term deposits aimed at acquiring at least 5 % of the shares of a company (measure B), the Commission itself considered in the opening decision that a lower tax rate for such interest did not by itself cause selectivity, since it was considered to be a general measure.
(51)
Furthermore, the Dutch authorities argue that there is no conceptual difference between dividends and interest. Both constitute compensation for using or granting funds, either equity or debt. In both situations, these funds are used by the recipient to finance business activities. Every tax system contain rules under which dividends and interest paid are deductible, or partly deductible, or not deductible, and rules under which dividends and interest are taxable, partly taxable or exempt. There is no international tax standard which determines how these components should be treated for tax purposes.
(52)
In the further alternative, limited taxation prevents an internal disparity within the Dutch system and, as such, is justified by the nature and purpose of the system. Limited taxation of interest received within a group is justified by the limited deduction of interest payments within the group. This allows undertakings organised as a group to avoid suffering the disadvantage of limited deduction and full taxation, while undertakings organised as a single entity have no internal interest payments, and therefore do not suffer any such disadvantage.
(53)
A fundamental principle of Dutch tax law is that income and expenses are treated symmetrically. Under the internal logic of the Dutch tax system, income and expenses are two sides of the same coin. To avoid double taxation, limited taxation is the logical consequence of limited deduction.
(54)
The proposed measure aims at ensuring the application of the neutrality principle in the Dutch tax system by eliminating arbitrage between debt and equity financing within groups. The measure reduces the difference between two types of intra-group financing, thereby enhancing the neutrality of the tax system. The limitation to group interest is therefore based on an economic rationale and is necessary and functional for the effectiveness of the tax system.
(55)
The Dutch authorities point out that the circle of undertakings that will utilise the group interest box will be much broader than the 87 undertakings that utilised the former international financing activities scheme. They further argue that the limiting conditions of that scheme, such as the two-continents or four-country requirement, are all absent from the group interest box. The interest box is a purely tax measure, which regulates tax pressure on capital as a factor of production. In addition, it applies to any incoming or outgoing group loan, and is completely separate from the business carried on the company in question. For all these reasons, the scope of the measure is completely impossible to compare with the scope of the international financing authorities scheme.
(56)
The compulsory nature of the measure for all taxpayers paying or receiving interest from affiliate companies underlines the objective of the interest box: enhancing the neutrality of the tax system, thereby reducing arbitrage and increasing Dutch corporation tax revenues. It also eliminates the element that might cause a selective benefit as a result of the interest box.
(57)
A compulsory interest box not only rewards the retention of capital in the Netherlands but at the same time provides a disincentive - similar to thin capitalisation rules - to the inflow of debt financing into the Netherlands. The Dutch thin capitalisation rules discourage an excess of loan capital financing within groups by limiting the deductibility of intra-group interest, while the group interest box offers a reduced rate for intra-group interest received, provided that it is financed by equity capital. The group interest box strengthens the Dutch tax base by encouraging a higher ratio of equity capital to loan capital, and contributes to preventing the outflow of equity capital, and thus of the tax base, from the Netherlands.
(58)
The interest box is a purely technical measure that changes the system’s treatment of intra-group interest by increasing the tax burden on certain taxpayers and reducing the tax burden on other taxpayers, on the basis of horizontal and objective facts and circumstances. Once the possibility of opting out is removed, the interest box does not confer any economic advantage, as it merely shifts the tax burden between taxpayers on purely horizontal and objective criteria.
(59)
The Dutch authorities underline that de facto selectivity can arise only if there is a risk that, although the measure is general in nature, the effect in practice would be that it would always benefit an identifiable group. This type of selectivity might arise if the measure was optional, but not if the measure is made compulsory. Taxpayers that suffer a disadvantage in one year may enjoy an advantage in the next, and vice versa. The scheme therefore does not benefit a homogeneous category of taxpayers.
(60)
The Dutch authorities are also of the opinion that the new definition of group based on effective control is better aligned with the purpose of the scheme. If one company has effective control over the financing of another company, the latter company is no longer free to choose between financing via internal or external debt, nor is it free to choose between financing via debt or equity. The central management of the group decides how externally attracted funds - either external debt or external equity - are to be allocated within the group, either by internal debt or by internal equity. The fact that the tax consequences of the two instruments of intra-group financing are different provides an incentive to choose a particular instrument solely because of its tax implications.
(61)
Finally, the change in the law on limited liability companies will make it easy in future for a taxpayer to reorganise its legal structure in the form of a group, as the administrative burden and the capital requirements will be abolished or drastically alleviated.
V. COMMENTS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES
(62)
Comments were received from the Dutch confederation of industry VNO-NCW (8), from Belgium and Hungary. Comments from another party were received after the deadline and therefore could not be taken into account in the proceedings. The comments received from the third party in question would not in any event have affected the assessment and conclusions in this Decision.
V.1. Comments from the Dutch Confederation of Industry
(63)
The VNO-NCW considers that the scheme at issue cannot be an incompatible State aid in the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty for the following reasons.
(64)
Firstly, the VNO-NCW considers the group interest box to be a general, tax-neutral and technical measure, because the objective of the scheme is to reduce tax arbitrage between equity financing and debt financing within a group of companies. Given the neutrality of the measure, the scheme does not result in favourable treatment of certain companies or production of certain goods within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
(65)
Secondly, the tax advantage to a multinational group of companies results from the disparities between Member States′ tax treatment of intra-group interest, and cannot be ascribed to the Netherlands. A tax advantage is created because the interest can be deducted in another Member State at a tax rate higher than the one applicable to the interest box, whereas in a domestic situation the rate that applies is the group interest box rate, but this is a direct result of the disparities between the Member States′ legal rules on the tax treatment of group interest. Should the Commission wish to abolish distortions that might result from the group interest box, the VNO-NCW suggests it use Article 94 or 96 of the EC Treaty.
(66)
Thirdly, the VNO-NCW considers that, in the light of the objective of the scheme at issue, which is to reduce tax arbitrage between equity and debt, companies belonging to a group are not in the same de jure and de facto situation as are companies not belonging to groups. The difference in tax treatment of equity and debt causes distortions particularly inside groups, since the parent company exercises some control over its subsidiaries, so that it can to a considerable extent determine their financing options, a choice often largely decided by tax considerations. In dealings with third parties the funding option is often determined largely by factors other than tax considerations. As a consequence, it cannot be said that the scheme at issue is selective within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty. In addition, according to the VNO-NCW, if the mere fact that a tax facility is to a greater or lesser extent confined to group companies prompts the conclusion that this is a State aid measure, Member States′ corporation tax systems will be at odds with Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty in many respects.
V.2. Comments from the Hungarian authorities
(67)
The Hungarian authorities consider that the scheme is not an aid measure, and put forward two arguments. Firstly, the fact that a scheme is confined to groups does not make it selective. In (international) taxation matters, rules for groups of companies are common practice and unavoidable. Many rules whose scope is limited to groups have been brought forward by the OECD (transfer pricing) and the Commission (e.g. the Interest and Royalty Directive). Secondly, Hungary recalls that direct taxation is a matter for Member States. Setting tax rates in relation to certain taxable events is within their domestic competence. Finally, Hungary finds it difficult to see how the Netherlands can be held responsible for the higher deduction generated by higher tax rates in other countries, in a situation where direct taxation has not been harmonised. The advantage described by the Commission is clearly a result of a disparity between tax systems.
V.3. Comments from the Belgian authorities
(68)
The Belgian authorities also support the view that the scheme is not State aid, and put forward arguments similar to those from other interested parties with regard to the absence of selectivity. Belgium underlines that it is logical that an undertaking that is not part of a group cannot by definition have intra-group financing activities. The Belgian authorities also argue that State aid rules are not applicable in situations where disparities between national tax systems exist due to the absence of harmonisation at EU level. As a consequence, the group interest scheme is a general measure not covered by the State aid rules, and in pursuing the case the Commission is using its powers improperly.
VI. REACTION FROM THE NETHERLANDS TO THIRD PARTIES′ COMMENTS
(69)
The Dutch authorities note that the comments of all three parties support its point of view. Both Hungary and Belgium emphasise that in attempting to tackle disturbances that are the consequence of disparities between tax systems that have not been harmonised the Commission is abusing its State aid powers. This reinforces the Dutch view that the group interest box does not constitute an aid measure prohibited by Article 87 of the EC Treaty.
(70)
The Netherlands underlines that it fully agrees with the analysis drawn up by VNO-NCW. It attaches particular importance to the detailed argument concerning the institutional framework, which clearly explains the various disturbances in the single market that can be caused by national measures taken by Member States and the instruments available under the EC Treaty to eliminate such disturbances where necessary.
(71)
Finally, the Dutch authorities support the confederation’s view that in order to establish whether there is selectivity, it must be ascertained whether certain undertakings or the production of certain goods are favoured over others that are de jure and de facto comparable in the light of the objective of the measure concerned. The restriction to group loans does not lead to selectivity, because the objective of the group interest box is to prevent arbitrage between financing from capital and financing from loans within groups. In financing between companies that are not connected in a group arbitrage plays no role whatsoever. The restriction to group loans is thus logical in the light of the scheme’s objective, so that the relevant frame of reference consists of all companies that are part of a group.
VII. ASSESSMENT OF THE SCHEME
(72)
In order to ascertain whether the measure at hand constitutes aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty, the Commission has to assess whether it favours certain undertakings or the production of certain goods by granting an advantage of an economic nature, whether any such advantage distorts or threatens to distort competition, whether the advantage is granted through state resources, and whether the advantage affects trade between Member States.
(73)
To be considered State aid, a measure must be specific or selective, in that it favours only certain undertakings or the production of certain goods.
(74)
The Dutch authorities argue that the measure at issue is not limited to certain sectors, certain types of companies, or certain parts of Dutch territory. There are no further restrictions regarding the turnover, the size, the number of employees, membership of a multinational group, or the nature of the operations that the beneficiaries are authorised to perform.
(75)
According to the applicable case-law, in order to determine whether a measure is selective, it is appropriate to examine whether, within the context of a particular legal system, that measure constitutes an advantage for certain undertakings in comparison with others which are in a comparable legal and factual situation (9). It may thus be that a taxation regime does not constitute State aid even though it does not correspond in all respects to the general system of corporate taxation of the Member State. The Court has also held on numerous occasions that Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty does not make a distinction according to the causes or aims of State aid measures, but defines them according to their effects (10). In particular, tax measures which do not represent an adaptation of the general system to meet particular characteristics of certain undertakings, but have been put forward as a means of improving their competitiveness, are caught by Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty (11).
(76)
The concept of State aid does not apply, however, to state support measures which differentiate between undertakings where that differentiation arises from the nature or the overall structure of the system of which they form part. As explained in the Commission’s notice on the application of the State aid rules to measures relating to direct business taxation (12) (the taxation notice), ‘some conditions may be justified by objective differences between taxpayers’.
(77)
Firstly, it should be clarified at which level (group level or undertaking level) the assessment is to be made. In the opening decision, the Commission indicated its preliminary view that this assessment should be made at group level, arguing that where the companies of a purely domestic group had opted for the group interest box, the advantage of a reduced taxation of the interest received by a Dutch financing company would be cancelled out by the lower deductibility of the interest paid by the Dutch-financed company (13).
(78)
The Dutch authorities consider that, because the measure is symmetric and would merely shift the tax burden between taxpayers, some companies will enjoy an advantage while others will suffer a disadvantage, depending on their objective position as debtor or creditor. Thus the group interest box does not involve aid.
(79)
As the Dutch authorities pointed out in their letter of 18 December 2008, where one company has effective control over the financing of another, the latter company is no longer free to make decisions about its financing, or to choose between financing by means of debt or equity. The group’s central management decides how externally attracted funds are to be allocated within the group, either by internal debt or by internal equity.
(80)
The Commission notes, however, that the measure relates to a specific operation (the financing of related companies), and not to a consolidation at group level. Any reduced tax rate will be applied individually to companies on the basis of the balance of their interest boxes. Even if financing decisions can be expected to be taken in the best interest of the group as a whole, an analysis at the level of the group has no foundation in Dutch tax law, as the Dutch authorities have pointed out. Under Dutch law, tax consolidation occurs only in the case of a share ownership of 95 % or more. In other words, Dutch corporation tax is levied on individual entities, not on groups. To that extent, the name given to the ‘group interest box’ does not properly reflect the fact that it applies to individual entities, engaged in specific financing operations. The measure does not concern a cost/revenue balance consolidated at group level.
(81)
Therefore, the Commission is of the opinion that the assessment of the scheme should be made at the level of individual companies. The scheme, as amended by the Dutch authorities, can be described as a reduced rate on a specific type of revenue (or cost) in the form of interest on a loan, when the transaction takes place between related companies (14).
(82)
Furthermore, the Commission considers that the symmetry of the measure and its neutral impact at the level of the group is not sufficient to exclude the possibility of an advantage to individual companies. Similarly, taxing the interest of one entity in the group at a lower rate cannot be justified by taxing another company - through reduced deductibility of interest - at a higher rate (15).
(83)
The Commission considers that, for the taxation of specific types of revenue, it may be important to determine whether a scheme covers broad categories of transactions in a non-discriminatory manner. Any discrimination that cannot be justified by objective differences between taxpayers may lead to a distortion of competition.
(84)
In this regard, it is worth noting that it is a typical feature of many tax systems that there are analytical elements to complement the synthetic nature of the tax system. This is particularly the case where specific types of revenue such as interest or dividends are subject to differentiated tax treatment.
(85)
This being said, it must be determined whether loan transactions between related companies may be objectively entitled to a reduced taxation rate. The Dutch authorities and the VNO-NCW have argued that it is only groups that there can be arbitrage between financing through capital injection and lending. In contrast to companies that are not part of a group (stand-alone companies), group companies are confronted with arbitrage between equity capital and loan capital within their group. Such an arbitrage is for the most part influenced by tax considerations rather than economic considerations.
(86)
The Commission is of the opinion that the measure at issue will have the effect of reducing this arbitrage (in a domestic situation), as the difference between the taxation of intra-group interests and the taxation of intra-group dividends will be reduced, thus reinforcing the technical neutrality of the tax system.
(87)
To illustrate this point, it is necessary to distinguish between three different types of situation (see figure 1 below) involving related companies and stand-alone companies (including financial institutions in their relations with independent third parties). Suppose that A-B-C is a corporate group, where A controls the financing of B and C; X is an entity that is not part of a group (‘stand-alone’ company), and Y is a credit institution, providing loans to independent parties.
Figure 1
(88)
The first situation is that of financial transactions between related companies. The parent company A provides liquidity to its subsidiaries B and C through either a loan or equity. These financial transactions will result in the payment (by B and C) of either interest or dividends.
(89)
The choice between loan and equity financing is made at the level of the parent company A in the best interest of the group of related companies as a whole. As a consequence, when the parent company A finances one of its subsidiaries (or affiliates), thee will indeed be an arbitrage between loan and equity on the basis of several criteria. While a need for liquidity in the long term or an investment will generally require a capital injection, short-term financial requirements will require only the provision of a (short-term) loan. However, tax considerations may influence these economic considerations.
(90)
By reducing the difference in the tax treatment of intra-group loan revenues (interest) and intra-group capital revenues (dividend), the measure will have the effect of narrowing the tax arbitrage between the two types of transaction in a domestic situation. The second type of transaction is that of a loan transaction between a financial institution (bank Y) and one of the companies belonging to a group (company B). Such a situation arises in principle when financial requirements cannot be satisfied by the provision of liquidity within the group. In such a situation, there is no arbitrage for Y, as a capital injection into B is not an alternative for Y, which is simply carrying on its business of granting credit to third parties. Nor is there any arbitrage between loan and equity at the level of B (or at group level).
(91)
Financial institutions (that grant loans to independent parties) may be distinguished from group companies (providing liquidity to their affiliates) for another reason also. In the case of financial institutions, revenues from such loan transactions are generated by the institutions’ regular business and may constitute a major part of their revenues. In the case of group companies, such revenues are recycled from transactions with independent market players and transformed into intra-group revenues, without generating any revenues at the level of the group. The interest paid by company B to the bank will constitute additional costs not only for company B but also for the group as a whole, while, in the first situation, the interest paid by company B (or C) to its parent will not constitute additional costs or revenues for the group.
(92)
In this respect, it is worth noting that financial institutions did not complain nor present any observations following the publication of the opening decision in the Official Journal of the European Union about the scope of the interest box scheme.
(93)
If we consider the situation from the debtor’s point of view (B vis-à-vis Y), the company may be more readily compared to a stand-alone company such as company X when it concludes a loan with bank Y.
(94)
The third situation is that of a loan transaction between a financial institution (bank Y) and a stand-alone company (X). As in the previous situation, Y is not confronted with any arbitrage, as a capital injection into B is not an alternative for Y.
(95)
Although, in some circumstances, the financial requirements of company X might be satisfied through the provision of a loan or capital injection from individual shareholders, this situation is not comparable with the first one, as the potential liquidity providers (natural persons) are not subject to corporate taxation. In addition, incorporating such transactions with private investors into the scope of the measure (by reducing the deductibility of interest paid by company X to its shareholders and by simultaneously reducing the taxation of such interest at the level of the individual shareholder) would be extremely difficult, as individual taxation does not follow the same logic as corporate taxation (16).
(96)
If, from a debtor’s perspective, company X’s financial requirements can be satisfied only by having recourse to borrowing from a financial institution, the resulting transaction with Y will be similar to the loan transaction between company B and Y.
(97)
Since stand-alone companies that are not credit or financial institutions are in principle not engaged in the regular business of granting loans to independent parties, they are not discriminated against with regard to loan transactions, as compared with related companies granting loans to affiliated companies.
(98)
Finally, the Netherlands have changed the definition of ‘group’ for the purpose of the interest box measure. The Dutch authorities argue that this change is the result of a refining of its approach to avoid tax arbitrage.
(99)
In the new proposal, entities will be related, entitling them to enter interest in the interest box, where one entity directly or indirectly has effective control over the financing of the other entity. The Commission considers this change important, since if one company has effective control over the financing of the other company, the latter is no longer free to choose between financing via internal or external debt, nor is it free to choose between financing via debt or equity. The arbitrage is carried out by the central management in the best interest of the group as a whole.
(100)
The relationship between A and B has to do with the allocation of funds within the group of related companies, whereas the relationship between Y and B (or X and Y) has to do primarily with commercial financing.
(101)
The Commission is therefore of the opinion that the notion of ‘direct or indirect effective control’ over the financing of the other entity (or effective control by a third entity) of the two entities involved in the loan transaction is relevant determination of the aid character of the measure, having regard to the aim of reducing incentives for arbitrage between financing through a capital injection and a loan, and ensuring tax neutrality in this regard.
(102)
Turning to the question whether any advantage is conferred by the measure in question, it is clear that a distinction has to be made between different situations at the level of the individual companies. First of all, any taxpayer in the Netherlands involved in a debt financing transaction with unrelated companies is treated in exactly the same manner, and taxed at the same rate (25 %). This includes companies that are part of a group. Secondly, when a company obtains a loan from a related company, it actually suffers less advantageous tax treatment than a company engaged in a loan relationship with a non-related company (deduction at only 5 %). Thirdly - and this is the only situation where there may be any tax advantage - a company providing a loan to a related company will be taxed on the ensuing interest payments at a rate lower than the rate charged on a transaction with a non-related company.
(103)
In terms of the measure’s consequences, however, the advantage conferred on a company providing a loan to a related company cannot be considered discriminatory, since a loan to a related company cannot be compared with a loan to an unrelated company. With respect to debt financing activities, related companies are not in a legal and factual situation comparable to that of unrelated companies. The reason is that related companies, unlike unrelated companies, are not engaged in a merely commercial transaction when they try to obtain loan or equity financing within the group. The parent and the subsidiary share the same interests, which is not the case in a commercial transaction with a third-party provider of finance, where each party tries to maximise its profits at the expense of the other. There is no competitive pressure from company Y on company A when providing a loan to company B, for the simple reason that company A controls any decision of company B as regards financing.
(104)
The requirement that control be exercised over another company is thus criterion that applies across the board to all companies regardless of size, sector or any other distinction. A different rate of taxation for debt financing between related companies merely reflects objective differences and does not affect tax neutrality.
(105)
While, in the design of tax rules, Member States are bound by the rules on free movement of goods, services and capital and freedom of establishment, by the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality, and by State aid rules, the Commission has to acknowledge that Community law leaves the Member States considerable scope for manoeuvre in the field of taxation. As underlined at paragraph 13 of the taxation notice, State aid rules do not restrict the power of Member States to decide on the economic policy which they consider most appropriate and, in particular, to spread the tax burden as they see fit across the different factors of production.
(106)
In this context, the restriction of the existing arbitrage between intra-group debt and equity financing (as well as the prevention of any abuse of the deduction of intra-group interest) may well be a legitimate concern for Member States. In particular, the Commission observes that arbitrage between equity and debt may lead to situations where a company is forced by its parent to take an intra-group loan instead of equity, and thereby to have its leverage increased, in order to minimise its corporation tax. However, from an economic point of view, high debt leveraging or the obligation to pay interest, rather than benefiting from longer-term financing in the form of capital, may not always be desirable. In addition, the Netherlands seems to have lost tax revenues as a result of debt/equity arbitrage.
(107)
The measure is open to any company subject to corporation tax and receiving or paying interest in the context of intra-group relations, and does not include any discriminatory element such as a limitation regarding the country in which the transaction is to take place.
(108)
The fact that the scheme introduced is to be compulsory ensures that it will apply to all group companies (with intra-group loan transactions) without any possibility of opting out and without any differentiated treatment between group companies. In addition, the new definition of group companies for the purpose of the measure, based on control rather than a minimum stake), reduces potential elements of de jure selectivity by broadening the scope of the measure.
(109)
In this respect, the Commission notes that following the publication of the opening decision it did not receive any complaints or observations from representatives of Dutch employers complaining that small and medium-sized enterprises would not be able to take advantage of the measure.
(110)
In its opening decision, the Commission made a distinction between a purely national situation where all the companies belonging to a group were established in the Netherlands, and a cross-border situation where a Dutch company lent money to an affiliate established abroad. In a purely national context, the Commission said the measure would be likely to be neutral from a tax point of view. But, in cross-border transactions, the Dutch company would be subject to lower taxation at the rate of 5 %, while the affiliate company established abroad would not be subject to Dutch rules limiting the deductibility of interest paid. The Commission concluded that the scheme could provide a de facto selective advantage, as only multinational group of companies engaging in cross-border intra-group interest transactions in tax jurisdictions with a corporate tax superior to 5 % would have an incentive to use the scheme.
(111)
The Commission considers that its final assessment should not make any distinction between purely national situations and cross-border situations.
(112)
Firstly, the specific provisions of the scheme remain the same in both national and cross-border situations. The scheme does not contain any provision that differentiates between domestic and foreign revenues or costs.
(113)
Secondly, as rightly pointed out by the Dutch authorities and the interested parties, any advantage obtained in a cross-border context that beyond the advantage obtained in a national context is the result not of the lower Dutch rate for intra-group interest received, but the result of unlimited deduction for intra-group interest paid abroad.
(114)
Corporate tax rates are not harmonised in the EU, and the Netherlands are not in control of the rates applied by other countries. If undertakings manage to take advantage of the difference in tax rates, i.e. of the lack of harmonisation, the Netherlands is not responsible. As confirmed by the Court of Justice (17), undertakings are free to take advantage of differences in taxation levels in Member States.
(115)
The Commission agrees that any advantage resulting from an international context owing to a low taxation rate in the Netherlands which is not mirrored by a low rate of deduction in the Netherlands but instead corresponds to a normal deduction rate abroad, is not imputable to the Netherlands (18).
(116)
It should also be underlined that the advantage resulting from deduction at the normal rate abroad will not be financed through Dutch resources, and, in the country concerned, the deduction at the normal rate will stem only from the application of the normal tax system (and not from a specific measure departing from it).
(117)
As a consequence, the Commission considers that any advantages at the level of a multinational group that would result from a cross-border situation, as described in the opening decision, are the result of tax disparities between different tax jurisdictions and should therefore be excluded from the scope of the State aid assessment.
(118)
In general, and as for any tax measure, it cannot be ruled out that companies belonging to a group that are operating in specific sectors may benefit more from the measure because of the higher intensity of financial transactions in their sector. This is particularly true for companies in the financial sector, whose main activity is lending, and which might well increase lending to related companies as a result of the measure. However, it must be noted first that in order to avoid any abuse of the measure the Dutch measure includes a provision limiting the amount that can be taxed or deducted at a reduced rate (see section II.3). This limitation will apply in particular to companies in the financial sector, thus limiting any risk of abuse. Furthermore, the Commission’s taxation notice indicates that ‘the fact that some firms or some sectors benefit more than others from some of these tax measures does not necessarily mean that they are caught by the competition rules governing State aid’ (19).
(119)
In the opening decision, the Commission considered that it could not be ruled out that the main beneficiaries of the scheme might be the former beneficiaries of the international financing activities scheme, which had been held to constitute incompatible State aid.
(120)
It must be noted that in order to qualify for the international financing activities scheme, companies had to meet the following conditions, among others:
-
the company benefiting had to carry out financing activities for parts of the group in at least four countries or on at least two continents,
-
only financing operations that could be conducted independently of the Netherlands were eligible,
-
no more than 10 % of the total capital (debt and equity) used by the company for its financial activities could be applied, directly or indirectly, in group companies based in the Netherlands.
(121)
In view of these requirements, and the limited number of beneficiaries (87), the Commission considered the international financing activities scheme to be a selective measure.
(122)
As pointed out by the Dutch authorities, there are no such requirements in the interest box measure. In addition, the body of undertakings that will benefit from the group interest box will be much broader than the 87 undertakings that utilised the international financing activities scheme.
(123)
In this respect, it cannot be argued that large (multinational) companies will have easier access to the scheme than small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and will thus benefit disproportionally from it. According to the statistics provided by the Dutch authorities, which draw an unambiguous distinction between SMEs and large enterprises, 200 000 enterprises (out of 335 000) have one or more group affiliates, and thus can receive or pay intra-group interest. 50 000 of these enterprises have one or more companies belonging to the group abroad, of which 47 000 (95 %) are SMEs. This clearly indicates that SMEs will not be discriminated against by the measure.
(124)
It has been demonstrated in paragraphs 83 to 123 that the measure does not confer an advantage in a discriminatory manner on undertakings in similar situations, and should in fact enhance tax neutrality.
(125)
It has also been found that the de facto advantage for multinational companies that may result from the existence of disparities between tax systems in a cross-border situation falls outside the scope of the State aid rules, because such disparities are not imputable to the Netherlands.
(126)
In any event, the Commission considers that the measure is genuinely open to any undertaking in the Netherlands, since there are no legal or economic obstacles to the establishment of a group.
(127)
The last amendment introduced by the Dutch authorities will make it easier to create a company in the Netherlands, by abolishing the statutory capital requirement of EUR 18 000 for a limited liability company. This will allow any company easily to create a (second) company in the Netherlands, and hence a group. As a consequence, the interest box measure will be accessible to any individual company without requiring a certain economic strength or significant capital resources. As the creation of a group will become a mere matter of organisation, without disproportionate costs, the requirement that it must be part of a corporate group will no longer constitute an obstacle for any undertaking wishing to benefit from the group interest box.
VIII. CONCLUSION
(128)
The Commission finds that the group interest box measure that the Netherlands is planning to implement does not confer a selective advantage that may be imputable to the Netherlands on companies established in the Netherlands that are part of a group or on foreign companies belonging to a group with a permanent establishment in the Netherlands, and accordingly does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
The ‘group interest box’ which the Netherlands is planning to implement with respect to the taxation of intra-group flows of interest does not constitute aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty.
Implementation of the scheme is accordingly authorised.
Article 2
This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
Done at Brussels, 8 July 2009. | [
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
Directive 2000/64/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 7 November 2000
amending Council Directives 85/611/EEC, 92/49/EEC, 92/96/EEC and 93/22/EEC as regards exchange of information with third countries
THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular the first and third sentences of Article 47(2) thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission(1),
Having regard to the Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee(2),
Acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 251 of the Treaty(3),
Whereas:
(1) Council Directives 85/611/EEC(4), 92/49/EEC(5), 92/96/EEC(6) and 93/22/EEC(7) allow the exchange of information between competent authorities and with certain other authorities or bodies within a Member State or between Member States. The said Directives also allow the conclusion by Member States of cooperation agreements providing for the exchange of information with the competent authorities of third countries.
(2) On grounds of consistency with Directive 98/33/EC(8), this authorisation to conclude agreements on the exchange of information with third countries should be extended so as to include the exchange of information with certain other authorities or bodies in those countries provided that the information disclosed is subject to appropriate guarantees of professional secrecy.
(3) Directive 85/611/EEC, Directive 92/49/EEC, Directive 92/96/EEC and Directive 93/22/EEC should be amended accordingly,
HAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:
Article 1
Article 50(4) of Directive 85/611/EEC shall be replaced by the following:
"4. Member States may conclude cooperation agreements providing for exchange of information with the competent authorities of third countries or with authorities or bodies of third countries as defined in paragraphs 6 and 7 only if the information disclosed is subject to guarantees of professional secrecy at least equivalent to those referred to in this Article. Such exchange of information must be intended for the performance of the supervisory task of the authorities or bodies mentioned.
Where the information originates in another Member State, it may not be disclosed without the express agreement of the competent authorities which have disclosed it and, where appropriate, solely for the purposes for which those authorities gave their agreement."
Article 2
Article 16(3) of Directive 92/49/EEC, Article 15(3) of Directive 92/96/EEC and Article 25(3) of Directive 93/22/EEC, shall be replaced by the following:
"3. Member States may conclude cooperation agreements providing for exchange of information with the competent authorities of third countries or with authorities or bodies of third countries as defined in paragraphs 5 and 5a only if the information disclosed is subject to guarantees of professional secrecy at least equivalent to those referred to in this Article. Such exchange of information must be intended for the performance of the supervisory task of the authorities or bodies mentioned.
Where the information originates in another Member State, it may not be disclosed without the express agreement of the competent authorities which have disclosed it and, where appropriate, solely for the purposes for which those authorities gave their agreement."
Article 3
1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary for them to comply with this Directive not later than 17 November 2002. They shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof.
When Member States adopt these measures, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or shall be accompanied by such reference on the occasion of their official publication. The methods of making such reference shall be laid down by Member States.
2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of domestic law, which they adopt in the field governed by this Directive.
Article 4
This Directive shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
Article 5
This Directive is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 7 November 2000. | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1934/2005
of 24 November 2005
concerning tenders notified in response to the invitation to tender for the export of oats issued in Regulation (EC) No 1438/2005
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 of 29 September 2003 on the common organisation of the market in cereals (1), and in particular Article 7 thereof,
Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 of 29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 on the granting of export refunds on cereals and the measures to be taken in the event of disturbance on the market for cereals (2), and in particular Article 7 thereof,
Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1438/2005 of 2 September 2005 on a special intervention measure for cereals in Finland and Sweden for the 2005/2006 marketing year (3),
Whereas:
(1)
An invitation to tender for the refund for the export of oats produced in Finland and Sweden for export from Finland and Sweden to all third countries, with the exception of Bulgaria, Norway, Romania and Switzerland was opened pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1438/2005.
(2)
On the basis of the criteria laid down in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95, a maximum refund should not be fixed.
(3)
The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
No action shall be taken on the tenders notified from 18 to 24 November 2005 in response to the invitation to tender for the refund for the export of oats issued in Regulation (EC) No 1438/2005.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 25 November 2005.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States
Done at Brussels, 24 November 2005. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
COUNCIL DECISION
of 24 July 1995
on the conclusion of an Additional Protocol to the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Norway consequent on the accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden to the European Union
(95/312/EC)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 113 in conjunction with Article 228 (2) first sentence thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,
Whereas the Commission has negotiated on behalf of the Community an Additional Protocol to the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Norway (1), signed in Brussels on 14 May 1973, to take account of the accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden to the European Union;
Whereas this Additional Protocol should be approved,
HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Article 1
The Additional Protocol to the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Norway consequent on the accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden to the European Union is hereby approved on behalf of the Community.
The text of the Additional Protocol is attached to this Decision.
Article 2
The President of the Council is hereby authorized to designate the person empowered to sign the Additional Protocol in order to bind the Community.
Done at Brussels, 24 July 1995. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
*****
COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 3387/86
of 3 November 1986
opening, allocating and providing for the administration of a Community tariff quota for certain wines having a registered designation of origin, falling within subheading ex 22.05 C of the Common Customs Tariff and originating in Tunisia (1986/1987)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Article 113 thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,
Whereas Article 20 of the Cooperation Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Republic of Tunisia (1) stipulates that certain wines having a registered designation of origin, falling within subheading ex 22.05 C of the Common Customs Tariff and originating in Tunisia, specified in the Agreement in the form of an exchange of letters of 16 October 1978 (2), and produced from the 1977 and subsequent harvests, shall be imported into the Community free of customs duties within the limits of an annual Community tariff quota of 50 000 hectolitres; whereas these wines must be put in containers holding two litres or less; whereas these wines must be accompanied by a certificate of designation of origin in accordance with the model given in Annex D to the Agreement in question; whereas the Community tariff quota in question should therefore be opened for the period 1 November 1986 to 31 October 1987;
Whereas the wines in question are subject to compliance with the free-at-frontier reference price; whereas the wines in question shall benefit from this tariff quota on condition that Article 18 of Regulation (EEC) No 337/79 (3), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3805/85 (4), is complied with;
Whereas according to Article 1 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 449/86 of 24 February 1986 determining the arrangements to be applied by the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic to trade with certain third countries (5), the provisions applicable by the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic to trade with the Republic of Tunisia shall be subject to the tariff treatment and other trade rules applied to third countries enjoying most favoured-nation treatment; whereas therefore, this Regulation applies only to the Community of Ten;
Whereas it is in particular necessary to ensure equal and uninterrupted access for all Community importers to the abovementioned quota, and uninterrupted application of the rates laid down for this quota to all imports of the products concerned into the Member States until the quota has been used up; whereas a system of using a Community tariff quota, based on allocation among the Member States, appears likely to comply with the Community nature of the said quota having regard to the above principles; whereas, in order to reflect most accurately the actual development of the market in the products in question, such allocation should be in proportion to the requirements of the Member States assessed by reference both to the statistics relating to imports of the said products from Tunisia over a representative reference period and to the economic outlook for the quota period concerned;
Whereas in this case, however, neither Community nor national statistics showing the breakdown for each of the types of wines in question are available and no reliable estimates of future imports can be made; whereas in these circumstances the quota volumes should be allocated in initial shares, taking into account demand for these wines on the markets of the various Member States;
Whereas, to take into account import trends for the products concerned in the various Member States, the quota amount should be divided into two instalments, the first being allocated among the Member States and the second held as a reserve intended to cover at a later date the requirements of Member States who have used up their initial share; whereas, in order to guarantee some degree of security to importers in each Member State, the first instalment of the Community quota should be fixed at a level which could, in the present circumstances, be 50 % of the quota volume;
Whereas the initial shares of the Member States may not be used up at the same rate; whereas, in order to take this into account and avoid disruption, any Member State which has used up almost all its initial share should draw a supplementary share from the reserve; whereas this should be done by each Member State each time one of its supplementary shares is almost used up, and so on as many times as the reserve allows; whereas the initial and supplementary shares should be valid until the end of the quota period; whereas this form of administration requires close collaboration between the Member States and the Commission, and the Commission must be in a position to follow the extent to which the quota volume has been used up and inform the Member States therof;
Whereas, if at a given date in the quota period a Member States has a considerable quantity of the initial share left over, it is essential that it should return a significant proportion thereof to the reserve to prevent a part of the Community quota remaining unused in one Member State when it could be used in others;
Whereas, since the Kingdom of Belgium, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg are united within and jointly represented by the Benelux Economic Union, all transactions concerning the administration of the shares allocated to that economic union may be carried out by any one of its members,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
1. From 1 November 1986 to 31 October 1987, in the Community of Ten, a Community tariff quota of 50 000 hectolitres shall be opened for the products indicated below and originating in Tunisia:
1.2 // // // CCT heading No // Description // // // 22.05 // Wine of fresh grapes; grape must with fermentation arrested by the addition of alcohol: // // C. Other: // // - Wines entitled to one of the following designations of origin: // // Coteaux de Tebourba, Sidi-Salem, Kelibia, Thibar, Mornag, grand cru Mornag of an actual alcoholic strength of 15 % vol or less and in containers holding two litres or less // //
2. Within the tariff quota referred to in paragraph 1, the Common Customs Tariff duties applicable to these wines shall be totally suspended.
3. Wines produced from the 1977 and subsequent harvests shall be accorded the benefit of the tariff quota referred to in paragraph 1.
4. The wines in question are subject to compliance with the free-at-frontier reference price.
The wines in question shall benefit from this tariff quota on condition that the provisions of Article 18 of Regulation (EEC) No 337/79 are complied with.
5. Each of these wines when imported, shall be accompanied by a certificate of designation of origin, issued by the relevant Tunisian authority, in accordance with the model annexed to this Regulation and certifying in box 16 that these wines have been produced from the 1977 and subsequent harvests.
Nevertheless, the certificate as shown in the Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 2730/85 (1) may be accepted until 31 October 1987.
Article 2
1. The tariff quota laid down in Article 1 shall be divided into two instalments.
2. A first instalment of the quota shall be allocated among the Member States; the shares, which subject to Article 3 shall be valid up to 31 October 1987, shall be as follows:
1.2 // // (hectolitres) // Benelux // 4 500 // Denmark // 2 500 // Germany // 5 000 // Greece // 800 // France // 5 000 // Ireland // 1 000 // Italy // 2 000 // United Kingdom // 4 200
3. The second instalment of the quota, amounting to 25 000 hectolitres shall constitute the reserve.
Article 3
1. If 90 % or more of one of a Member State's initial share, as specified in Article 2 (2), or of that share less the portion returned to the reserve where Article 5 has been applied, has been used up, that Member State shall, without delay, by notifying the Commission, draw a second share equal to 15 % of its initial share, rounded up where necessary to the next whole number, in so far as the amount in the reserve allows.
2. If, after its initial share has been used up, 90 % or more of the second share drawn by a Member State has been used up, that Member State shall, in accordance with the conditions laid down in paragraph 1, draw a third share equal to 7,5 % of its initial share, rounded up where necessary to the next whole number, in so far as the amount in the reserve allows.
3. If, after its second share has been used up, 90 % or more of the third share drawn by a Member State has been used up, that Member State shall, in accordance with paragraph 1, draw a fourth share equal to the third.
This process shall continue to apply until the reserves are used up.
4. Notwithstanding paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, Member States may draw smaller shares than those fixed in these paragraphs if there is reason to believe that those fixed might not be used up. They shall inform the Commission of their reasons for applying this paragraph.
Article 4
The additional shares drawn pursuant to Article 3 shall be valid until 31 October 1987.
Article 5
Member States shall return to the reserve, not later than 1 September 1987, the unused portion of their initial share which, on 15 August 1987, is in excess of 20 % of the initial amount. They may return a greater portion if there are grounds for believing that such portion might not be used in full.
Member States shall notify the Commission not later than 1 September 1987, of the total imports of the products concerned effected under the Community quotas up to and including 15 August 1987 and, where appropriate, the proportion of their initial share that they are returning to the reserve.
Article 6
The Commission shall keep account of the shares opened by Member States pursuant to Articles 2 and 3 and shall inform each State of the extent to which the reserve has been used up as soon as it has been notified.
The Commission shall notify the Member States, not later than 5 September 1987, of the state of the reserve after the return of shares pursuant to Article 5.
The Commission shall ensure that the drawing which uses up the reserve is limited to the balance available and, to this end, shall specify the amount thereof to the Member State making the final drawing.
Article 7
1. Member States shall take all measures necessary to ensure that additional shares drawn pursuant to Article 3 are opened in such a way that imports may be charged without interruption against their aggregate shares in the Community quota.
2. Member States shall ensure that importers of the products concerned have free access to the shares allocated to them.
3. Member States shall charge imports of the said goods against their shares as and when the goods are entered for free circulation.
4. The extent to which a Member State has used up its shares shall be determined on the basis of the imports charged in accordance with paragraph 3.
Article 8
At the request of the Commission, Member States shall inform it of imports actually charged against their shares.
Article 9
The Member States and the Commission shall collaborate closely in order to ensure that this Regulation is observed.
Article 10
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities. It shall apply from 1 November 1986.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 3 November 1986. | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
*****
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE
of 22 November 1982
amending, for the second time (benzene), Directive 76/769/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations
(82/806/EEC)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN
COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Article 100 thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission (1),
Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (2),
Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee (3),
Whereas benzene is recognized as being highly toxic and liable to affect the central nervous and herma- topoietic systems and to induce cancer and in particular leukaemia;
Whereas benzene is used inter alia as a constituent in the manufacture of certain toys, making it possible for children to absorb benzene by inhalation, ingestion or through the skin, thereby exposing them to the abovementioned hazards;
Whereas the fixing of a maximum concentration limit of benzene in the free state enables these hazards to be excluded;
Whereas benzene is governed by rules in certain Member States; whereas these rules differ as to the conditions of its marketing and use; whereas these differences constitute a barrier to trade and directly affect the establishment and functioning of the common market;
Whereas, in order to eliminate these differences, the Annex to Directive 76/769/EEC (4), as last amended by Directive 79/663/EEC (5), should be supplemented;
Whereas the Scientific Advisory Committee on the Toxicity and Eco-Toxicity of Chemical Compounds has delivered an opinion on this point,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:
Article 1
The following entry is hereby added to the Annex to Directive 76/769/EEC:
1.2 // '5. Benzene CAS No (Chemical Abstract Service Number) 71-43-2 // Not permitted in toys or parts of toys as placed on the market where the concentration of benzene in the free state is in excess of 5 mg/kg of the weight of the toy or part of toy.'
Article 2
Member States shall take the measures necessary to comply with this Directive within 12 months of its notification. They shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof.
Article 3
This Directive is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 22 November 1982. | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
COMMISSION DECISION
of 18 June 2007
extending the period of validity of Decision 2002/499/EC in respect of naturally or artificially dwarfed plants of Chamaecyparis Spach, Juniperus L. and Pinus L., originating in the Republic of Korea
(notified under document number C(2007) 2495)
(2007/432/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Directive 2000/29/EC of 8 May 2000 on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the Community (1), and in particular Article 15(1) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
Commission Decision 2002/499/EC of 26 June 2002 authorising derogations from certain provisions of Council Directive 2000/29/EC in respect of naturally or artificially dwarfed plants of Chamaecyparis Spach, Juniperus L. and Pinus L., originating in the Republic of Korea (2) authorises Member States to provide for derogations from certain provisions of Directive 2000/29/EC in respect of plants of Chamaecyparis Spach, Juniperus L. and Pinus L., originating in the Republic of Korea, for limited periods and subject to specific conditions.
(2)
Since the circumstances justifying that authorisation still apply and there is no new information giving cause for revision of the specific conditions, the authorisation should be extended.
(3)
Decision 2002/499/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.
(4)
The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plant Health,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
Decision 2002/499/EC is amended as follows:
1.
In the first and second paragraphs of Article 2, ‘2008’ is replaced by ‘2010’.
2.
Article 4 is replaced by the following:
‘Article 4
Member States may apply the derogations mentioned in Article 1 to plants imported into the Community in the following periods:
Plants
Period
Chamaecyparis:
1.6.2004 to 31.12.2010
Juniperus:
1.11.2004 to 31.3.2005
1.11.2005 to 31.3.2006
1.11.2006 to 31.3.2007
1.11.2007 to 31.3.2008
1.11.2008 to 31.3.2009
1.11.2009 to 31.3.2010
Pinus:
1.6.2004 to 31.12.2010’
Article 2
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 18 June 2007. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1053/2005
of 5 July 2005
determining to what extent applications for the right to import bulls, cows and heifers of certain Alpine and mountain breeds pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1081/1999 can be met
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal (1),
Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1081/1999 of 26 May 1999 opening and providing for the administration of tariff quotas for imports of bulls, cows and heifers other than for slaughter, of certain Alpine and mountain breeds, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1012/98 and amending Regulation (EC) No 1143/98 (2), and in particular Article 5 thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1081/1999 provides for the quantities reserved for traditional importers under the two tariff quotas to be allocated in proportion to their imports during the period 1 July 2002 to 30 June 2005.
(2)
Allocation of the quantities available to operators covered by Article 2(3) of that Regulation under the two tariff quotas is to be in proportion to the quantities applied for within the meaning of Article 2(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1081/1999, under order No 09.0003. Since the quantities applied for exceed those available, a fixed percentage reduction should be set,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
1. Every application for the right to import lodged in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1081/1999 under serial number 09.0001 shall be granted to the following extent:
(a)
100 % of the quantities imported within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1081/1999;
(b)
100 % of the quantities applied for within the meaning of Article 2(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1081/1999.
2. Every application for the right to import lodged in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1081/1999 under serial number 09.0003 shall be granted to the following extent:
(a)
100 % of the quantities imported within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1081/1999;
(b)
42,253521 % of the quantities applied for within the meaning of Article 2(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1081/1999.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 6 July 2005.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 5 July 2005. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 3589/88 of 8 November 1988 opening, allocating and providing for the administration of a Community tariff quota for fillets of certain cod and of fish of the species Boreogadus saida, originating in Norway (1989)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Article 113 thereof,
Having regard to the Act of Accession of Spain and Portugal,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,
Whereas an Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Norway was concluded on 14 May 1973; whereas, following the accession of Spain and Portugal to the Community, an Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters, was concluded and approved by Decision 86/557/EEC (1);
Whereas the said Agreement provides in particular for the opening of a Community tariff quota at zero duty for fillets of certain cod and of fish of the species Boreogadus saida, originating in Norway; whereas, therefore, the tariff quota in question should be opened for the period 1 January to 31 December 1989;
Whereas equal and continuous access to the quota should be ensured for all importers and the rate laid down for the quota should be applied consistently to all imports until the quota is used up; whereas, in the light of these principles, allocation of the tariff quota among the Member States would seem to preserve the Community nature of the quota; whereas, in order to correspond as closely as possible to the actual development of the market in the said product, the allocation should reflect proportionately the requirements of the Member States calculated with reference to statistics of imports from Norway during a representative reference period and to the economic outlook for the quota year in question;
Whereas during the latest years for which statistics are available, imports into each of the Member States were as follows:
(tonnes) Member States 1984 1985 1986 1987 Benelux 0 0 1 0 Denmark 72 10 2 21 Germany 0 0 0 0 Greece 0 11 0 0 Spain 37 0 0 14 France 58 8 19 24 Ireland 0 0 0 0 Italy 4 589 2 691 2 354 1 390 Portugal 0 0 0 0 United Kingdom 0 0 0 0 4 756 2 720 2 376 1 449 Whereas, during the years under consideration, the products in question were imported only by certain Member States and not at all by the other Member States; whereas in these circumstances initial shares should be allocated to the importing Member States and the other Member States should be guaranteed access to the tariff quota when imports into those States of the products concerned are notified; whereas these arrangements for allocation will equally ensure the uniform application of the Common Customs Tariff;
Whereas, in view of these factors, the initial percentage shares of the quota volume can be expressed approximately as follows:
Denmark0,50 Greece0,18 Spain0,21 France0,79 Italy98,32 Whereas, to allow for import trends for the products concerned, the quota volume should be divided into two parts, the first being allocated among the Member States and the second held as a reserve to cover any subsequent requirements of Member States which have used up their initial share; whereas, to afford importers some degree of certainty, the first part of the tariff quota should be set at a high level, which in this case could be 54 % of the quota volume;
Whereas initial shares may be used up at different rates; whereas, in order to avoid any break in the continuity of supplies on this account, it should be provided that any Member State which has almost used up its initial share should draw an additional share from the reserve; whereas, each time its additional share is almost used up, a Member State should draw a further share and so on as many times as the reserve allows; whereas the initial and additional shares must be valid until the end of the quota period; whereas this form of administration requires close cooperation between the Member States and the Commission and the latter must be able to monitor the extent to which the quota volume has been used up and inform the Member States accordingly;
Whereas if at a given date in the quota period a considerable quantity of a Member State's initial share remains unused,
it is essential that the Member State concerned return a significant proportion thereof to the reserve in order to prevent part of the Community tariff quota from remaining unused in one Member State while it could be used in others;
Whereas, since the Kingdom of Belgium, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg are united within and jointly represented by the Benelux Economic Union, any measure concerning the administration of the shares allocated to that economic union may be carried out by any one of its members,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1 1. From 1 January to 31 December 1989 the customs duty applicable to imports of the following product shall be suspended at the level indicated and within the limits of a Community tariff quota as shown herewith:
Order No CN code Description Quota volume (tonnes) Rate of duty (%) 09.0709 ex 0305 30 19 Fillets of cod of the species Gadus morhua and Gadus ogac, and fish fillets of the species Boreogadus saida, dried, salted or in brine, originating in Norway 3 000 0 Within the limits of this tariff quota, the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic shall apply duties of 3,4 % and 0 % respectively.
2. Imports of the products in question shall not be eligible under the tariff quota referred to in paragraph 1 unless the free-at-frontier-price, which is determined by the Member States in accordance with Article 21 of Regulation (EEC) No 3796/81 (2), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3759/87 (3), is at least equal to the reference price set or to be set by the Community for the product or categories of products under consideration.
3. The Protocol on the definition of the concept of originating products and on methods of administrative cooperation, annexed to the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Norway, shall apply.
Article 2 1. The tariff quota referred to in Article 1 (1) shall be divided into two parts.
2. The first part of this quota shall be allocated among certain Member States. The quota shares shall, subject to Article 5, be valid until 31 December 1989, and shall be as follows:
(in tonnes) Denmark8 Greece3 Spain3 France13 Italy1 593 3. The second part of the quota, amounting to 1 380 tonnes, shall constitute the reserve.
4. If an importer indicates that a consignment of the products in question is to be imported into a Member State not included in the initial allocation and applies to use the quota, the Member State concerned shall inform the Commission and draw an amount corresponding to its requirements to the extent that the available balance of the reserve so permits.
Article 3 1. If a Member State has used 90 % or more of its initial share as specified in Article 2 (2), or of that share less any proportion returned to the reserve pursuant to Article 5, it shall forthwith, by notifying the Commission, and to the extent that the reserve so permits, draw a second share, equal to 10 % of its initial share, rounded up where necessary to the next whole number.
2. If, after its initial share has been used up, a Member State has used 90 % or more of the second share as well,
it shall forthwith, using the procedure provided for in paragraph 1, draw a third share equal to 5 % of its initial share, rounded up where necessary to the next whole number.
3. If, after its second share has been used up, a Member State has used 90 % or more of its third share, it shall, using the procedure provided for in paragraph 1, draw a fourth share equal to the third.
This process shall apply until the reserve is used up.
4. By way of derogation from paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, Member States may draw shares lower than those specified in those paragraphs if there are grounds for believing that they may not be used in full. Member States shall inform the Commission of their reasons for applying this paragraph.
Article 4 Additional shares drawn pursuant to Article 3 shall be valid until 31 December 1989.
Article 5 Member States shall, not later than 1 October 1989, return to the reserve the unused portion of their initial share which, on 15 September 1989, is in excess of 20 % of the initial volume. They may return a greater portion if there are grounds for believing that it may not be used in full.
Member States shall, not later than 1 October 1989, notify the Commission of the total quantities of the product in question imported up to and including 15 September 1989 and charged against the Community quota and of any portion of their initial shares returned to the reserve.
Article 6 The Commission shall keep an account of the shares opened by the Member States pursuant to Articles 2 and 3 and shall, as soon as the information reaches it, inform each State of the extent to which the reserve has been used up.
It shall, not later than 5 October 1989, inform the Member States of the amount still in reserve, following any return of shares pursuant to Article 5.
It shall ensure that the drawing which exhausts the reserve does not exceed the balance available, and to this end shall notify the amount of that balance to the Member State making the last drawing.
Article 7 1. The Member States shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that additional drawings of shares pursuant to Article 3 are carried out in such a way that imports may be charged without interruption against their accumulated shares of the Community quota.
2. The Member States shall ensure that importers of the product in question have free access to the shares allocated to them.
3. The Member States shall charge imports of the product in question against their shares as and when the product is entered with the customs authorities for free circulation.
4. The extent to which a Member State has used up its share shall be determined on the basis of the imports charged in accordance with paragraph 3.
Article 8 At the request of the Commission, the Member States shall inform it of imports actually charged against their quota shares.
Article 9 Member States and the Commission shall cooperate closely to ensure that this Regulation is complied with.
Article 10 This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 January 1989.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 8 November 1988. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
*****
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 2537/89
of 8 August 1989
laying down detailed rules for the application of the special measures for soya beans
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 4191/85 of 23 May 1985 laying down special measures in respect of soya beans (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 2217/88 (2), and in particular Article 2 (8) and the third paragraph of Article 3 thereof,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2194/85 of 25 July 1985 adopting general rules concerning special measures for soya beans (3), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1231/89 (4), and in particular Article 9 thereof,
Whereas Article 2 (1) (a) of Regulation (EEC) No 2194/85 specifies that the first purchaser is to keep stock records; whereas, in order to enable beans harvested in the Community to be distinguished from imported beans, it should be specified that separate stock records are to be kept for the two categories of beans and that they are to be stored in different premises;
Whereas, as the second paragraph of Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 2194/85 provides for the approval by the competent agency of the first purchaser other than the processor, it is necessary to determine the conditions for approval;
Whereas standardized terms to be incorporated in the contracts concluded between producers and first purchasers, and also the terms to be incorporated into the delivery declarations, should be laid down; whereas, with a view to observing the minimum price in contracts, provision should be made for the selling price to be expressed by unit of weight of product of standard quality, such that the contract should mention any increases and reductions in the selling price;
Whereas Article 4a of Regulation (EEC) No 2194/85 provides for the introduction of a Community aid certificate; whereas the entry into force of these rules requires the adoption of common provisions on the drawing-up and use of these certificates, on the introduction of Community forms and on the setting-up of methods of administrative cooperation between Member States; whereas these provisions are to a great extent common to the rules in the oil seeds sector and whereas it is sufficient, where such provisions are of a strictly administrative nature and do not concern the operators, to refer to the applicable provisions of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2681/83 of 21 September 1983, laying down detailed rules for the application of the subsidy system for oil seeds (5), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1966/89 (6);
Whereas, having regard to practice in the seed trade, a certain tolerance should be allowed in respect of the quantity identified in comparison with that specified in the certificate;
Whereas, where the aid is fixed in advance, the term of validity of the certificate must be determined with due regard to the need to adapt the conditions for buying in seeds harvested in the Community to those on the world market;
Whereas Article 4b of Regulation (EEC) No 2194/85 makes the issue of a certificate subject, where the aid is fixed in advance, to the lodging of a security which, except in cases of force majeure, is forfeited if the beans are not properly identified during the term of validity of the certificate; whereas, to that end, the security system should be defined by fixing the calculation method and the conditions for the release of the security;
Whereas Member States must set up a control system ensuring that only the products entitled to aid receive it, and whereas this system should enable checks to be made upon the observance of the minimum price referred to in Article 2 (3) of Regulation (EEC) No 1491/85;
Whereas, to ensure uniform application of the aid system, the procedures for paying the aid should be defined; whereas it is also necessary to determine the conditions for advance payment of the aid and the circumstances under which it shall be forfeited;
Whereas a criterion should be established relating to the minimum frequency of fixing the aid; whereas it appears sufficient for the aid to be fixed at least twice each month;
Whereas Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 2194/85 specifies the criteria for determining the world market price for soya beans;
Whereas, in view of the price fluctuations that normally occur on the world market, the world market price for soya beans should be determined at least twice a month;
Whereas provision should be made for adjusting the offers and quotations used in order to compensate for any differences in quality and conditions and place of delivery compared with the product for which the world price must be fixed;
Whereas the operation for the maximum guaranteed quantities provided for in Article 3a of Regulation (EEC) No 1491/85 must be clarified;
Whereas, to facilitate verification of the checks on entitlement to aid in respect of Community produced soya beans, it is necessary to monitor, at least statistically, the destination of soya beans imported from third countries;
Whereas, notwithstanding the measures applying to the rest of the Community, Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 2194/85 provides that in the case of the French overseas departments, the aid should be granted to soya bean producers in respect of a level of production established be applying a representative yield to the areas on which soya beans have been sown and harvested; whereas, therefore, certain detailed rules should be laid down for implementing these new arrangements;
Whereas, to facilitate proper management of the aid arrangements in the departments in question, it is necessary that France should communicate to the Commission certain data concerning the aid;
Whereas this Regulation extends the system of identification and advance fixing applicable to the system of aid for oilseeds to include the special measures for soya beans; whereas this results in a strengthening of the control procedures; whereas, in addition, experience has shown the need for such strengthening; whereas, therefore, the detailed rules for the application of the system of aid should be redrafted in a new text and Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2329/85 of 12 August 1985 laying down detailed rules for the application of the special measures for soya beans (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3118/88 (2), should be repealed;
Whereas, however, the need to strengthen the control conditions and the approval of the first buyer who is not a processor is related to the scale of production in the various Member States and of the subsequent difficulties which may arise in the application of certain provisions of these arrangements; whereas the use of the derogation arrangements provided for in Article 2 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2194/85 by certain Member States may be such as to aggravate difficulties; whereas on the other hand excessively restrictive conditions should not be laid down in those Member States where production does not exceed a certain threshold and where the arrangements as they currently operate do not present particular difficulties; whereas, in the light of experience gained, this threshold should be fixed at 400 000 tonnes;
Whereas experience also indicates additional difficulties of controls where soya beans are incorporated directly in foodstuffs and feed and whereas the possibility of storing beans outside the production plant should consequently be limited solely to cases where beans are crushed for the production of oil;
Whereas, in view of the imminent beginning of the 1989/90 marketing year, the introduction on that date of certain provisions of the new system would be technically impossible; whereas provisions should therefore be made for such transition measures as are strictly necessary for the abovementioned marketing year;
Whereas the Management Committee for Oils and Fats has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its chairman,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
This Regulation lays down the detailed rules for the application of the system of aid for soya beans instituted by Regulation (EEC) No 1491/85.
Article 2
1. For the purposes of this Regulation, 'undertaking' means:
(a) an oil mill, including:
- any building or other place within the precincts of the establishment where production takes place,
- any warehousing unit outside such precincts located in the customs territory of the Member State where the production establishment is located in which the stored products can be properly controlled and which has been approved in advance by the authority responsible for that control;
(b) an establishment manufacturing feedingstuffs or foodstuffs intended for use by the final consumer without further processing;
(c) any establishment managed by a first purchaser who is not a processor, which is approved within the meaning of Article 2 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2194/85, including storage installations in which the stored products can be properly controlled and which has been approved in advance by the authority responsible for that control.
2. Within the meaning of Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 2194/85, 'processing for other uses in human food or animal feeding' shall be understood to mean the crushing or cooking required for use of the product, direct or as a mixture.
The processing procedure must be such that the soya beans lose their identity in such a way that the competent authority may ensure that the beans so processed may not be the subject of a new aid application.
3. For the purposes of this Regulation:
(a) first purchaser who is a processor' means:
any natural or legal person directly responsible for the activities of an oil mill, an establishment for the production of animal feedingstuffs or an establishment manufacturing foodstuffs for human consumption;
(b) approved first purchaser who is not a processor' means:
until 31 December 1992, in those Member States where production is less than 400 000 tonnes, any natural or legal person whose principal activity is trading in beans and cereals, and who does not fulfil the conditions likely to entitle him to receive aid under Article 2 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2194/85. In the other Member States this first purchaser must in addition exercise no processing activity, even partially, upon the beans in which he trades.
CHAPTER 1
General conditions
Article 3
1. The control referred to in Article 6 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2194/85 must, in particular, make it possible to check that the quantity of beans which entered the undertaking corresponds to the quantity of identified beans, and also, depending on the particular circumstances invoved, to:
(a) the quantity of oil and oilcake obtained by processing such beans;
(b) the quantity of beans used in animal feed or foodstuffs;
(c) the quantity of seeds leaving the undertaking in an unaltered state, in cases where the undertaking in question corresponds to the definition referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 2 (1) (c).
2. For the purposes of this control, every undertaking shall keep separate stock records for soya beans harvested in the Community and for imported beans. These shall contain at least the following information:
- the quantities in weight of beans received as such and in the case of beans harvested in the Community, moisture content and impurity content,
- the movements between the various stores of the undertaking,
- the quantities of beans processed and the type and quantity of the products obtained where the first purchaser is also the processor; at the request of the competent agency the percentage of soya beans used in the processed mixture obtained must be specified,
- the quantity of beans or of the processed products leaving the undertaking and their destinations,
- a regular inventory of stocks, carried out at least on a quarterly basis,
- references to the contracts, delivery declarations and invoices or equivalent documents for both products bought and products sold and, in the case where the first purchaser is not the processor, references to the relevant documents relating to the delivery to the processor.
3. The undertaking shall also make its financial accounts available to the authority responsible for control.
4. In addition, every first purchaser shall:
- allow officials of the authority responsible for control to have access to his premises,
- comply with the obligations arising from this Regulation,
- facilitate inspection operations,
- keep all the documents relating to the transactions concerned, together with his financial accounts and copies of contracts and delivery declarations, available for inspection by the agency designated by the Member State,
- not store imported soya beans in an approved establishment within the meaning of Article 2 (1) (c), if he is eligible under the provisions applicable to approved first purchasers who are not processors.
Article 4
1. Until 31 December 1992, in order to be approved within the meaning of Article 2 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2194/85, each approved first purchaser who is not a processor shall, in addition to his obligations resulting from Article 3:
(a) provide adequate assurance, from the financial point of view, that he is able to discharge his obligations arising under this system;
(b) have at least the storage capacity required to receive the quantities to be delivered under the contracts concluded, calculated according to the formula defined in Annex III. The undertaking must be suitably equipped for weighing and analysing the beans to determine the quality as compared with the standard quality;
(c) keep the stock and the other information referred to in Article 3 and in this paragraph from the date of his application for approval for a period of at least three years;
(1) OJ No L 151, 10. 6. 1985, p. 15.
(2) OJ No L 197, 26. 7. 1988, p. 11.
(3) OJ No L 204, 2. 8. 1985, p. 1.
(4) OJ No L 128, 11. 5. 1989, p. 24.
(5) OJ No L 266, 28. 9. 1983, p. 1.
(6) OJ No L 187, 1. 7. 1989, p. 130.
(1) OJ No L 218, 15. 8. 1985, p. 16.
(2) OJ No L 278, 11. 10. 1988, p. 24.
(d) either, in Member States where soya production does not exceed 400 000 tonnes, fulfil the relevant conditions required under national rules for storing and marketing oil seeds or soya beans, or, in the other Member States, undertake in addition to conclude with producers located in the same Member State contracts relating globally to a minimum area of 95 000 hectares.
2. The competent agency shall allocate an identification code to each approved first purchaser fulfilling the conditions of paragraph 1.
This code must appear on all the documents concerning him referred to in this Regulation.
3. The competent agency may grant provisional approval to the first purchaser concerned upon submission of an application for approval.
Provisionally approved first purchasers shall be assigned an identification code. If it is found that any of the conditions laid down in paragraph 1 are not satisfied, and in particular if this creates difficulties for the competent agency of the Member State in establishing the right to aid, provisional approval shall be withdrawn. Withdrawal shall be retroactive until the date of the provisional approval and any aid paid since that date shall be recovered.
4. Provisional approval shall become final as soon as the Member State concerned is satisfied that the approval conditions laid down in paragraph 1 are fulfilled.
Without prejudice to the withdrawal of approval referred to in Article 5 and decided on by the competent agency, the approval shall lapse where a Member State decides to revoke application on its territory of the exceptional arrangements laid down in Article 2 (3) of the abovementioned Regulation.
Article 5
1. If an undertaking with the meaning of Article 2 (1) (c) or an approved first purchaser who is not a processor commits a serious failure to comply with the provisions laid down in Articles 3 and 4, approval of the latter shall be withdrawn for a period of one to five marketing years, without prejudice to any other measures applicable in such a case.
2. If any operations carried out in approved premises within the meaning of the second indent of Article 2 (1) (a) or in an approval establishment within the meaning of Article 2 (1) (c) does not comply with this Regulation, withdrawal of approval for the premises or establishments in question shall ensue, without prejudice to any other measures applicable in such a case.
Article 6
1. Contracts as referred to in Article 2 (1) (b) of Regulation (EEC) No 2194/85 shall be concluded in writing. They shall be lodged before a date to be fixed by each Member State but at least one month before the date on which the harvesting of the soya beans covered by the contract is due to begin. The contracts shall be lodged with the competent agency of the Member State in which the beans are to be harvested.
2. Contracts shall provide at least the following information:
(a) the names, forenames, addresses and signatures of the contracting parties;
(b) the date of signature;
(c) an undertaking on the part of the first purchaser to pay the producer at least the minimum price, and, where applicable, the price premium or discount to be paid to the producer on top of the minimum price, pursuant to an agreement reached collectively between the producers and the first purchasers or between the contracting parties.
In order to allow the producer to calculate the price to be paid for the quantities delivered, the method of calculation referred to in Annex I and a reference to the agreed bonuses or discounts shall be provided. This may refer to a collective agreement between the first purchasers and the producers or between the parties pursuant to Article 7 (3);
(d) an undertaking on the part of the producer to deliver, and on the part of the first purchaser to take delivery of, all the beans of sound and fair merchantable quality to be harvested by the producer on all the areas which he sows with beans;
(e) the actual area sown with soya beans, in hectares and ares;
(f) the particulars necessary for the identification of the areas in question, including:
appropriate cadastral references for each plot sown or references recognized as equivalent by the agency responsible for control;
(g) the yields obtained by the producer at the previous harvest;
(h) an identification number, to be indicated on the delivery declarations referred to in Article 8.
Supplementary information may be provided upon request by the competent agency, in particular in relation to the raising of animals by the producer.
3. After the contract has been signed, the areas indicated in accordance with paragraph 2 (e) and (f) may not be used by the producer for any other purpose than for cultivating soya beans, except in cases of force majeure or any other similar grounds recognized as valid by the competent agency.
As a consequence, any change in the use to be made of areas indicated which may take place after the contract has been signed but before it has been lodged with the competent agency must be the subject of an amendment to the contract correcting such areas and specifying the reason for the change. In addition any change in the use to be made of all or part of the areas indicated occurring in the three months preceding the date laid down for the beginning of harvesting of soya beans covered by the contract must be notified by the producer to the competent agency, to the agency responsible for control and to the first purchaser each time that such a change involves more than 10 % of the area indicated and more than one hectare of area. Such notification must be made in writing within eight working days from the date on which the change took place.
4. In cases of contracts concluded between first purchasers and cooperatives acting on behalf of a number of producers, all the information concerning the producer referred to in paragraph 2 must be given for each producer concerned by the contract.
5. Failure to comply with the provisions of paragraph 2 (e) and (f) or paragraphs 3 and 4 invalidates the contract for the purposes of this Regulation and beans harvested under that contract may no longer be eligible for aid, unless it can be proven, to the satisfaction of the Member State, that there has been no serious negligence or serious fault. In addition, failure to comply with the provisions of paragraph 3 may result in the producer being excluded from qualifying for aid under this Regulation during the next marketing year where it is shown that serious negligence or serious fault has occurred.
However, the provisions of the preceding subparagraph only apply where inspection of the areas shows a difference of more than 10 % between areas declared and the areas actually sown with soya beans and which may be harvested.
Article 7
1. The price payable to the producer shall not be lower than the minimum price referred to in Article 2 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1491/85.
2. The price referred to in paragraph 1 shall be for goods in bulk of sound and fair merchantable quality with moisture and impurity levels corresponding to those of the standard quality, ex production region.
The price shall be converted into national currencies using the agricultural conversion rate obtaining on the date of the beginning of the marketing year in question.
3. The selling price shall be increased or reduced for each percentage point of impurity or moisture content below or above the standard quality.
In the case of a first purchaser who has taken delivery of goods which are not of sound and fair merchantable quality and who carried out operations enabling them to attain that condition, the price payable for the delivered products must correspond to the price referred to in paragraph 1, for products of the quality referred to in the first subparagraph, less the costs arising from those operations including costs resulting from any loss in weight that may be involved.
4. The weight to be taken into account for the comparison between the price payable referred to in paragraph 1 and the minimum price shall be the weight of sound, genuine and merchantable goods delivered to the first purchaser, adjusted in conformity with the method given in Annex I.
Article 8
1. For each delivery of soya beans received from producers, all first purchasers, whether they are processors of soya beans or first purchasers who are not approved processors, shall lodge a delivery declaration as referred to in Article 2 (1) (b) of Regulation (EEC) No 2194/85 with the competent agency.
2. However, where, for a given marketing year, a producer makes several deliveries to the same first buyer, the latter may lodge, for all or part of those deliveries, an overall declaration, broken down by delivery.
3. In all cases, for inspection purposes, an overall final declaration must also be presented at the moment of identification of the last delivery.
4. Delivery declarations shall include at least:
- the surnames, forenames and addresses of the producer and of the first purchaser and, where applicable, the identification code of the latter,
- the signatures of the producer or his representative, and of the first purchaser,
- the contract number referred to in Article 6 (2) (1),
- the marketing year in which the product delivered was harvested,
- the date of delivery, and the weight of product of sound and fair merchantable quality as received, delivered by the producer to the first purchaser,
- the moisture content and impurity content of the products delivered,
- the quantity compared with the standard quality eligible for aid.
In the case of an overall declaration other than the one referred to in paragraph 3, the above information, with the exception of that referred to in the first three indents, must be specified for each delivery. The declaration referred to in paragraph 3 must include all the above information without exception.
5. Delivery declarations relating to quantities in respect of which identification has been applied for must be lodged at least three days before the processing or, where the first purchaser is not an approved processor, at least three days before the beans in question leave the undertaking. Failure to comply with this provision shall entail loss of entitlement to the aid.
Article 9
Declarations of sale or delivery by an approved first purchaser who is not a processor to a processor, referred to in Article 2 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2194/85, shall be drawn up in writing and shall contain the following information: (a) the names, forenames, addresses and signatures of the two parties concerned;
(b) the date of signature;
(c) the quantity sold or delivered, with reference to the ID part of the certificates relating to the quantities in question;
(d) the date of sale or delivery;
(e) the quantity actually delivered, with details of the moisture and impurity content established on entry into the processing establishment;
(f) an undertaking by the processor to process the beans within the Community, specifying the type of processing envisaged;
(g) an undertaking by the processor to permit the inspection operations referred to in Article 26, under the terms of Article 3.
CHAPTER 2
Identification and advance fixing of the aid
Article 10
The two-part certificate referred to in Article 4a of Regulation (EEC) No 2194/85 shall consist of one part, designated AP, certifying the advance fixing of the aid, and one part, designated ID, certifying identification of the beans.
The certificate shall be made out in at least two copies, the first of which shall be issued to the applicant and the second kept by the competent agency.
Article 11
1. Application may be made to the competent agency referred to in Article 6 of this Regulation for the ID part of the certificate for a single lot or for several lots. In no case may an application be made for the ID part of the certificate in respect of a lot for which an ID part has already been issued.
'Lot' shall be understood to mean a quantity of seeds covered by a delivery declaraltion, numbered by the interested party when it enters the undertaking and analysed pursuant to Article 30.
2. The application for the ID part of the certificate shall be considered only if the seeds entered the undertaking at the latest on the day on which it was submitted.
The application must be accompanied by delivery declarations corresponding to the quantities for which identification is applied for.
Article 12
1. Applications for the AP and ID parts of the certificate shall be sent to or lodged with the competent agency referred to in Article 6 of this Regulation on a printed form made out in accordance with Article 18 of Regulation (EEC) No 2681/83, or otherwise they shall not be considered.
However, they may be sent to the competent agency by telegram, telex or telefax.
In this case, they shall be rejected unless they comprise all the information which would have had to be shown on the form if the latter had been used. The telegram, telex or telefax shall be followed within eight working days by an application in accordance with the provisions of the first subparagraph.
An application containing conditions not provided for in Community regulations shall be rejected.
2. An application for the AP part of the certificate shall be rejected if the security referred to in Article 4b of Regulation (EEC) No 2194/85 is not lodged with or guaranteed to the competent agency not later than 4 p.m. on the day on which the application is lodged, or, where the guarantee is given by telegram, if it has been recorded at the transmitting telegraph office after 4 p.m., or, if it has been recorded not later than 4 p.m., it reaches the competent agency after 5.30 p.m.
Article 13
1. If an application is made for the ID part of a type of ban in respect of which aid has been fixed in advance, the application shall be rejected unless it is accompanied by copy No 1 of the AP part of the certificate.
2. If the application was sent to the competent agency by telegram, telex or telefax, copy No 1 of the AP part of the certificate must reach the competent agency at the latest during the second working day following that on which the application is submitted.
Article 14
1. 'The day on which the application for the certificate is lodged' means:
(a) if the application is lodged directly with the competent agency, the day on which the application is lodged, provided that lodging is effected by 4 p.m. at the latest;
(b) if the application is sent by letter, telex or telefax to the competent agency, the day on which it is received by the latter, provided that it is received by 4 p.m. at the latest;
(c) if the application is sent by telegram to the competent agency, the day on which it is received by the latter, provided that the telegram is recorded at the transmitting telegraph office not later than 4 p.m. and reaches the competent agency not later than 5.30 p.m.
However, in the case of applications for the ID part of the certificate, where failure to comply with the deadlines laid down above does not alter the rate of the aid applicable,
- the 4 p.m. deadline shall be extended until 12 p.m.,
- the provision concerning the 5.30 p.m. deadline referred to under (c) of the first subparagraph shall no longer be applicable.
2. Applications for certificates which arrive either on a day which is a non-working day for the competent agency, or on a day which is a working day for the latter but after the times specified above, shall be regarded as having been lodged on the following working day.
3. Applications for certificates which are sent by telegram in accordance with paragraph 1 (c) and arrive after 5.30 p.m. shall be rejected if the applicant does not specify, unequivocally and in a manner which precludes dispute, his intention to request, should the application arrive late, the rate of the aid valid on the first working day following that on which it is received. Such specification is given by using the words 'without reservation'.
Applications sent by telegram recorded at the transmitting telegraph office after 4 p.m. shall be regarded as having been lodged on the following working day, even if they arrive on another day, the rules laid down above relating to the day of application by telegram shall apply.
4. The deadlines specified in this Regulation shall be Belgian time.
Article 15
Where the application for a certificate and the guarantee of the security for the AP part of the certificate are sent by telegram and the telegram, through recorded not later than 4 p.m. has not reached the competent agency before 5.30 p.m. for reasons of force majeure, that agency may decide that the telegram be regarded as having arrived within the prescribed time limit.
If an agency recognizes a case of force majeure, the Member State under whose jurisdiction it comes shall immediately advise the Commission, which shall inform the other Member States thereof.
Article 16
The certificate shall be regarded as issued:
- with regard to the AP part, on the afternoon of the first working day following that on which the application is lodged,
- with regard to the ID Part, on the day on which the application is lodged.
Article 17
Rights and obligations deriving from the certificates shall not be transferable.
Article 18
1. The AP part of the certificate shall be valid as from the date referred to in Article 16 until the end of the fifth month following that during which the application was lodged.
2. However, the AP part of the certificate is issued in respect of a given marketing year. It may be issued in respect of the current marketing year or the following marketing year at the request of the applicant, to be made at the time of application. In this case, the operator shall be obliged to identify the beans in respect of which the rate of aid applied for is attributed on the said AP part during the marketing year chosen, except in case of force majeure.
Article 19
1. The rate of aid per 100 kilograms of beans, expressed in ecus, entered on the AP part of the certificate shall be that valid on the day on which the application for the certificate is lodged. This is indicated with the proviso that the guide price may be changed between the day on which the certificate is applied for and the day on which the beans are identified.
2. The rate of aid per 100 kilograms of beans, expressed in ecus, or in national currency entered on the ID part of the certificate shall be that valid on the day on which the certificate is accepted.
Article 20
1. The issue of the AP part of the certificate makes it obligatory to apply for identification of the beans specified therein during the period of validity of the certificate.
In addition, the application for identification must be made in accordance with the obligation laid down in Article 18 (2).
2. The quantities referred to in paragraph 1 shall refer to a product with moisture and impurity contents corresponding to the standard quality.
3. The ID certificates granted for an AP certificate must, during its period of validity, cover between 93 % and 107 % of the quantity shown in the AP part of the certificate.
If the quantities identified under this certificate exceed the quantity shown in the AP part of the certificate by more than 7 %, that excess quantity shall qualify for the rate of aid valid on the day of its identification.
If the quantities identified under the certificate are less than 93 % of the quantity shown on the certificate, the security shall be forfeit in proportion to the missing quantities. Otherwise, the security shall be released as soon as the identified quantities reach 93 % of the quantity shown.
Article 21
1. Where the application for identification is submitted by a processor under the conditions laid down in the first paragraph of Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 2194/85, the issue of the ID Part of the certificate shall, except in cases of force majeure, oblige the recipient to process the identified quantity within a period of 150 days from the date of issue.
The obligation shall be considered to be fulfilled where the processed quantity is not more than 2 % less than the quantity identified.
The quantities processed shall be considered as following exactly the order of the quantities identified, except in cases where it is possible to follow all of the lots of beans entering an undertaking during the whole of a given marketing year until their processing. Quantities processed before identification shall no longer be eligible for aid. If the quantity processed is less than 98 % of the quantity identified, the aid to be paid during a given period of control shall be reduced by the difference between the quantity identified and the quantity processed, multiplied by the highest rate of aid applicable during that period. 2. Where the application for identification is submitted by an approved first purchaser who is not a processor, in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 2194/85, the issue of the ID part of the certificate shall, except in cases of force majeure, oblige the recipient to deliver and to submit to the competent agency a sale or delivery declaration as referred to in Article 9 of this Regulation within a period of 150 days from the date of issue of the said ID certificate. This declaration must relate to the ID certificates covering the beans leaving the undertaking. The quantity actually delivered may not be more than 4 % less than the quantities shown in the ID parts of the certificates to which the sale or delivery declaration relates. Any beans sold or delivered before identification shall no longer be eligible for aid.
If the quantity actually delivered is less than 96 % of the quantity identified, entitlement to the aid shall be lost in respect of the missing quantity, and a penalty shall be applied to the remaining aid.
However, the penalty shall not be applied where it is shown to the satisfaction of the Member State that the missing quantity corresponds to beans sold or delivered before identification, in respect of which entitlement to the aid has already been lost, and which have therefore not been the subject of attempted fraud.
If the quantity actually delivered is more than 100 % of the identified quantity, aid shall be paid in respect of the identified quantity. If the quantity actually delivered is between 96 % and 100 % of the identified quantity, aid shall be paid in respect of the identified quantity.
3. The quantity actually processed and the quantity actually delivered shall be adjusted in accordance with the method set out in Annex I.
Article 22
1. Articles 16 to 20 of Regulation (EEC) No 2681/83 shall apply, mutatis mutandis, to applications for certificates and certificates issued under this Regulation.
2. Without prejudice to Article 20 of Regulation (EEC) No 2681/83 where an agency issuing certificates has recourse to one of the provisions referred to in paragraph 1 it shall advise the Commission immediately, in writing, of the exact circumstances. The Commission shall inform the other Member States forthwith.
Article 23
1. The amount of the security referred to in Article 4a of Regulation (EEC) No 2194/85 shall be fixed by the Commission, which shall inform the Member State of the conditions laid down in Article 37 (2).
2. The security, which is intended to guarantee completion of the operations on which entitlement to the aid is conditional, shall take one of the forms provided for in Article 8 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2220/85 (1).
Article 24
1. The release of the security referred to in Article 23 shall be subject to proof that the obligations referred to in Article 20 have been fulfilled. That proof shall be given by producing copy No 1 of the AP part of the certificate in accordance with Article 13 (1), Release of the security shall take place immediately following production of the proof referred to above.
2. Subject to the provisions of Article 25, if the obligations referred to in Article 20 are not fulfilled the security shall be forfeited in respect of a quantity equal to the difference between:
(a) 93 % of the net quantity shown on the certificate,
(b) the quantity identified at the undertaking, determined in accordance with the method defined in Annex I.
However, if the quantity identified amounts to less than 7 % of the net quantity shown in the certificate, the whole security shall be forfeited. Furthermore, if the total amount of the security which should be forfeited is less than ECU 5 in respect of a certificate, the Member State may release the full security.
3. At the request of the titular holder of the AP part of the certificate, the Member States may release the security in parts in proportion to the quantities of products in respect of which the proof referred to in paragraph 1 has been given.
Article 25
1. If it is not possible to fulfil the obligations laid down in Article 20 during the term of validity of the certificate for reasons of force majeure, the competent agency of the Member State issuing the certificate shall decide, at the request of the titular holder, either that these obligations shall be cancelled, the security being released, or that the term of validity of the certificate shall be extended for the period of time considered necessary in the circumstances. The extension may be given after the term of validity of the document has expired. The decision to cancel or extend shall be limited to the quantity of the product in respect of which the abovementioned obligations could not be fulfilled owing to reasons of force majeure. Any extension of the certificate shall be the subject of an endorsement thereon by the issuing agency. The certificate shall be adapted accordingly.
2. If the competent agency recognizes a case of force majeure, the Member State under whose jurisdiction it comes shall immediately advise the Commission, which shall inform the other Member States thereof.
3. The titular holder of the certificate shall furnish proof of the circumstance considered to constitute a case of force majeure.
4. If the term of validity of the certificate is extended the rate of aid fixed in advance to be granted shall be that determined in respect of the last month of the term of validity of the certificate.
CHAPTER 3
Control measures
Article 26
1. The agency responsible for control shall verify with regard to the contract:
(a) that the conditions laid down in Article 6 are fulfilled and, by means of random checks, that the areas indicated have actually been sown with soya beans; where such checks suggest that the area differs from that declared, the Member State shall, without prejudice to any penalties which it may apply, correct the contract forthwith;
(b) that the price to be paid to the producer, account being taken of the provisions of Article 7, is at least equal to the minimum price referred to in Article 2 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1491/85. The conversion rate to be applied for the purpose of checking that the minimum price has been observed in the case of a product harvested during a given marketing year shall be the representative rate in force at the beginning of the marketing year in question.
The agency responsible for control shall carry out spot checks as follows:
- in Member States where production exceeds 400 000 tonnes, all contracts concluded by a first purchaser with a legal person, other than an agricultural cooperative, and all contracts covering areas of more than 200 hectares must be verified,
- in the other Member States, all contracts covering areas of more than 100 hectares must be verified,
- in all other Member States, 5 % of the remaining area, selected at random, must also be the subject of spot checks,
- verification must relate to compliance with the conditions referred to in Article 6.
2. As regards the final, overall delivery declaration referred to in Article 8 (3), the agency responsible for control shall verify that the particulars specified in Article 8 are complete, and, by means of random checks, that the quantities indicated in the delivery declaration could have been produced in the area indicated in the contract according to the established yields for that production zone. Where the Member State concluded that the quantity indicated in the delivery declaration could not have been produced in the area indicated in the contract, it shall undertake the necessary procedure to ensure that sums paid unduly are recovered: in particular, all the securities lodged by the first purchaser in question, up to the amount of aid paid in respect of that contract, shall be forfeited to the competent agency.
The abovementioned parties shall be responsible for furnishing proof that the quantity shown in the final overall delivery declaration could have been produced in the area specified in the contract.
3. As regards the declaration of sale or delivery referred to in Article 9, the agency responsible for control shall verify that the particulars specified in Article 9 are complete, particularly as regards the undertaking and signature of the processor and, by means of random checks, that the products covered by the said declaration are actually processed.
4. The agency responsible for control shall carry out spot checks at the premises of the first purchasers, to ensure that the conditions laid down in Article 3 are fulfilled and in particular that the stocks held in store tally with the stock and financial accounts.
These spot checks must be carried out without prior notification, at least once a year.
The party concerned shall be responsible for furnishing proof that the necessary conditions have been met.
However, in those Member States where soya bean production is less than 400 000 tonnes, the spot checks carried out pursuant to Article 27 or Article 28 may be sufficient in the case of approved first purchasers who are not processors and who have concluded less than 200 contracts with soya producers.
5. Where an irregularity is discovered in the course of a check the following provisions shall apply:
- failure to comply with the provisions of Article 6 shall ledad to the application of the provisions of Article 6 (5) to the producer. In addition, if it is established that the first purchaser knew of the negligence or serious fault of the producer, his approval shall be withdrawn or he shall be otherwise excluded from benefiting from the provisions of this Regulation for the duration of the following marketing year,
- failure to comply by the first purchaser with the provisions relating to the minimum price shall result in the obligation to pay the producer, for the quantities in question, an amount equal to twice the difference between the minimum price and the price actually paid by way of damages,
- each time for a given quantity of beans for which entitlement to aid is not recognized, the securities lodged pursuant to Article 23 or 32 shall be forfeited according to the provisions of these articles.
Article 27
In the case of first purchasers who are processors, the agency responsible for control shall verify on the spot, before the final aid is paid, that the quantity of Community-produced beans processed in the undertaking has been previously identified and is equivalent to the quantity that entered the undertaking, taking into account the stock levels at the beginning and end of the period of control. The quantity processed may be determined from the quantites of oil and oilcake obtained, or from the products obtained from other processing procedures as referred to in Article 2 (2).
(1) OJ No L 205, 3. 8. 1985, p. 5.
Article 28
In the case of approved first purchasers who are not processors, the agency responsible for control shall verify on the spot, before the final aid is paid, that the quantity of beans actually delivered to a processor and covered by a declaration of sale or delivery as referred to in Article 9 corresponds to the quantities that entered the undertaking and were identified before leaving, taking into account the stock levels referred to in Article 8 (1) and (2), the sale or delivery declarations referred to in Article 9 and any other pertinent documents or material aspects.
Article 29
In the case referred to in Article 27, beans which have left the undertaking unprocessed shall no longer be eligible for the aid, except in cases of force majeure.
Article 30
1. To enable the exact amount of the aid to be calculated, to meet the conditions laid down in the sixth indent of Article 8 (4) and Article 9 (e), and to facilitate the control operations, the weight of the soya beans harvested in the Community shall be determined, and samples shall be taken, in particular when they are delivered to the first purchaser. In order to fulfil the provisions of Article 3 (2) and to allow controls to be effected, the weight of imported soya beans shall also be determined and samples shall be taken when they enter the undertaking in which they are to be processed.
2. The weight of the beans as referred to in the previous paragraph shall be expressed in kilograms and adjusted using the method set out in Annex I.
3. The taking of samples, the reduction of contract samples to samples for analysis and the determination of impurities and moisture, and any determination of oil content shall be carried out according to the common methods defined in Annexes I to VII to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1470/68 (1).
4. However, until 31 December 1992, where the operations provided for in paragraph 3 cannot be carried out under the conditions laid down in that paragraph on delivery, those operations may be carried out at that stage according to national methods producing equivalent results.
Member States shall forward to the Commission for approval a short technical description of the abovementioned methods within a period of four months following the publication of this Regulation.
5. When samples are taken on entry into the processing undertaking, standard samples must be set aside for a period of at least two months for placing at the disposal of the agency responsible for control, or a body designated by it. That body shall carry out random tests on a proportion of the samples taken in this way. Furthermore samples may be tested to determine the quality of products after the first processing of the beans in question, to verify that the tests are consistent with those carried out on the samples taken when the beans arrived for processing.
Where, on completion of the tests, the results reveal serious negligence or serious fault, the quantities in question shall not be eligible for aid and approval, and the first purchaser responsible for delivery of the beans shall lose his authorization, or be otherwise excluded from entitlement under this Regulation, where the first purchaser is a processor, for the following marketing year.
CHAPTER 4
Calculation and payment of the aid
Article 31
Without prejudice to the provisions of Article 7, the aid shall be granted only for beans of sound and fair merchantable quality.
Article 32
1. Final payment of the aid by the competent agency shall take place on presentation of the ID part of the certificate and the final overall declaration referred to in Article 8 (3), and:
- where the aid is paid to a processor, after certification by the agency responsible for control that the seed identified in the said certificate has been processed within the period mentioned in Article 21 (1),
- where the aid is paid to an approved first purchaser who is not a processor, after receipt of the declaration of sale or delivery referred to in Article 9,
- in all cases, after proof has been furnished that the condition relating to payment of the minimum price has been fulfilled.
2. The competent agency shall advance the aid once the beans have been identified, provided that a security equal to the amount of the aid in respect of which the advance is to be paid is lodged by the recipient prior to payment of the advance. However, where the first purchaser is not a processor, payment of the advance may, at the request of the competent agency, be made conditional on presentation of the sale or delivery contract.
3. The security, intended to ensure that the processing or incorporation operations on which entitlement to the aid is based are carried out, shall take one of the forms laid down in Article 8 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2220/85.
4. The security shall be released once the competent agency of the Member State recognizes, in accordance with Article 27 and 28, the applicant's entitlement to aid in respect of the quantities specified in the application, after a spot check has been carried out at the end of the marketing year. Where entitlement to aid is not recognized in respect of all or some of the quantities specified in the application, the security shall be forfeited in proportion to the quantities in respect of which the conditions for entitlement to the aid have not been fulfilled, with the addition of a penalty applied to the remaining aid.
Article 33
1. The amount of aid to be granted per 100 kilograms of product shall be that indicated on the ID part of the certificate.
However, the amount of aid to be granted if advance fixing takes place shall be equal to the amount applicable on the day on which the application of the AP part of the certificate is lodged and shall be increased or reduced:
- depending on whether the guide price valid during the month in which application is made for the ID part is higher or lower than that valid on the day on which application for the AP part is lodged, by the difference between these two guide prices,
- by the corrective amount referred to in Article 4c of Regulation (EEC) No 2194/85.
2. The definitive amount of aid shall be calculated on the basis of the weight of the beans ascertained at the time the delivery declaration is made out, adjusted in accordance with the method laid down in Annex I, according to the result of the analyses referred to in Article 30.
Article 34
Conversion of the aid into national currency shall be carried out using the agricultural conversion rate obtaining on the date of the beginning of the marketing year in question.
Article 35
Without prejudice to Article 32 (2) and (4), the aid shall be paid within 120 days of the submission of the evidence referred to in Article 32 (1), and completion of the checks referred to in Articles 27 and 28 in particular, which are intended to establish entitlement to the aid.
CHAPTER 5
Intra-Community trade
Article 36
1. Where the approved first purchaser who is not a processor sells or delivers beans to a processor established in another Member State, proof of sale or delivery to a processor shall be considered to be furnished when the T5 control copy, issued and used in accordance with Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2823/87 (1), with all the necessary endorsements, has been presented to the agency responsible for payment of the aid.
The following boxes of the T5 control copy must be completed:
(a) box 103;
(b) box 104 is to be endorsed accordingly and the following statement entered:
'Goods to be put at the disposal of a processor - Article 36 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2537/89.'.
2. The endorsement showing the date of delivery to the processor shall be entered in the section headed 'control as to use and/or destination' on the back of the control copy. In addition, the net weight of the beans as recorded on delivery and the moisture and impurity contents must be stated under 'remarks'.
3. Authorities checking the destination of products traded within the Community shall, for the purposes of final payment of the aid, send a copy or photocopy of the T5 control copy to the agency responsible for granting the aid.
4. The final aid shall be paid, and the security referred to in Article 32 (2) shall be released, upon receipt of the T5 control copy referred to in paragraph 3.
CHAPTER 6
Article 37
1. The rate of the aid shall be fixed as often as the market situation requires, in time to be applied at least twice a month, once from the first day of each month.
2. The Commission shall notify the Member States of the rate of aid per 100 kilograms, expressed in ecus, as soon as it is fixed, and in any case before the date from which the rate of aid is to be applied. This shall apply to the rate of aid:
- applicable during the current month,
- applicable for the five subsequent months in application of Article 4c of Regulation (EEC) No 2194/85, subject to the provisions of Article 4d of that Regulation.
Article 38
The corrective amount referred to in Article 4c of Regulation (EEC) No 2194/85 shall be equal to the difference between:
(a) the world market price of soya beans determined in accordance with Articles 39 and 40 of this Regulation, and
(b) the forward price for those beans, determined by applying the same criteria.
If, for one of the months following that in which the request for advance fixing is lodged, no offer and no price can be used for determining the forward price referred to under (b), the corrective amount shall be such as to determine a rate of aid equal to zero.
Article 39
The world market price for soya beans shall be determined twice a month.
This price shall be fixed per 100 kilograms and shall be calculated on the basis of the most favourable offers and quotations for delivery within 30 days.
Article 40
1. When the offers and quotations recorded relate to:
(a) a quality other than the standard quality for which the guide price was fixed, they shall be adjusted by reference to the coefficient of equivalence given in Annex II;
(b) products delivered cif at a frontier crossing point other than Rotterdam, they shall be adjusted by reference to the difference in freight and insurance costs as against products delivered cif Rotterdam;
(c) products delivered cif Rotterdam, they shall be adjusted to take account of unloading and forwarding costs.
2. For the purpose of paragraph 1, only the lowest available costs in respect of loading, freight and insurance shall be taken into account.
Article 41
1. Before the end of the second month of each marketing year and in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 38 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 136/66/EEC (1), the Commission shall fix for soya beans on the basis of the figures provided by the Member States or obtained otherwise:
- the estimated production referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 3a (3) of Regulation (EEC) No 1491/85 in respect of the current marketing year,
- the actual production referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 3a (3) of Regulation (EEC) No 1491/85 in respect of the preceding marketing year,
and in accordance with paragraph 2:
- the adjustment applying, where appropriate, to the amount of aid for the marketing year in question.
2. The adjustment of the amount of the aid for the marketing year in question, referred to in Article 3a (3) of Regulation (EEC) No 1491/85, shall be based on the algebraic sum:
- of the reduction relating to the marketing year in question, calculated on the basis of the estimated production, in accordance with Article 3a (3) of the abovementioned Regulation and Article 1a of Regulation (EEC) No 2194/85
and
- the carry-over of the reduction from the previous marketing year, positive or negative, resulting from the difference between the reduction which would have been calculated for that year if actual production had been taken into account instead of estimated production, and the reduction calculated on the basis of the estimated production.
3. The amounts of the aid fixed provisionally for a given marketing year shall be adjusted accordingly by the Commission before the adjustment for that year is published in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
4. The Member States shall forward to the Commission, before 15 October, figures relating to:
- areas under and production of soya beans harvested during the preceding marketing year,
- areas under and production of soya beans to be harvested during the current marketing year.
Article 42
1. Producer Member States shall inform the Commission of the names and addresses of the agencies appointed for the purpose of implementing the special measures for soya beans.
2. Producer Member States shall notify to the Commission:
(a) by 30 September of each year at the latest, the number of contracts lodged and the total area of cultivation covered by them;
(b) before the end of each month, the quantities covered by aid applications in the preceding month. This information shall include the total number of AP and ID certificates to which the aid applications refer;
(c) by 30 November at the latest following each marketing year, the quantities for which aid has been granted.
3. The Commission shall forward regularly to the Member States a summary of the information supplied in accordance with the preceding paragraphs.
4. France shall notify the Commission by 31 December and 31 May at the latest of each marketing year of the total area covered by soya-producers' declarations in the French overseas departments.
Article 43
The Member States shall assist each other in the application of the provisions of this Regulation.
Article 44
Each Member State shall forward to the Commission, within a period of five months from the end of the marketing year in question, a quantitative record showing the total volume of beans imported from third countries, the quantity of those beans utilized in the Member State and the quantities re-exported without further processing, specifying the country of destination.
CHAPTER 7
Special and final provisions
Article 45
1. The rate of aid to be granted for soya beans harvested in the French overseas departments shall be:
- during the first six months of a given year, that applicable with effect from 16 March of that year,
- during the second six months of a given year, that applicable with effect from 16 August of that year.
2. All producers of soya beans in the French overseas departments shall lodge with the competent authorities, for each harvest and by dates to be set by France, declarations of the areas sown with soya and the crop harvested.
3. France shall notify the Commission of soya bean yields recorded in the various overseas departments, differentiated according to method of cultivation used, before 15 May and 15 October each year.
Article 46
1. Regulation (EEC) No 2329/85 is hereby repealed.
2. However, the following transitional provisions shall be applicable for the 1989/90 marketing year:
- contracts already lodged under the arrangements provided for in Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 2329/85 at 15 August 1989 shall remain valid,
- approvals granted by Member States to first purchasers who are not processors, in accordance with Article 5 of Regulation (EEC) No 2329/85 shall remain valid. However, where the approved first purchasers do not fulfil the new conditions for approval laid down in this Regulation and in particular Article 4 thereof, they shall be placed under special surveillance by the competent agency and by the agency responsible for control in the Member State concerned,
- the Member States shall notify the measures adopted for the application of the new control provisions instituted by Article 26 (1) and (4) and by Article 30 (5) within a period of three months from the entry into force of this Regulation. The obligation to carry out the said controls systematically is only applicable for the various operations laid down insofar as the measures are compatible with the necessary technical and administrative time limits.
Article 47
This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
It shall apply from 1 September 1989.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 8 August 1989. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
1,
0
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 2376/91 of 5 August 1991 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1413/91 on the procedure for granting the premium for leaf tobacco
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 of 21 April 1970 on the common organization of the market in raw tobacco (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1737/91 (2), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 3 (3) thereof,
Whereas Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1413/91 (3) authorizes the Member States to set deadlines for the conclusion and registering of declarations and European cultivation contracts which are prior to the date set in Article 2b of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1726/70 (4); whereas Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 1413/91 sets special conditions for the application of the authorization for the 1991 harvest; whereas, as a result of a delay in publication of the Regulation, the above Article 2 has become null and void; whereas, therefore, it should be deleted;
Whereas Regulation (EEC) No 1413/91 stipulates that the European cultivation contract does not cover any tobacco produced in excess of the yield laid down for the variety concerned in the description given in the Annex to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2501/87 (5), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 838/91 (6); whereas, as a result of the judgment handed down by the Court of Justice in case C 368/89 (Crispoltoni) of 11 July 1991, application of this rule with effect from the 1991 harvest entails the risk of legal objections; whereas, therefore, provision should be made for the rule to be applicable with effect from the 1992 harvest;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Raw Tobacco,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Regulation (EEC) No 1413/91 is hereby amended as follows:
1. Article 2 is deleted.
2. The second subparagraph of Article 3 is replaced by the following:
'It shall apply from the 1992 harvest.'
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 5 August 1991. | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
*****
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 1596/86
of 26 May 1986
fixing the prices to be used for calculating the value of agricultural products in intervention storage in Spain and Portugal at 1 March 1986 in the accounts referred to in Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1883/78
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to the Act of Accession of Spain and Portugal,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1883/78 of 2 August 1978 laying down general rules for the financing of interventions by the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, Guarantee Section (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1334/86 (2), and in particular Article 9 thereof,
Whereas Council Regulation (EEC) No 3247/81 (3) provides that accounts are to be drawn up for each product for which an intervention price has been fixed and that the value of products bought in during the year corresponds to the intervention prices fixed in the various regulations on the common organization of the markets;
Whereas in the case of the expenditure to be recorded in Spain and Portugal, financing of expenditure commences on 1 March 1986 by virtue of Article 394 of the Act of Accession; whereas the value of the agricultural products in public intervention storage in Spain should be determined; whereas, in accordance with the principle laid down in Article 68 of the Act of Accession, the intervention prices applicable in that country on that date should be used for that purpose;
Whereas in the case of Portugal, in accordance with the system of transition by stages provided for in the Act of Accession, similar rules are required at present for olive oil only;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the EAGGF Committee,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
For the initial drawing-up by the intervention agencies in Spain and Portugal of the accounts referred to in Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1883/78, the value of the stocks covered by the system of Community financing to be entered in line 2 of Table A in Annex III to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3184/83 (4) shall be calculated for each product by multiplying the quantity of the normal stocks in public intervention storage by the intervention price fixed for that product pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 68 and the first subparagraph of Article 236 of the Act of Accession applicable at 1 March 1986.
The intervention prices t be used shall be those listed in the Annex.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
It shall apply with effect from 1 March 1986.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 26 May 1986. | [
0,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
COMMISSION DECISION of 20 January 1994 establishing an initial list of declining industrial areas concerned by Objective 2 as defined by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 (94/169/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 of 24 June 1988 on the tasks of the Structural Funds and their effectiveness and on coordination of their activities between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments (1), as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 2081/93 (2), and in particular Article 9 (3) thereof,
Whereas Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 provides for, in particular in Article 12 (1), a second programming period from 1994 to 1999;
Whereas Article 9 (3) of the aformementioned Regulation states that the Commission shall, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 17 and on the basis of the criteria laid down in Article 9 (2), establish an initial list for three years of the declining industrial areas concerned by Objective 2, taking into account the national priorities and situations, and in close consultation with the Member State concerned;
Whereas Article 9 (1) of the same Regulation states that the declining industrial areas concerned by Objective 2 shall comprise regions, frontier regions or parts of regions (including employment areas and urban communities);
Whereas Article 9 (2) specifies the criteria to be used to define the declining industrial areas concerned by Objective 2;
Whereas Article 9 (4) states that in establishing the list, the Commission and the Member States shall seek to ensure that assistance is genuinely concentrated on the areas most seriously affected, at the most appropriate geographical level, taking into account the particular situation of the areas concerned;
Whereas Article 9 (5) states that West-Berlin shall be eligible for aid under Objective 2 for the first three-year period referred to in paragraph 6 of the same Article;
Whereas Article 17 of the aforementioned Regulation specifies the procedure to be followed in respect of Committees to assist the Commission in implementing the Regulation;
Whereas Article 27 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988 laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the different Structural Funds between themselves and with the operations of the European investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments (3), as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 2082/93 (4), sets up an Advisory Committee on the Development and Conversion of Regions, and states that the said Committee shall deliver an opinion on the drawing-up of the list of areas eligible in connection with Objective 2;
Whereas that Committee has delivered a favourable opinion,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
The initial list of declining industrial areas concerned by Objective 2 and covering the period from 1994 to 1996, established pursuant to Article 9 (3) of Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88, is set out in the Annex.
Article 2
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 20 January 1994. | [
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
Commission Decision
of 30 March 2004
adapting Decision 2001/672/EC as regards summer grazing in certain areas of Slovenia by reason of the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia
(notified under document number C(2004) 1022)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2004/318/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty of Accession to the European Union of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic, and in particular Article 2(3) thereof,
Having regard to the Act of Accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia, and in particular Article 57(2) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) For certain acts adopted by the Commission, which remain valid beyond 1 May 2004, and require adaptation by reason of accession, the necessary adaptations were not provided for in the Act of Accession, in particular in its Annex II. Those adaptations need to be adopted before accession so as to be applicable as from accession.
(2) Slovenia has requested to apply from the date of accession the special rules applicable to movements of bovine animals when put out to summer grazing in mountain areas as laid down in Commission Decision 2001/672/EC(1).
(3) It is justified to take account of Slovenia's request and to amend Decision 2001/672/EC accordingly,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
In the Annex to Decision 2001/672/EC, the text in the Annex to this Decision is added.
Article 2
This Decision shall apply, subject to, and as from the date of, the entry into force of the Treaty of Accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic.
Article 3
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 30 March 2004. | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
1,
0
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
COMMISSION DECISION
of 1 August 2007
amending Decision 2006/415/EC concerning certain protection measures in relation to highly pathogenic avian influenza of the subtype H5N1 in poultry in the Community
(notified under document number C(2007) 3696)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2007/556/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Directive 89/662/EEC of 11 December 1989 concerning veterinary checks in intra-Community trade with a view to the completion of the internal market (1), and in particular Article 9(4) thereof,
Having regard to Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990 concerning veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Community trade in certain live animals and products with a view to the completion of the internal market (2), and in particular Article 10(4) thereof,
Having regard to Council Directive 2005/94/EC of 20 December 2005 on Community measures for the control of avian influenza and repealing Directive 92/40/EEC (3), and in particular Article 63(3) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
Commission Decision 2006/415/EC of 14 June 2006 concerning certain protection measures in relation to highly pathogenic avian influenza of the subtype H5N1 in poultry in the Community and repealing Decision 2006/135/EC (4) lays down certain protection measures to be applied in order to prevent the spread of that disease, including the establishment of areas A and B following a suspected or confirmed outbreak of the disease.
(2)
Following an outbreak of highly pathogenic avian influenza of H5N1 subtype in the Czech Republic the Commission has adopted Decision 2007/434/EC of 21 June 2007 amending Decision 2006/415/EC concerning certain protection measures in relation to highly pathogenic avian influenza of the subtype H5 in poultry in the Czech Republic (5).
(3)
In the following days the Commission has adopted Decision 2007/454/EC of 29 June 2007 concerning protection measures in relation to highly pathogenic avian influenza of subtype H5N1 in poultry in the Community (6) to confirm the interim protective measures provided for in Decision 2007/434/EC as regards areas A and B in the Czech Republic and the duration of that regionalisation.
(4)
Following an outbreak of highly pathogenic avian influenza of H5N1 subtype in Germany the Commission has adopted Decision 2007/483/EC of 9 July 2007 amending Decision 2006/415/EC concerning certain protection measures in relation to highly pathogenic avian influenza of the subtype H5 in poultry in Germany (7).
(5)
By Commission Decision 2007/496/EC of 13 July amending Decision 2006/415/EC concerning certain protection measures in relation to highly pathogenic avian influenza of the subtype H5N1 in poultry in the Community (8) the interim protective measures provided for in Decision 2007/483/EC as regards areas A and B in Germany were confirmed. In addition, the delineation of the restricted areas and the duration of the measures applied by the Czech Republic were modified to take into account a change in the epidemiological situation in that Member State.
(6)
On 12 July 2007 the Czech Republic has reported the confirmation of two further outbreaks in poultry holdings located within area A which requires the application of the protection measures as regards the Czech Republic to be prolonged. Moreover, for reasons of clarity of Community legislation it appears appropriate to list areas under restriction in area A in that Member State in an alphabetical order without distinguishing between the protection and the surveillance zones.
(7)
Decision 2006/415/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.
(8)
The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
The Annex to Decision 2006/415/EC is replaced by the text in the Annex to this Decision.
Article 2
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 1 August 2007. | [
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
Commission Decision
of 15 May 2000
approving the single programming document for Community structural assistance under Objective 1 in the region of Hainaut in Belgium
(notified under document number C(2000) 1222)
(Only the French and Dutch texts are authentic)
(2002/320/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds(1), and in particular Article 15(5) thereof,
After consulting the Committee on the Development and Conversion of Regions, the Committee pursuant to Article 147 of the Treaty, the Committee on Agricultural Structures and Rural Development and the Committee on Structures for Fisheries and Aquaculture,
Whereas:
(1) Articles 13 and following of Title II of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 lay down the procedure for preparing and implementing single programming documents.
(2) Article 15(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 provides that, after consultation with the partners referred to in Article 8 of the Regulation, the Member State may submit to the Commission a development plan which is treated as a draft Single Programming Document, and which contains the information referred to in Article 16 of the Regulation
(3) Under Article 15(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999, on the basis of the regional development plan submitted by the Member State and within the partnership established in accordance with Article 8 of that Regulation, the Commission is to take a decision on the single programming document, in agreement with the Member State concerned and in accordance with the procedures laid down in Articles 48 to 51.
(4) The Belgian Government submitted to the Commission on 7 December 1999 an acceptable draft Single Programming Document for the province of Hainaut qualifying for transitional support under Objective 1 pursuant to Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999. The draft contains the information listed in Article 16 of the Regulation, and in particular a description of the priorities selected and an indication of the financial contribution from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the European Social Fund (ESF), the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), Guidance Section, and the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG).
(5) The date of submission of the draft which was considered acceptable by the Commission constitutes the date from which expenditure under the plan is eligible. Under Article 30 of the Regulation, it is necessary to lay down the final date for the eligibility of expenditure.
(6) The rural development measures to be financed by the EAGGF are governed, in particular as regards their compatibility and consistency with common agricultural policy measures, by Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF)(2).
(7) The single programming document has been drawn up in agreement with the Member State concerned and within the partnership.
(8) The Commission has satisfied itself that the Single Programming Document is in accordance with the principle of additionality.
(9) Under Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999, the Commission and the Member State are required to ensure, in a manner consistent with the principle of partnership, coordination between assistance from the Funds and from the EIB and other existing Financial Instruments.
(10) The EIB has been involved in drawing up the single programming document in accordance with the provisions of Article 15(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 and has declared itself prepared to contribute to its implementation with the estimated loan amounts indicated in this Decision and in conformity with its statutory provisions.
(11) The financial contribution from the Community available over the entire period and its year-by-year breakdown are expressed in euro. The annual breakdown should be consistent with the relevant financial perspective. Under Article 7(7) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999, the Community contribution has already been indexed at a rate of 2 % per year. Under Article 7(7) and Article 44(2) of the Regulation, the Community contribution may be reviewed at mid-term, and not later than 31 March 2004, to take account of the effective level of inflation and the allocation of the performance reserve.
(12) Provision should be made for adapting the financial allocations of the priorities of this single programming document within certain limits to actual requirements reflected by the pattern of implementation on the ground, in agreement with the Member State concerned,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
The single programming document for Community structural assistance under Objective 1 in the region of Hainaut qualifying for transitional support under Objective 1 in Belgium for the period 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2006 is hereby approved.
Article 2
1. In accordance with Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999, the single programming document includes the following elements:
(a) the strategy and priorities for the joint action of the Structural Funds and the Member State; their specific quantified targets; the ex ante evaluation of the expected impact, including on the environmental situation, and the consistency of the priorities with the economic, social and regional policies and the employment strategy of Belgium. The priorities are as follows:
1. creating growth centres by developing the productive base;
2. creating growth centres through the knowledge economy;
3. developing the potential of agriculture, forestry, aquaculture and the countryside;
4. increasing the attractiveness of the area through restoration and image-promotion;
5. a preventative approach to the labour market;
6. improving reintegration into working life and social inclusion;
7. technical assistance;
(b) a summary description of the measures planned to implement the priorities, including the information needed to check compliance with the State aid rules under Article 87 of the Treaty;
(c) the indicative financing plan specifying for each priority and each year the financial allocation envisaged for the contribution from each Fund and the total amounts of eligible public or equivalent expenditure and estimated private funding in the Member State. The total contribution from the Funds planned for each year for the single programming document is consistent with the relevant financial perspective;
(d) the provisions for implementing the single programming document including designation of the managing authority, a description of the arrangements for managing the single programming document and the use to be made of global grants, a description of the systems for monitoring and evaluation, including the role of the Monitoring Committee and the arrangements for the participation of the partners in that Committee;
(e) the ex ante verification of compliance with additionality and information on the transparency of financial flows;
(f) information on the resources required for preparing, monitoring and evaluating the assistance.
2. The indicative financing plan puts the total cost of the priorities selected for the joint action by the Community and the Member State at EUR 2221740000 for the whole period and the financial contribution from the Structural Funds at EUR 645000000.
The resulting requirement for national resources of EUR 657300000 from the public sector and EUR 919440000 from the private sector can be partly met by Community loans from the European Investment Bank and other lending instruments.
Article 3
1. The total assistance from the Structural Funds granted under the single programming document amounts to EUR 645000000. The procedure for granting the financial assistance, including the financial contribution from the Funds for the various priorities included in the Single Programming Document, is set out in the financing plan annexed to this Decision.
2. The indicative initial estimated breakdown among the Structural Funds of the total Community assistance available is as follows:
TABLE
3. During implementation of the financing plan, the total cost or Community financing of a given priority may be adjusted in agreement with the Member State by up to 25 % of the total Community contribution to the single programming document throughout the programme period, up to a maximum of EUR 60 million, without altering the total Community contribution referred to in paragraph 1.
Article 4
This Decision is without prejudice to the Commission's position on aid schemes falling within Article 87(1) of the Treaty that are included in this assistance and which it has not yet approved. Submission of the application for assistance, the programme complement or a request for payment by the Member State does not replace the notification required by Article 88(3) of the Treaty.
Community financing of state aid falling within Article 87(1) of the Treaty, granted under aid schemes or in individual cases, requires prior approval by the Commission under Article 88 of the Treaty, except where the aid falls under the de minimis rule or is exempted under an exemption regulation adopted by the Commission under Council Regulation (EC) No 994/98 of 7 May 1998 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 to certain categories of horizontal State aid(3). In the absence of such exemption or approval, aid is illegal and subject to the consequences set out in the procedural regulation for State aid, and its part-financing would be treated as an irregularity within the meaning of Articles 38 and 39 of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999. Consequently, the Commission will not accept requests for interim and final payments under Article 32 of the Regulation for measures being part-financed with new or altered aid, as defined in the procedural regulation for State aid, granted under aid schemes or in individual cases, until such aid has been notified to and formally approved by the Commission.
Consequently, the Commission will not accept requests for interim and final payments under Article 32 of the Regulation for measures being part-financed with new or altered aid, as defined in the procedural regulation for State aid, granted under aid schemes or in individual cases, until such aid has been notified to and formally approved by the Commission.
By way of derogation from the preceding paragraphs, Articles 51 and 52 of Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 shall apply in the context of rural development part-financed by the EAGGF.
Article 5
The date from which expenditure shall be eligible is 7 December 1999. The closing date for the eligibility of expenditure shall be 31 December 2008. This date is extended to 30 April 2009 for expenditure incurred by bodies granting assistance under Article 9(l) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999.
Article 6
This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Belgium.
Done at Brussels, 15 May 2000. | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
1,
0
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
COMMISSION DECISION of 10 June 1997 setting up a Scientific Steering Committee (97/404/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Whereas sound scientific advice is an essential basis for Community rules on consumer health, including matters on consumer health in its strictest sense, but also on animal health and welfare, plant health and environmental health;
Whereas scientific advice on consumer health matters is currently provided by six scientific committees set up by the Commission and addressing the topics of food, animal nutrition, cosmetology, pesticides, toxicity and ecotoxicity, and veterinary matters;
Whereas several issues relating to consumer health are of a multidisciplinary nature and require input from various scientific committees which would benefit from an effective coordination;
Whereas the Commission must be able to obtain sound and timely scientific advice;
Whereas scientific advice on matters relating to consumer health must, in the interests of consumers and industry, be based on the principles of excellence, independence and transparency,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
A Scientific Steering Committee (hereinafter called 'SSC`) in the field of consumer health and food safety is hereby established.
Article 2
1. The SSC shall assist the Commission to obtain the best scientific advice available on matters relating to consumer health.
2. The SSC shall coordinate the work of the scientific committees set up by the Commission to address matters of consumer health, in particular:
(a) the SSC shall evaluate and monitor the working procedures used by the scientific committees and will harmonize them when necessary;
(b) for matters which require consultation of two or more scientific committees, the SSC shall identify those scientific committees which should be involved, taking account of compulsory consultation requirements, shall consider opinions issued by the different committees and may, in case of substantial differences of opinions, provide an overall view;
(c) when Community measures are based on the evaluation carried out by scientists from organizations in the Member States, the SSC shall assist the Commission, on the latter's request, in assessing if scientific advice at Community level is needed, and if so, in determining which scientific committee is to provide it.
3. The SSC shall, in the area of consumer health:
(a) deliver scientific advice only on matters which are not covered by the mandates of the other scientific committees. It shall prepare this advice following a request from the Commission and relying on the most appropriate scientific expertise;
(b) specifically deliver scientific advice on multidisciplinary aspects of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, including bovine spongiform encephalopathy. To this end it shall create an ad hoc group which shall be chaired by a member of the SSC and may include external experts;
(c) assist the Commission with the identification of those areas where compulsory consultation of the scientific committees could be appropriate;
(d) arrange for the review of existing and newly developed risk assessment procedures and, where appropriate, propose the development of new risk assessment procedures relating to areas such as, for example, food-borne diseases and the transmissibility of animal diseases to man;
(e) draw the attention of the Commission to any specific or emerging consumer health problem.
4. Those members of the SSC who are not chairpersons of scientific committees shall contribute to the selection of the members of the scientific committees by advising the Commission as to the excellence and independence of the candidates.
5. The Commission may, when requesting an output from the SSC, ask for a deadline for its delivery to be adhered to.
Article 3
1. The SSC shall be composed of eight scientific experts not being members of any other scientific committee, and the chairpersons of the scientific committees. The latter may, should they not be able to participate in a meeting of the SSC, be replaced by one of the vice-chairpersons of their scientific committee.
2. The full SSC will elect by simple majority one chairperson and two vice-chairpersons from amongst its members who are not chairpersons of scientific committees.
3. The members of the SSC shall be scientific experts in one or more fields of consumer health, collectively covering the widest possible range of scientific disciplines relating to this subject.
4. The members of the SSC who are not chairpersons of scientific committees, shall be nominated by the Commission following publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities of a call for expressions of interest, together with the selection criteria and a description of the selection procedure. The selection procedure shall identify in a transparent manner the most suitable candidates for working in the SSC. From these the Commission shall nominate the members of the SSC not being chairpersons of scientific committees. The names of the members of the SSC shall be published in the Official Journal.
5. The term of office of members of the SSC not being chairpersons of scientific committees shall be three years. Those members of the SSC may not serve more than two consecutive terms of office. After the period of three years they shall remain office until their replacement or the renewal of their mandate.
6. In the event that a member of the SSC not being a chairperson of a scientific committee is no longer able to contribute effectively to the work of the SSC, or in the case of his/her voluntary resignation, the Commission shall nominate an appropriate replacement for the remaining term of office, drawn from the most suitable candidates identified in accordance with paragraph 4.
7. Members of the SSC, and external experts invited to contribute to its work, shall receive an indemnity for the service they provide to the Commission in addition to the reimbursement of travel and subsistence expenses, in accordance with the rules laid down by the Commission.
Article 4
1. Members of the SSC shall act independently of external influences in their capacity as members of the SSC.
2. Members of the SSC shall inform the Commission annually of any interests which might be perceived as prejudicial to their independence.
3. Members of the SSC and external experts shall declare specific interests which might be perceived as prejudicial to their independence with regard to the work of the SSC, its working groups or its ad hoc group.
Article 5
The SSC may create specific working groups with clearly defined mandates. Each working group shall be chaired by a member of the committee and may include external experts. The working groups shall report to the SSC.
Article 6
1. The SSC shall adopt its rules of procedure which shall be made publicly available.
2. The rules shall ensure that:
(a) the tasks of the SSC are completed in a manner which satisfies the principles of excellence, independence and transparency, while respecting legitimate requests for commercial confidentiality;
(b) the coordination of the work of the scientific committees is carried out in an efficient and flexible manner, in particular by a timely reporting of the chairpersons on the workplans of the scientific committees;
(c) the SSC provides opinions and other scientific advice in good time;
(d) the SSC may appoint rapporteurs for the preparation of background information and documentation and the drafting of its opinions;
(e) the SSC verifies that appointed rapporteurs can carry out their specific tasks as independently as possible from all external influences.
Article 7
The agenda, minutes and opinions of the SSC shall be made publicly available without undue delay and with regard being had to the need to respect commercial confidentiality. Minority views shall always be included and shall be attributed to Members only at their request.
Article 8
Without prejudice to Article 214 of the Treaty, members shall be obliged not to divulge information which they acquire as a result of the work of the SSC or one of its working groups when they are informed that this information is subject to a request for confidentiality.
Article 9
The Commission shall provide the secretariat for the SSC, its working groups and its ad hoc group.
Done at Brussels, 10 June 1997. | [
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2025/2005
of 13 December 2005
establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 of 21 December 1994 on detailed rules for the application of the import arrangements for fruit and vegetables (1), and in particular Article 4(1) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 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 the Annex thereto.
(2)
In compliance with the above criteria, the standard import values must be fixed at the levels set out in the Annex to this Regulation,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The standard import values referred to in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 shall be fixed as indicated in the Annex hereto.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 14 December 2005.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 13 December 2005. | [
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
COUNCIL DECISION of 9 August 1996 setting the date on which Joint Action 96/442/CFSP adopted by the Council on 15 July 1996 shall take effect (96/508/CFSP)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article J.3 thereof,
Having regard to the general guidelines given by the European Council meeting in Corfu on 24 and 25 June 1994,
Whereas, with a view to a continued European Union presence to consolidate the achievements of the European Union Administration of Mostar (EUAM) after its expiry on 22 July 1996, the Council adopted on 15 July 1996 Joint Action 96/442/CFSP (1) on the nomination of a Special Envoy of the EU in the city of Mostar, to take effect once the conditions set out in Article 10 were fulfilled;
Whereas, since those conditions were not fulfilled, on 26 July 1996 the Council adopted Joint Action 96/476/CFSP (2) on interim arrangements, which expired on 4 August 1996;
Whereas the conditions set out in Article 10 of Joint Action 96/442/CFSP have now been fulfilled,
HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Article 1
1. The European Union notes that the conditions set out in Article 10 of Joint Action 96/442/CFSP have been fulfilled.
2. Consequently, Joint Action 96/442/CFSP shall take effect as from 5 August 1996.
Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption. It shall be published in the Official Journal.
Done at Brussels, 9 August 1996. | [
1,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
1,
0
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK
of 13 March 2006
amending Decision ECB/2002/11 on the annual accounts of the European Central Bank
(ECB/2006/3)
(2006/248/EC)
THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK,
Having regard to the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, and in particular to Article 26.2 thereof,
Whereas:
For reasons of increased transparency, it is necessary to clarify the presentation of the European Central Bank (ECB) pension scheme in the ECB’s accounts. Annex II to Decision ECB/2002/11 of 5 December 2002 on the annual accounts of the European Central Bank (1) should be amended to reflect the inclusion of this item on the liability side of the ECB’s balance sheet under item 12 ‘Other Liabilities’,
HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Article 1
Amendments
Annex II of Decision ECB/2002/11 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Decision.
Article 2
Entry into force
This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.
Done at Frankfurt am Main, 13 March 2006. | [
1,
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
COUNCIL DECISION of 24 July 1989 concerning the provisional application of the Agreed Minute amending the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan on trade in textile products (89/670/EEC)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Article 113 thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,
Whereas, pending completion of the procedures necessary for its conclusion, the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan on trade in textile products, initialled on 12 September 1986, has been applied provisionally since 1 January 1987 in accordance with Decision 87/457/EEC (1) insofar as the Community is concerned;
Whereas that Agreement provides for the possibility of re-examining, in the light of recent trade developments, the quantitative adjustments to be made to the quotas for certain categories to allow for the introduction of the harmonized system;
Whereas, following consultations between the Community and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, an Agreed Minute amending the quota for category 4 laid down in the Agreement was initialled on 20 April 1989;
Whereas, pending completion of the procedures necessary for the conclusion of the Agreement and the Agreed Minute, the Agreed Minute should be applied provisionally with effect from 1 January 1989, provided it is applied likewise by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan,
HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Article 1
Pending completion of the procedures necessary for its conclusion, the Agreed Minute amending the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan on trade in textile products shall be applied provisionally by the Community with effect from 1 January 1989, provided it is applied likewise by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
The text of the Agreed Minute is attached to this Decision.
Article 2
The Commission is requested to seek the agreement of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan on the provisional application of the Agreed Minute referred to in Article 1 and to notify the Council thereof.
Done at Brussels, 24 July 1989. | [
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
*****
COMMISSION DECISION
of 12 January 1988
approving a programme for the first-stage marketing of the cereals sector in Portugal pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC) No 355/77
(Only the Portuguese text is authentic)
(88/102/EEC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 355/77 of 15 February 1977 on common measures to improve the conditions under which agricultural and fishery products are processed and marketed (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 560/87 (2), and in particular Article 5 thereof,
Whereas on 20 July 1987 the Portuguese Government forwarded a programme concerning the first stage of the marketing of cereals, and supplied additional information on 11 November 1987;
Whereas the aims of this programme are to provide appropriate storage facilities to rationalize and modernize the cereals sector at the first stage of marketing so as to make the sector more competitive and aid value to its output; whereas it therefore constitutes a programme within the meaning of Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 355/77;
Whereas, although this programme plans for investments in the rice sector, the Member State has also forwarded another specific programme for the rice sector; whereas therefore, this product must be excluded from the scope of this Decision;
Whereas sound financial management does not allow for the funding of investments used for intervention purposes;
Whereas this programme contains sufficient information as prescribed by Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 355/77 to show that the aims set out in Article 1 of that Regulation can be achieved in the cereals sector in Portugal; whereas the estimated time required for implementation of the programme does not exceed the period mentioned in Article 3 (1) (g) of that Regulation;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Agricultural Structures,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
1. The programme for the first-stage marketing of cereals forawarded by the Portuguese Government on 20 July 1987 and for which additional information was provided on 11 November 1987 pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 355/77 is approved, except for investments relating to rice.
2. The approval does not cover investments for intervention purposes.
Article 2
This Decision is addressed to the Portuguese Republic.
Done at Brussels, 12 January 1988. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 2991/81 of 19 October 1981 amending Regulation (EEC) No 458/80 on collective projects for the restructuring of vineyards
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Article 43 thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission (1),
Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (2),
Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee (3),
Whereas it follows from Articles 2 and 5 of Regulation (EEC) No 458/80 (4), that the implementation of a restructuring project involves the replanting and, in appropriate cases, within the limits laid down, the new planting of the whole wine-growing area covered by the project ; whereas, however, in certain cases where the existing structural situation so permits, the purpose of a restructuring operation may also be achieved by the replanting or new planting of only one part of the wine-growing area ; whereas the provisions in question should be amended to allow for this possibility, so that the measure may be implemented more effectively ; whereas, for the same reasons, there should be greater flexibility in the conditions to be met by projects affecting vineyards intended for the production of table wines and situated in mountain or hill areas within the meaning of Council Directive 75/268/EEC of 28 April 1975 on mountain and hill farming and farming in certain less-favoured areas (5), as last amended by Directive 80/666/EEC (6);
Whereas, in order to accelerate the restructuring of vineyards, a time limit for carrying out restructuring projects should be laid down while providing for the possibility of derogation to obviate cases of undue hardship;
Whereas the adjustments necessitated by the accession of Greece to the Communities should be made,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Regulation (EEC) No 458/80 shall be amended as follows: 1. Article 2 shall be replaced by the following:
"Article 2
1. For the purposes of this Regulation, "a collective project for the restructuring of vineyards" means any project involving the replanting of vines undertaken by growers under a binding agreement concluded between them.
However, the project may also include new planting if it is technically essential for improving the effectiveness of the restructuring measures and if it conforms with Articles 30, 30b, 30c, and 30e of Regulation (EEC) No 337/79.
This new planting may not exceed: - 10 % of the area of replanting and new planting intended for the production of quality wines psr,
- 10 % of the area of replanting and new planting intended for the production of table wines.
2. The agreements between growers referred to in paragraph 1 shall lay down the conditions governing the planting of vines and those governing associated operations, providing in particular for rationalization of work and of the use of machinery.
3. A collective restructuring project must cover: (a) in the case of vineyards intended for the production of: - quality wines psr,
- table wines, and situated in mountain areas covered by Article 3 (3) of Directive 75/268/EEC,
a sufficient area of restructured vineyard to ensure that the objectives of Article 3 are fulfilled;
(1) OJ No C 98, 30.4.1981, p. 3. (2) Opinion delivered on 16 October 1981 (not yet published in the Official Journal). (3) OJ No C 189, 30.7.1981, p. 37. (4) OJ No L 57, 29.2.1980, p. 27. (5) OJ No L 128, 19.5.1975, p. 1. (6) OJ No L 180, 14.7.1980, p. 34. (b) in the case of other vineyards intended for the production of table wines, an area of not less than 100 hectares of vineyard in accordance with a restructuring plan established for the whole of the restructured vineyard, made up of unbroken wine-growing plots which are in principle not less than two hectares each.
However, where natural growing conditions relevant to the project make it impossible to have unbroken plots of the minimum size of two hectares, that part of the wine-growing area which does not comply with this criterion must not exceed 30 % of the restructured wine-growing area.
4. For the purposes of this Regulation "replanting or new planting" means any planting of vines undertaken in accordance with the corresponding definition given in Annex IVa to Regulation (EEC) No 337/79.
5. The provisions of paragraphs 1 and 4 concerning the planting of vines also apply to restructuring operations carried out within the context of Directive 78/627/EEC."
2. The following subparagraph shall be added to Article 4:
"Replanting or new planting operations must be completed within 10 years following the date of approval thereof by the Commission. However, to obviate undue hardship in individual cases, the Commission may allow this deadline to be postponed in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 12."
3. Article 5 shall be replaced by the following:
"Article 5
1. Aid in respect of the restructuring of vineyards shall be granted in the form of a premium per hectare of vineyard replanted or newly-planted.
2. The Member State concerned shall fix the amount of the premium at between 2 418 and 3 022 ECU per hectare of replanted or newlyplanted vineyard on the basis of the structural situation and the cost of the work involved in restructuring the vineyard.
However, to take account of special situations, Member States may exceed the upper limit referred to in the first subparagraph.
In the case of new planting, the amount eligible may not exceed 2 418 ECU per hectare of vineyard."
4. Article 8 shall be replaced by the following:
"Article 8
1. With the exception of the extra premium granted pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 5 (2), expenditure incurred by the Member States under the measure provided for in this Regulation in connection with projects which have been approved in accordance with Article 7 shall be eligible for financing by the Guidance Section of the Fund, up to a limit of 240 600 hectares of newlyplanted or replanted vineyard.
2. The Guidance Section of the Fund shall refund to the Member States 30 % of the eligible expenditure."
5. In Article 9 (2), the expression "175 77 million European units of account" shall be replaced by the expression "188 79 million ECU".
6. The first subparagraph of Article 11 (1) shall be replaced by the following:
"1. Without prejudice to Article 8 of Regulation (EEC) No 729/70, the Member States shall take, in accordance with their national laws, regulations and administrative provisions, the necessary measures to recover the amounts paid in cases where the conditions referred to in Article 2 have not been respected."
7. In Article 12 (2) the expression "41 votes" shall be replaced by "45 votes".
8. In Article 13 (1) the third indent shall be replaced by the following:
"- this Regulation and Directive 78/627/EEC, for the execution of restructuring projects under collective operations."
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
It shall apply from 1 September 1980, apart from Article 1, point 7, which shall apply from 1 January 1981.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Luxembourg, 19 October 1981. | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 465/2007
of 26 April 2007
fixing the export refunds on syrups and certain other sugar products exported without further processing
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 of 20 February 2006 on the common organisation of the market in the sugar sector (1), and in particular the second subparagraph of Article 33(2) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
Article 32 of Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 provides that the difference between prices on the world market for the products listed in Article 1(1)(c), (d) and (g) of that Regulation and prices for those products on the Community market may be covered by an export refund.
(2)
Given the present situation on the sugar market, export refunds should therefore be fixed in accordance with the rules and certain criteria provided for in Articles 32 and 33 of Regulation (EC) No 318/2006.
(3)
The first subparagraph of Article 33(2) of Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 provides that the world market situation or the specific requirements of certain markets may make it necessary to vary the refund according to destination.
(4)
Refunds should be granted only on products that are allowed to move freely in the Community and that comply with the requirements of Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2).
(5)
Export refunds may be set to cover the competitive gap between Community and third country's exports. Community exports to certain close destinations and to third countries granting Community products a preferential import treatment are currently in a particular favourable competitive position. Therefore, refunds for exports to those destinations should be abolished.
(6)
The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sugar,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
1. Export refunds as provided for in Article 32 of Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 shall be granted on the products and for the amounts set out in the Annex to this Regulation subject to the conditions provided for in paragraph 2 of this Article.
2. To be eligible for a refund under paragraph 1 products must meet the relevant requirements laid down in Articles 3 and 4 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 27 April 2007.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 26 April 2007. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
COMMISSION DECISION of 12 January 1996 authorizing Sweden to maintain its national measures as regards transmissible gastroenteritis in application of Article 10 (4) of Council Directive 64/432/EEC (Text with EEA relevance) (96/95/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Directive 64/432/EEC of 26 June 1964 on animal health problems affecting intra-Community trade in bovine animals and swine (1), as last amended by Council Directive 95/25/EC (2), and in particular Article 10 (4) thereof,
Whereas Sweden considers that its territory is free from a number of animal diseases and has submitted an application for additional trade guarantees to the Commission; whereas the applications have been examined by the Commission; whereas a more detailed examination is necessary in the case of the application relating to transmissible gastroenteritis;
Whereas it is necessary to extend the special measures which apply to trade in pigs and hatching eggs to Sweden while this examination is being carried out;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
Sweden is authorized to maintain its national measures relating to transmissible gastroenteritis until 31 December 1996.
Article 2
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 12 January 1996. | [
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE
of 24 June 1988
for the implementation of Article 67 of the Treaty
(88/361/EEC)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Articles 69 and 70(1) thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission, submitted following consultation with the Monetary Committee (1),
Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (2),
Whereas Article 8 a of the Treaty stipulates that the internal market shall comprise an area without internal frontiers in which the free movement of capital is ensured, without prejudice to the other provisions of the Treaty;
Whereas Member States should be able to take the requisite measures to regulate bank liquidity; whereas these measures should be restricted to this purpose;
Whereas Member States should, if necessary, be able to take measures to restrict, temporarily and within the framework of appropriate Community procedures, short-term capital movements which, even where there is no appreciable divergence in economic fundamentals, might seriously disrupt the conduct of their monetary and exchange-rate policies;
Whereas, in the interests of transparency, it is advisable to indicate the scope, in accordance with the arrangements laid down in this Directive, of the transitional measures adopted for the benefit of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic by the 1985 Act of Accession in the field of capital movements;
Whereas the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic may, under the terms of Articles 61 to 66 and 222 to 232 respectively of the 1985 Act of Accession, postpone the liberalization of certain capital movements in derogation from the obligations set out in the First Council Directive of 11 May 1960 for the implementation of Article 67 of the Treaty (3), as last amended by Directive 86/566/EEC (4); whereas Directive 86/566/EEC also provides for transitional arrangements to be applied for the benefit of those two Member States in respect of their obligations to liberalize capital movements; whereas it is appropriate for those two Member States to be able to postpone the application of the new liberalization obligations resulting from this Directive;
Whereas the Hellenic Republic and Ireland are faced, albeit to differing degrees, with difficult balance-of-payments situations and high levels of external indebtedness; whereas the immediate and complete liberalization of capital movements by those two Member States would make it more difficult for them to continue to apply the measures they have taken to improve their external positions and to reinforce the capacity of their financial systems to adapt to the requirements of an integrated financial market in the Community; whereas it is appropriate, in accordance with Article 8c of the Treaty, to grant to those two Member States, in the light of their specific circumstances, further time in which to comply with the obligations arising from this Directive;
Whereas, since the full liberalization of capital movements could in some Member States, and especially in border areas, contribute to difficulties in the market for secondary residences; whereas existing national legislation regulating these purchases should not be affected by the entry into effect of this Directive;
Whereas advantage should be taken of the period adopted for bringing this Directive into effect in order to enable the Commission to submit proposals designed to eliminate or reduce risks of distortion, tax evasion and tax avoidance resulting from the diversity of national systems for taxation and to permit the Council to take a position on such proposals;
Whereas, in accordance with Article 70 (1) of the Treaty, the Community shall endeavour to attain the highest possible degree of liberalization in respect of the movement of capital between its residents and those of third countries;
Whereas large-scale short-term capital movements to or from third countries may seriously disturb the monetary or financial situation of Member States or cause serious stresses on the exchange markets; whereas such developments may prove harmful for the cohesion of the European Monetary System, for the smooth operation of the internal market and for the progressive achievement of economic and monetary union; whereas it is therefore appropriate to create the requisite conditions for concerted action by Member States should this prove necessary;
Whereas this Directive replaces Council Directive 72/156/EEC of 21 March 1972 on regulating international capital flows and neutralizing their undesirable effects on domestic liquidity (5); whereas Directive 72/156/EEC should accordingly be repealed,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:
Article 1
1. Without prejudice to the following provisions, Member States shall abolish restrictions on movements of capital taking place between persons resident in Member States. To facilitate application of this Directive, capital movements shall be classified in accordance with the Nomenclature in Annex I.
2. Transfers in respect of capital movements shall be made on the same exchange rate conditions as those governing payments relating to current transactions.
Article 2
Member States shall notify the Committee of Governors of the Central Banks, the Monetary Committee and the Commission, by the date of their entry into force at the latest, of measures to regulate bank liquidity which have a specific impact on capital transactions carried out by credit institutions with non-residents.
Such measures shall be confined to what is necessary for the purposes of domestic monetary regulation. The Monetary Committee and the Committee of Governors of the Central Banks shall provide the Commission with opinions on this subject.
Article 3
1. Where short-term capital movements of exceptional magnitude impose severe strains on foreign-exchange markets and lead to serious disturbances in the conduct of a Member State's monetary and exchange rate policies, being reflected in particular in substantial variations in domestic liquidity, the Commission may, after consulting the Monetary Committee and the Committee of Governors of the Central Banks, authorize that Member State to take, in respect of the capital movements listed in Annex II, protective measures the conditions and details of which the Commission shall determine.
2. The Member State concerned may itself take the protective measures referred to above, on grounds of urgency, should these measures be necessary. The Commission and the other Member States shall be informed of such measures by the date of their entry into force at the latest. The Commission, after consulting the Monetary Committee and the Committee of Governors of the Central Banks, shall decide whether the Member State concerned may continue to apply these measures or whether it should amend or abolish them.
3. The decisions taken by the Commission under paragraphs 1 and 2 may be revoked or amended by the Council acting by a qualified majority.
4. The period of application of protective measures taken pursuant to this Article shall not exceed six months.
5. Before 31 December 1992, the Council shall examine, on the basis of a report from the Commission, after delivery of an opinion by the Monetary Committee and the Committee of Governors of the Central Banks, whether the provisions of this Article remain appropriate, as regards their principle and details, to the requirements which they were intended to satisfy.
Article 4
This Directive shall be without prejudice to the right of Member States to take all requisite measures to prevent infringements of their laws and regulations, inter alia in the field of taxation and prudential supervision of financial institutions, or to lay down procedures for the declaration of capital movements for purposes of administrative or statistical information.
Application of those measures and procedures may not have the effect of impeding capital movements carried out in accordance with Community law.
Article 5
For the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic, the scope, in accordance with the Nomenclature of capital movements contained in Annex I, of the provisions of the 1985 Act of Accession in the field of capital movements shall be as indicated in Annex III.
Article 6
1. Member States shall take the measures necessary to comply with this Directive no later than 1 July 1990. They shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof. They shall also make known, by the date of their entry into force at the latest, any new measure or any amendment made to the provisions governing the capital movements listed in Annex I.
2. The Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic, without prejudice for these two Member States to Articles 61 to 66 and 222 to 232 of the 1985 Act of Accession, and the Hellenic Republic and Ireland may temporarily continue to apply restrictions to the capital movements listed in Annex IV, subject to the conditions and time limits laid down in that Annex.
If, before expiry of the time limit set for the liberalization of the capital movements referred to in Lists III and IV of Annex IV, the Portuguese Republic or the Hellenic Republic considers that it is unable to proceed with liberalization, in particular because of difficulties as regards its balance of payments or because the national financial system is insufficiently adapted, the Commission, at the request of one or other of these Member States, shall in collaboration with the Monetary Committee, review the economic and financial situation of the Member State concerned. On the basis of the outcome of this review, the Commission shall propose to the Council an extension of the time limit set for liberalization of all or part of the capital movements referred to. This extension may not exceed three years. The Council shall act in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 69 of the Treaty.
3. The Kingdom of Belgium and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg may temporarily continue to operate the dual exchange market under the conditions and for the periods laid down in Annex V.
4. Existing national legislation regulating purchases of secondary residences may be upheld until the Council adopts further provisions in this area in accordance with Article 69 of the Treaty. This provision does not affect the applicability of other provisions of Community law.
5. The Commission shall submit to the Council, by 31 December 1988, proposals aimed at eliminating or reducing risks of distortion, tax evasion and tax avoidance linked to the diversity of national systems for the taxation of savings and for controlling the application of these systems.
The Council shall take a position on these Commission proposals by 30 June 1989. Any tax provisions of a Community nature shall, in accordance with the Treaty, be adopted unanimously.
Article 7
1. In their treatment of transfers in respect of movements of capital to or from third countries, the Member States shall endeavour to attain the same degree of liberalization as that which applies to operations with residents of other Member States, subject to the other provisions of this Directive.
The provisions of the preceding subparagraph shall not prejudice the application to third countries of domestic rules or Community law, particularly any reciprocal conditions, concerning operations involving establishment, the provisions of financial services and the admission of securities to capital markets.
2. Where large-scale short-term capital movements to or from third countries seriously disturb the domestic or external monetary or financial situation of the Member States, or of a number of them, or cause serious strains in exchange relations within the Community or between the Community and third countries, Member States shall consult with one another on any measure to be taken to counteract such difficulties. This consultation shall take place within the Committee of Governors of the Central Banks and the Monetary Committee on the initiative of the Commission or of any Member State.
Article 8
At least once a year the Monetary Committee shall examine the situation regarding free movement of capital as it results from the application of this Directive. The examination shall cover measures concerning the domestic regulation of credit and financial and monetary markets which could have a specific impact on international capital movements and on all other aspects of this Directive. The Committee shall report to the Commission on the outcome of this examination.
Article 9
The First Directive of 11 May 1960 and Directive 72/156/EEC shall be repealed with effect from 1 July 1990.
Article 10
This Directive is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Luxembourg, 24 June 1988. | [
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
*****
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 1738/89
of 19 June 1989
laying down detailed rules on production aid for durum wheat
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Regulation (EEC) No 2727/75 of the Council of 29 October 1975 on the common organization of the market in cereals (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1213/89 (2), and in particular Article 10 (5) thereof,
Whereas Council Regulation (EEC) No 3103/76 of 16 December 1976 on aid for durum wheat (3), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1216/89 (4), laid down genereal rules on aid for durum wheat; whereas the Commission must lay down the detailed rules for their application;
Whereas Regulation (EEC) No 3103/76 laid down criteria for determining qualitative and technical characteristics; whereas such characteristics must be such that the durum wheat is capable of being made into semolina or pasta meeting certain requirements for human consumption; whereas the best indicator of these is the stickiness of the pasta when cooked;
Whereas Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 3103/76 provides that Member States are to introduce a system of administrative supervision to ensure that a product for which aid is applied for meets the requirements for granting such aid; whereas an application for aid must contain at least certain particulars to enable Member States to make the necessary checks; whereas Article 5 of Regulation (EEC) No 3103/76 provides for random on-the-spot checks to ascertain the accuracy of particulars declared; whereas, if such checks are to be effective, they must be carried out on a sufficiently representative number of applications for aid;
Whereas experience in policing the current system indicates that stricter supervision and sanctions should be provided for;
Whereas, under Article 2 (1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1676/85 of 11 June 1985 on the value of the unit of account and the conversion rates to be applied for the purposes of the common agricultural policy (5), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1636/87 (6), the amount of the aid is to be converted into national currency at the rate prevailing on the date the transaction or part transaction was carried out;
Whereas Regulation (EEC) No 1676/85 provides that the time when a transaction is carried out is considered as being the date of the event by which the aid becomes due and payable; whereas in the case of durum wheat that event is harvest; whereas, in view of the difficulty of determining the exact date of harvest in each case, the date to be taken as the representative date of harvest should be the first day of the marketing year in respect of which the entitlement to aid arises;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are to supersede those provided for in Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2835/77 of 19 December 1977 laying down detailed rules with respect to aid for durum wheat (7), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 2039/86 (8);
Whereas the Management Committee for Cereals has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its chairman,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The aid referred to in Article 10 of Regulation (EEC) No 2727/75 shall be granted for durum wheat produced in the Community in accordance with the conditions set out in the following Articles.
TITLE I
Conditions for and terms of the aid
Article 2
In order to be eligible for the aid the durum wheat shall either:
- have qualitative or technical characteristics such that the pasta made therefrom is not sticky when cooked, or
- have been produced from seed of certain varieties whose possession of such characteristics can be verified by the Member States.
Article 3
Without prejudice to Article 8, the aid may be granted, within the regions of the Community where it is provided for, only for areas:
(a) which have been fully sown and had normal cultivation work carried out upon them;
(b) for which an application has been submitted in accordance with Article 4, such application to be treated as equivalent to a declaration of the areas cultivated.
Article 4
1. Any producer of durum wheat wishing to obtain aid shall submit an application to the competent agency in the Member State concerned before a date to be fixed by that Member State and in any event not later than 30 April each year for the following marketing year.
2. The application for aid shall include at least the following particulars:
- the name, forenames and address of the applicant,
- the areas cultivated in hectares and in ares, the cadastral reference of such areas or an indication recognized as equivalent by the agency responsible for checking the areas,
- the variety of seed used.
Article 5
1. The Member States shall pay the aid for durum wheat by 30 April of the marketing year for which it is granted.
2. The operative event within the meaning of Article 5 of Regulation (EEC) No 1676/85 as regards entitlement to the aid shall be regarded as occurring on 1 July of the marketing year in question.
TITLE II
Supervision
Article 6
1. The checks provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EEC) No 3103/76 shall, in each competent administrative unit, cover a percentage of applications submitted which is representative both of the various sizes of holding and of the geographical and topographical distribution of the areas concerned. All declarations of more than 40 hectares shall be checked, other applications to be checked being selected at random.
2. The total percentage of applications to be checked may in no case be less than 15 % and shall be increased when a significant number of false declarations are discovered or the total area declared in the administrative unit concerned exceeds by more than 15 % that indicated by available official figures for the preceding marketing year.
Article 7
1. When a check is carried out, all areas included in the application shall be visited and it shall be verified that durum wheat is grown on them.
2. Areas shall be measured as follows:
(a) an area consisting of a single block shall always be measured;
(b) areas consisting of different plots shall be measured as follows:
- from two to five plots: the largest plot and one medium-sized plot,
- from six to 10 plots: the two largest and one medium-sized plot,
- over 10 plots: the two largest and three medium-sized plots.
In the case referred to in (b), the results of measurement shall be grossed up to all the areas covered by the declaration. However, the applicant may demand that all the said areas be measured.
TITLE III
General provisions
Article 8
1. If the check indicates an excess of up to 10 % but of not more than one hectare in the area declared, aid shall be calculated on the area measured less that excess.
2. If the excess exceeds the limits provided for in paragraph 1, the application for the marketing year in question shall be rejected. Moreover, the areas forming part of the applicant's holding during the marketing year in question shall be ineligible for aid in the following marketing year.
Article 9
Each visit for checking purposes shall be recorded in a report which shall indicate the number of plots visited, those measured, the measurement instruments used and all grounds on which the declared area is reduced or the application rejected.
Article 10
If, for reasons attributable to the applicant, a check cannot be carried out, Article 8 (2) shall apply, except in cases of force majeure. Grounds for force majeure shall be supplied by the interested party in writing, whithin 10 days from the planned date of the check.
Article 11
Member States shall take such steps as are necessary to implement this Regulation, including steps to avoid more than one application being lodged for a given area. These steps shall be communicated to the Commission. Article 12
Regulation (EEC) No 2835/77 is hereby repealed.
Article 13
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
It shall apply to applications for aid for the 1989/90 markeing year. However:
- for the 1989/90 marketing year the total percentage of applications provided for in Article 6 (2) shall be fixed at 5 %,
- Articles 7 (2) and 8 shall apply from the 1990/91 marketing year.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 19 June 1989. | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
0
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1916/95 of 2 August 1995 laying down detailed rules of application for the importation under preferential agreements on tariff quotas of raw cane sugar for refining
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 of 30 June 1981 on the common organization of the markets in the sugar sector (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1101/95 (2), and in particular Article 37 (6) and the second subparagraph of Article 39 thereof,
Whereas Article 37 of Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 provides that, during the 1995/96 to 2000/01 marketing years, in order to ensure adequate supplies to the Community refineries, a reduced rate of duty is to be levied on imports of raw cane sugar originating in the States with which the Community has concluded preferential supply agreements; whereas, as a result, detailed rules of application should be laid down where such agreements are concluded;
Whereas the quantities of special preferential sugar to be imported are laid down in accordance with the aforementioned Article 37 on the basis of an annual Community balance; whereas, as a result, if such a balance shows the need to import raw sugar, a tariff quota at a reduced rate of duty should be opened for all or part of the marketing year in question, to enable the requirements of the Communtiy refineries to be met within the limits laid down by the aformentioned Article 37 and under the conditions laid down by the aforementioned agreements;
Whereas, as a result of the maximum refining needs fixed for each Member State and the resultant necessity to enable the best possible controls to be undertaken on the distribution of the quantities of raw sugar to be imported, it is desirable to provide that only refiners should be entitled to be issued with the import licences in question, and that they should be able to transfer them among themselves; whereas the issue of an import licence makes it obligatory to import and refine the quantity in question within the necessary time limits, failing which the penality payment laid down in Article 37 (4) of Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 is payable;
Whereas, in order to ensure sound management of the import system and proper implementation thereof, certain other special provisions should be laid down for import licences; whereas, furthermore, in cases where the yield of the raw sugar in question differs from that of the standard quality as defined in Council Regulation (EEC) No 431/68 of 9 April 1968 determining the standard quality for raw sugar and fixing the Community frontier crossing point for calculating cif prices for sugar (3), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 3290/94 (4), provision should be made for the special reduced rate of duty to be adjusted on the basis of that difference in accordance with the rules applicable to raw sugar transactions on the world market;
Whereas unforseeable delays may arise between the loading of a quantity of special preferential raw sugar and its delivery; whereas, as a result, a certain tolerance should be permitted to take account of such delays; whereas it is also appropriate to provide for a certain tolerance as regards the time taken for refining;
Whereas proof of the origin of imported raw sugar may be provided by presentation of the documents provided for to that end by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2782/76 of 17 November 1976 laying down detailed implementing rules for the importation of preferential sugar (5), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1714/88 (6);
Whereas, as a result of the special nature of the imports in question, provision should be made for certain derogations from Commission Regulation (EC) No 1464/95 of 27 June 1995 on special detailed rules for the application of the system of import and export licences in the sugar sector (7), which also applies to those imports;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sugar,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
1. During the period referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81, the shortfall referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 37 (3) of that Regulation shall be fixed for each marketing year or part thereof, on the basis of a Community forecast supply balance for raw sugar. For the purposes of determining that balance, the established direct consumption to be taken into account shall not exceed the limit for such consumption referred to in Article 37 (3) of Regulation (EC) No 1785/81.
2. The shortfall may be imported by opening tariff quotas at a special reduced rate of duty agreed with the States referred to in Article 33 of Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 and other States. It may be distributed between the Member States on the basis of their respective maximum presumed needs.
Article 2
1. The licences relating to these imports may be issued only within the limits of the quotas referred to in Article 1 (2). These licences shall be issued by the Member States referred to in Article 37 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 only to those refiners who import for the needs of their refineries within the meaning of Article 9 (4) of that Regulation.
However, the licences in question may be transferred by refiners to other refiners within the meaning of that Article 9 (4). The obligations to import and refine are not transferable and Article 9 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3719/88 (1) continues to apply.
2. The Member States concerned shall issue licences only within the limits of the import needs in special preferential sugar fixed, where necessary, for their refineries.
Article 3
The special reduced rate of duty fixed for each marketing year shall apply to raw sugar of the standard quality as defined in Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 431/68.
Whereas the polarization of the imported raw sugar deviates from 96 degrees, the special reduced rate of duty shall be increased or decreased, as the case may be, by 0,14 % for each one-tenth of a degree by which it deviates.
Article 4
1. Notwithstanding Article 6 (1) of Regulation (EC) No 1464/95 and without prejudice to Article 6 (1), import licences for raw sugar under the system provided for in this Regulation shall be valid from the data on which they are issued until the end of the marketing year in respect of which they are issued.
2. The licence applications referred to in paragraph 1 shall be submitted by the refiner to the competent body of the Member State of import concerned and shall be accompanied by a declaration by which the refiner undertakes to refine the quantity of raw sugar in question in the marketing year in respect of which it is imported.
Without prejudice to Article 6, if the sugar in question is not refined within the time limit laid down, the refiner who applied for the licence shall pay an amount equal to the full rate of duty applicable to raw sugar in the marketing year in question plus, where applicable, the highest additional rate of duty recorded during that marketing year.
The refiner who applied for the licence must show proof of relating to the Member State which issued the licence and that is acceptable to it within three months of the end of the time limit laid down for refining.
3. Section [12] of import licence applications and of licences themselves shall include the following entry:
'Raw sugar originating in . . . (name of the country or countries referred to in Article 1 (2)) imported at a special reduced rate of duty pursuant to Article 37 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81`.
4. The security relating to licences as referred to in paragraph 1 shall be ECU 0,30 per 100 kilograms net weight of sugar.
5. For the purposes of Article 37 (4) of Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81, amounts in excess of the maximum presumed needs shall be deemed to be the quantities of preferential raw sugar, of special preferential sugar, of raw sugar obtained in the French Overseas Departments and, where applicable, of raw sugar from beet referred to in Article 36 (5) of Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81, which have been actually refined in refineries over and above the presumed needs fixed for the Member State in question in paragraph 2 of the aforementioned Article 37.
Article 5
1. Proof of the origin of the sugar imported from the States referred to in Article 1 (2) shall be provided by presentation of a certificate of origin provided for, as the case may be, in Article 6 or Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2782/76 (2).
2. The certificate of origin referred to in paragraph 1 shall bear:
- the indication 'special preferential raw sugar - Application of Regulation (EC) No 1916/95`,
- the date of loading of the sugar and the marketing year in respect of which delivery is being made,
- the CN code of the product in question.
3. The copies provided by applicants referred to in paragraph 1 above shall be forwarded by the Member States to the Commission.
The competent authorities of the Member States shall enter on the copies of the certificates:
- the appropriate date, established on the basis of a shipping document, on which loading of the sugar in the port of export was completed,
- information relating to the import operation and the quantities actually imported.
Article 6
1. Except in the event of force majeure, where it has not been possible for a quantity of special preferential sugar to be delivered in sufficient time to enable it to be refined by the end of the marketing year in respect of which the licence referred to in Article 4 (1) has been issued, the Member State of importation may, at the request of the refiner, extend the validity of the licence for 30 days from the beginning of the following marketing year.
In that case, the raw sugar in question shall be refined within the time limit referred to in paragraph 2 and shall count against and be within the limits of the maximum presumed needs for the preceding marketing year.
2. Where it has not been possible to refine a quantity of special preferential sugar by the end of the marketing year in respect of which the licence referred to in Article 4 (1) has been issued, the Member State in question, may, at the request of the refiner, allow an additional refining time limit of a maximum of 90 days from the beginning of the following marketing year.
In that case, the raw sugar is question shall be refined within that time limit and shall count against and be within the limits of the maximum presumed needs for the preceding marketing year.
Article 7
Where the refiner pays the special reduced rate of duty referred to in Article 3, that duty should be deducted from the mininum price laid down in the agreement referred to in Article 37 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81.
Article 8
The Member States concerned shall notify to the Commission:
(a) every week in respect of the preceding week, the quantity of raw sugar by weight for which import licences as referred to in Article 4 have been issued,
(b) every month in respect of the preceding month:
- the quantity of raw sugar by weight actually imported under licences as referred to in Article 4,
- the quantity of raw sugar in question by weight and in white sugar equivalent refined during the month preceding that in which the report is made,
(c) by 31 July of each marketing year, the quantity of raw sugar by weight intended for refining, in stock at the refineries on 1 July of that marketing year.
Article 9
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
It shall apply from 1 July 1995.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 2 August 1995. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
*****
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 1844/89
of 26 June 1989
fixing for the 1989/90 marketing year the components intended to ensure protection of the processing industry in the cereals and rice sector in trade between Spain and the Community of Ten
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to the Act of Accession of Spain and Portugal,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 487/86 of 25 February 1986 laying down general rules for the components intended to ensure protection of the processing industry in the cereals and rice sector and fixing those relating to Spain (1), and in particular Article 1 (3) thereof,
Whereas Article 78 (3) of the Act of Accession lays down that the protection components must be gradually eliminated by reducing the basic component by 12,5 % at the beginning of each of the eight marketing years following accession; whereas each reduction must take effect from the beginning of the marketing year of the product in question;
Whereas the fixed opponents applicable in trade between Spain and the Community of Ten must be fixed in the cereals and rice sector for the 1989/90 marketing year,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
For the products covered by Council Regulations (EEC) No 2727/75 (2) and (EEC) No 1418/76 (3), the components intended to ensure protection of the processing industry as referred to in Article 78 of the Act of Accession and levied on imports into the Community of Ten from Spain and on imports into Spain from the Community of Ten are fixed in the Annex hereto for the 1989/90 marketing year.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
It shall apply from 1 July 1989 as regards the products covered by Regulation (EEC) No 2727/75 and from 1 September 1989 as regards the products covered by Regulation (EEC) No 1418/76.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 26 June 1989. | [
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1939/2003
of 31 October 2003
fixing the rates of the refunds applicable to eggs and egg yolks exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2771/75 of 29 October 1975 on the common organisation of the market in eggs(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 806/2003(2), and in particular Article 8(3) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Article 8(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2771/75 provides that the difference between prices in international trade for the products listed in Article 1(1) of that Regulation and prices within the Community may be covered by an export refund where these goods are exported in the form of goods listed in the Annex to that Regulation. Commission Regulation (EC) No 1520/2000 of 13 July 2000 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of granting export refunds on certain agricultural products exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty, and the criteria for fixing the amount of such refunds(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 740/2003(4), specifies the products for which a rate of refund should be fixed, to be applied where these products are exported in the form of goods listed in Annex I to Regulation (EEC) No 2771/75.
(2) In accordance Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1520/2000, the rate of the refund per 100 kilograms for each of the basic products in question must be fixed for a period of the same duration as that for which refunds are fixed for the same products exported unprocessed.
(3) Article 11 of the Agreement on Agriculture concluded under the Uruguay Round lays down that the export refund for a product contained in a good may not exceed the refund applicable to that product when exported without further processing.
(4) In accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 1039/2003 of 2 June 2003 adopting autonomous and transitional measures concerning the importation of certain processed agricultural products originating in Estonia and the exportation of certain agricultural products to Estonia(5), Council Regulation (EC) No 1086/2003 of 18 June 2003 adopting autonomous and transitional measures concerning the importation of certain processed agricultural products originating in Slovenia and the exportation of certain processed agricultural products to Slovenia(6), Council Regulation (EC) No 1087/2003 of 18 June 2003 adopting autonomous and transitional measures concerning the importation of certain processed agricultural products originating in Latvia and the exportation of certain processed agricultural products to Latvia(7), Council Regulation (EC) No 1088/2003 of 18 June 2003 adopting autonomous and transitional measures concerning the importation of certain processed agricultural products originating in Lithuania and the exportation of certain processed agricultural products to Lithuania(8), Council Regulation (EC) No 1089/2003 of 18 June 2003 adopting autonomous and transitional measures concerning the importation of certain processed agricultural products originating in the Slovak Republic and the exportation of certain processed agricultural products to the Slovak Republic(9) and Council Regulation (EC) No 1090/2003 of 18 June 2003 adopting autonomous and transitional measures concerning the importation of certain processed agricultural products originating in the Czech Republic and the exportation of certain processed agricultural products to the Czech Republic(10) with effect from 1 July 2003, processed agricultural products not listed in Annex I to the Treaty which are exported to Estonia, Slovenia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia or the Czech Republic are not eligible for export refunds.
(5) In accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 999/2003 of 2 June 2003 adopting autonomous and transitional measures concerning the import of certain processed agricultural products originating in Hungary and the export of certain processed agricultural products to Hungary(11), with effect from 1 July 2003, the goods referred to in its Article 1(2) which are exported to Hungary shall not be eligible for export refunds.
(6) In accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 1890/2003 of 27 October 2003 adopting autonomous and transitional measures concerning the importation of certain processed agricultural products originating in Malta and the exportation of certain processed agricultural products to Malta(12), with effect from 1 November 2003, processed agricultural products not listed in Annex I to the Treaty which are exported to Malta are not eligible for export refunds.
(7) It is necessary to ensure continuity of strict management taking account of expenditure forecasts and funds available in the budget.
(8) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Poultrymeat and Eggs,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The rates of the refunds applicable to the basic products listed in Annex A to Regulation (EC) No 1520/2000 and in Article 1(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2771/75, exported in the form of goods listed in Annex I to Regulation (EEC) No 2771/75, are fixed as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 November 2003.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 31 October 2003. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
*****
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 1808/87
of 29 June 1987
fixing the reference prices for hybrid maize and hybrid sorghum for sowing for the 1987/88 marketing year
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2358/71 of 26 October 1971 on the common organization of the market in seeds (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1355/86 (2), and in particular Article 6 (5) thereof,
Whereas Council Regulation (EEC) No 1355/86 has amended Regulation (EEC) No 2358/71 by including hybrid sorghum for sowing among the products covered by the common organization of the market in seeds and making it subject to the reference price system for hybrid maize;
Whereas Article 6 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2358/71 provides that a reference price for each type of hybrid maize and hybrid sorghum for sowing is to be fixed annually; whereas those reference prices must be fixed on the basis of the free-at-frontier prices recorded during the last three marketing years except for abnormally low prices; whereas, pursuant to Article 2 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1578/72 of 20 July 1972 laying down general rules for fixing reference prices and for determining free-at-frontier offer prices for hybrid maize and hybrid sorghum for sowing (3), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1984/86 (4), only prices for imports from third countries which are representative in terms of quantity and quality of the product should be taken into consideration;
Whereas imports of the types of hybrid maize for sowing falling within subheading 10.05 A IV 'Other' of the Common Customs Tariff may not be considered as representative on account of the very small quantity involved; whereas no reference prices may therefore be fixed for those types of maize;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Seeds,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
For the 1987/88 marketing year, the reference prices for hybrid maize and hybrid sorghum for sowing falling within subheadings 10.05 A I, 10.05 A II, 10.05 A III and 10.07 C I of the Common Customs Tariff shall be as set out in the Annex hereto.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 July 1987.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 29 June 1987. | [
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 569/1999 of 16 March 1999 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1756/93 fixing the operative events for the agricultural conversion rate applicable to milk and milk products
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2799/98 of 15 December 1998 establishing the agrimonetary arrangements for the euro (1), and in particular Article 3 thereof,
Whereas Regulation (EC) No 2799/98 abolishes the agricultural conversion rates; whereas Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1756/93 (2), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 420/98 (3), fixes the operative events for the agricultural conversion rate to be applied to all the amounts fixed in ecus in the milk and milk products sector; whereas the reference to the agricultural conversion rate should therefore be replaced by a reference to the operative event;
Whereas the operative events for the aid referred to in Article 16(3)(d) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2571/97 on the sale of butter at reduced prices and the granting of aid for cream, butter and concentrated butter for use in the manufacture of pastry products, ice-cream and other foodstuffs (4), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 494/1999 (5), are defined in points 4A (i), (ii) and (iii) of part B.III of the Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 1756/93; whereas the increase introduced by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1061/98 (6) in the tendering security referred to in Article 17(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2571/97 implies that the economic aim is achieved at the moment of tender and thus the dates mentioned above must be replaced by the final date on which tenders for a particular invitation to tender are to be submitted;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Milk and Milk Products,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Regulation (EEC) No 1756/93 is amended as follows:
1. Article 1 is replaced by the following:
'Article 1
1. The operative event for the amounts fixed as part of the measures to assist the private storage of milk and milk products shall occur on the first day of storage under contract.
2. The operative event for the securities shall be the lodgement of the security.
3. The operative event for the other prices and amounts applicable in the milk and milk products sector shall be the start of the days fixed in the Annex to this Regulation`.
2. Article 2 is amended as follows:
(a) The second subparagraph of paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:
'Where the taking-over operation referred to in the first indent of point (b) concerns more than one batch, the operative event applicable to the first batch shall continue to apply to the total quantity of the transaction in question on condition that the first batch represents 20 % or more of the said total quantity`.
(b) The second subparagraph of paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:
'Where the total amount of the transaction in question is paid in instalments, the operative event for the first instalment shall continue to apply to the total amount payable on condition that the first instalment represents 20 % or more of the said total amount`.
3. The Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 1756/93 is amended as follows:
(a) In the heading of the third column the words 'Agricultural conversion rate to be applied` are replaced by 'Day of the operative event`.
(b) In the third column, the words 'Agricultural conversion rate applicable on` are deleted.
(c) Point 4 of part B.III of the Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 1756/93 is replaced by the following:
TABLE
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 16 March 1999. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
*****
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 3344/89
of 7 November 1989
re-establishing the levying of customs duties on woven fabrics of synthetic fibres (continuous), other than those of category 114, products of category 35 (order No 40.0350), and on men's and boys' knitted or crocheted suits and ensembles, of wool, cotton or man-made fibres, excluding ski suits, products of category 75 (order No 40.0750), originating in Pakistan to which the preferential tariff arrangements of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4259/88 apply
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 4259/88 of 19 December 1988 applying generalized tariff preferences for 1989 to textile products originating in developing countries (1), and in particular Article 13 thereof,
Whereas Article 11 of Regulation (EEC) No 4259/88 provides that preferential tariff treatment shall be accorded, for each category of products subjected in Annexes I and II thereto to individual ceilings, within the limits of the quantities specified in column 8 of Annex I and column 7 of Annex II, in respect of certain or each of the countries or territories of origin referred to in column 5 of the same Annexes;
Whereas Article 12 of the abovmentioned Regulation provides that the levying of customs duties may be re-established at any time in respect of imports of the products in question once the relevant individual ceilings have been reached at Community level;
Whereas, in respect of woven fabrics of synthetic fibres (continuous), other than those of category 114, products of category 35 (order No 40.0350), and men's and boys' knitted or crocheted suits and ensembles, of wool, cotton or man-made fibres, excluiding ski suits, products of category 75 (order No 40.0750), the originating in Pakistan, the relevant ceiling amounts respectively to 251 tonnes and to 9 000 pieces; Whereas on 8 July and 21 April respectively 1989 imports of the products in question into the Community, originating in Pakistan, a country covered by preferential tariff arrangements, reached and were charged against that ceiling;
Whereas it is appropriate to re-establish the levying of customs duties for the products in question with regard to Pakistan,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
As from 11 November 1989, the levying of customs duties, suspended pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 4259/88, shall be re-established in respect of the following products, imported into the Community and originating in Pakistan:
1.2.3.4 // // // // // Order No // Category (unit) // CN code // Description // // // // // // // // // 40.0350 // 35 (tonnes) // 5407 10 00 5407 20 90 5407 30 00 5407 41 00 5407 42 10 5407 42 90 5407 43 00 5407 44 10 5407 44 90 5407 51 00 5407 52 00 5407 53 10 5407 53 90 5407 54 00 5407 60 10 5407 60 30 5407 60 51 // Woven fabrics of synthetic fibres (continuous), other than those for tyres of category 114 // // // 5407 60 59
(1) OJ No L 375, 31. 12. 1988, p. 83.
// // // // // Order No // Category (unit) // CN code // Description // // // // // // 40.0350 (cont'd) // // 5407 71 00 5407 72 00 5407 73 10 5407 73 91 5407 73 99 5407 74 00 5407 81 00 5407 82 00 5407 83 10 5407 83 90 5407 84 00 5407 91 00 5407 92 00 5407 93 10 5407 93 90 5407 94 00 ex 5811 00 00 ex 5905 00 70 // // 40.0750 // 75 (1 000 pieces) // 6103 11 00 6103 12 00 6103 19 00 6103 21 00 6103 22 00 6103 23 00 6103 29 00 // Men's or boys' knitted or crocheted suits and ensembles, of wool, cotton or man-made fibres, excluding ski suits // // // //
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 7 November 1989. | [
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1266/1999
of 21 June 1999
on coordinating aid to the applicant countries in the framework of the pre-accession strategy and amending Regulation (EEC) No 3906/89
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 308 thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission(1),
Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament(2),
(1) Whereas the Luxembourg European Council advocated a substantial increase in pre-accession aid so as to include, in addition to the PHARE programme, aid to agriculture and for structural measures;
(2) Whereas Council Regulation (EC) No 622/98 of 16 March 1998 on assistance to the applicant countries in the framework of the pre-accession strategy and in particular on the establishment of Accession Partnerships(3) provides that those partnerships are to comprise a single framework for the priority areas and all available resources for pre-accession assistance;
(3) Whereas Regulation (EC) No 1268/1999(4) set up an agricultural instrument for application mainly in areas such as modernising the structure of agricultural holdings, improving processing and distribution structures, developing inspection activities and rural development;
(4) Whereas the structural instrument created by Regulation (EC) No 1267/1999(5), is intended to finance infrastructure in the transport and environment fields;
(5) Whereas the PHARE programme set up by Regulation (EEC) No 3906/89(6), will in future focus on the essential priorities linked to adoption of the acquis communautaire, i.e. building up the administrative and institutional capacities of the applicant countries and financing investments designed to help them comply with Community law as soon as possible;
(6) Whereas it is important to ensure that Community operations under the three pre-accession instruments achieve optimum economic impact;
(7) Whereas paragraph 17 of the conclusions of the Luxembourg European Council on 12 and 13 December 1997 provides that financial support to the countries involved in the enlargement process will be based, in the allocation of aid, on the principle of equal treatment, independently of the time of accession, with particular attention being paid to the countries with the greatest need;
(8) Whereas the above instruments should remain distinct but there must be coordination between operations under them as well as with operations funded by the European Investment Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the Community's other financial instruments and the other international financial institutions;
(9) Whereas it is necessary to provide for reciprocal information and cooperation between the Commission and the candidate countries for on the spot control and verification to ensure efficient protection of the financial interests as well as to combat fraud and other irregularities;
(10) Whereas management of pre-accession assistance should gradually be decentralised to the applicant countries themselves, taking account of their management and financial control capacities, so that they can be more closely involved in the pre-accession aid process;
(11) Whereas the Commission should submit regular reports on pre-accession aid to the applicant countries,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Coordination and coherence between assistance granted in the framework of the pre-accession strategy under the agricultural and rural development instrument (hereinafter "the Agricultural Instrument"), the Structural Instrument and PHARE shall be ensured in accordance with this Regulation.
Article 2
Measures to support agriculture and rural development as set out in Article 2 of the Agricultural Instrument set up by Regulation (EC) No 1268/1999 shall be financed in accordance with the provisions of that Regulation.
Article 3
Investment projects in the following areas shall be financed from the pre-accession aid Structural Instrument set up by Regulation (EC) No 1267/1999 and in accordance with the provisions thereof:
- environmental measures enabling the beneficiary countries to comply with the requirements of Community environmental law and with the objectives of the Accession Partnerships,
- transport infrastructure measures which promote sustainable mobility, and in particular those that constitute projects of common interest based on the criteria of Decision No 1692/96/EC(7) and those which enable the beneficiary countries to comply with the objectives of the Accession Partnerships; this includes interconnection and interoperability of national networks as well as with the trans-European networks together with access to such networks.
Article 4
1. Funding under the PHARE programme shall be carried out in accordance with Regulation (EEC) No 3906/89.
2. Regulation (EEC) No 3906/89 is hereby amended by adding a new paragraph 3 to Article 3 to read as follows:
"3. For applicant countries with accession partnerships with the European Union, funding under the PHARE programme shall focus on the main priorities for the adoption of the acquis communautaire, i.e. building up the administrative and institutional capacities of the applicant States and investment, except for the type of investments financed in accordance with Regulations (EC) No 1267/1999(8) and (EC) No 1268/1999(9). PHARE funding may also be used to finance the measures in the fields of environment, transport and agricultural and rural development which form an incidental but indispensable part of integrated industrial reconstruction or regional development programmes."
Article 5
Aid for schemes or measures financed in the framework of pre-accession aid may be granted from one only of the instruments referred to in this Regulation.
Article 6
Financing of the schemes or measures provided for in this Regulation shall be subject to compliance with the undertakings contained in the Europe Agreements as recalled in Regulation (EC) No 622/98 and with the conditions laid down in the Accession Partnerships, as well as to the relevant provisions of Regulations (EEC) No 3906/89, (EC) No 1267/1999, (EC) No 1268/1999 and of this Regulation.
Article 7
Beneficiary States shall contribute to the financing of investments.
Article 8
Schemes or measures financed under the three instruments referred to in Articles 2, 3 and 4 shall be decided in accordance with the provisions laid down in the relevant Regulation relating to that instrument.
Article 9
1. The Commission shall be responible for coordinating operations under the said three instruments, and in particular for establishing the pre-accession aid guidelines for each country. It shall be assisted for this purpose by the committee set up by Article 9 of Regulation (EEC) No 3906/89.
2. The Commission shall inform the committee referred to in paragraph 1 about the indicative financial allocations for each country and per pre-accession instrument, about action it has taken pursuant to Article 10, and about decisions taken pursuant to Article 12. Such decisions shall be communicated to the Court of Auditors.
Article 10
The Commission shall ensure coordination and coherence between operations undertaken pursuant to this Regulation under the Commission budget, operations funded by the European Investment Bank or other financial instruments of the Community, and operations funded by international financial institutions.
Article 11
1. The Commission shall implement the Community aid in accordance with the rules of transparency and the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities, in particular Article 114 thereof.
2. Pre-accession aid shall also cover expenditure relating to the monitoring, inspection and evaluation of operations.
3. Financing decisions and any contracts or implementing instruments resulting therefrom shall expressly provide for inspection by the Commission and the Court of Auditors to be carried out on the spot, if necessary.
Article 12
1. Project selection, tendering and contracting by applicant countries shall be subject to ex-ante approval by the Commission.
2. The Commission may, however, decide, on the basis of a case-by-case analysis of national and sectorial programme/project management capacity, financial control procedures and structures regarding public finance, to waive the ex-ante approval requirement referred to in paragraph 1 and confer on implementing agencies in applicant countries management of aid on a decentralised basis. Such a waiver shall be subject to:
- the minimum criteria for assessing the ability of implementing agencies in applicant countries to manage aid and minimum conditions applicable to such agencies set out in the Annex to this Regulation;
- and specific provisions concerning, inter alia, invitations to tender, scrutiny and evaluation of tenders, the award of contracts and the implementation of Community public procurement directives, which shall be laid down in financing agreements with each beneficiary country.
3. The Commission shall adopt rules governing inspection and evaluation.
Article 13
The Commission shall present an annual report on the overall pre-accession aid for each country to the European Parliament and to the Council.
Article 14
This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Luxembourg, 21 June 1999. | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2161/2003
of 11 December 2003
establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 of 21 December 1994 on detailed rules for the application of the import arrangements for fruit and vegetables(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1947/2002(2), and in particular Article 4(1) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 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 the Annex thereto.
(2) In compliance with the above criteria, the standard import values must be fixed at the levels set out in the Annex to this Regulation,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The standard import values referred to in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 shall be fixed as indicated in the Annex hereto.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 12 December 2003.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 11 December 2003. | [
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
Commission Decision
of 22 February 2002
amending Decisions 2001/925/EC, 2002/33/EC and 2002/41/EC to prolong certain protection measures and detailed conditions in relation to classical swine fever in Spain
(notified under document number C(2002) 618)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2002/162/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990 concerning veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Community trade in certain live animals and products with a view to the completion of the internal market(1), as last amended by Directive 92/118/EEC(2) and, in particular, Article 10(4) thereof,
Having regard to Council Directive 2001/89/EC of 23 October 2001 on Community measures for the control of classical swine fever(3) and, in particular, Article 10(1)(b) and Article 11(1)(f) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Outbreaks of classical swine fever have occurred in Cataluña in Spain.
(2) Spain has taken measures within the framework of Directive 2001/89/EC.
(3) In relation to these outbreaks of disease, the Commission adopted: (i) Decision 2001/925/EC(4), as last amended by Decision 2002/31/EC(5), concerning certain protection measures relating to classical swine fever in Spain; (ii) Decision 2002/33/EC(6) on the use of two slaughterhouses, in accordance with Article 10(1)(b) of Council Directive 2001/89/EC, by Spain; and (iii) Decision 2002/41/EC(7), concerning certain further detailed conditions for the granting of authorisation for the removal of pigs from the holdings located within the protection and surveillance zones established in Spain in relation to classical swine fever.
(4) In the light of the evolution of the situation in the concerned area of Spain it is appropriate to prolong the adopted measures and conditions and to amend Decisions 2001/925/EC, 2002/33/EC and 2002/41/EC accordingly.
(5) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
In Article 8 of Decision 2001/925/EC:
(a) the words "20 February 2002" are replaced by the words "20 March 2002";
(b) the words "28 February 2002" are replaced by the words "31 March 2002".
Article 2
In Article 2 of Decision 2002/33/EC the words "28 February 2002" are replaced by the words "31 March 2002".
Article 3
In Article 4 of Decision 2002/41/EC the words "28 February 2002" are replaced by the words "31 March 2002".
Article 4
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 22 February 2002. | [
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
*****
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 3351/87
of 6 November 1987
on the introduction of a measure for Spanish maize consigned to the Community as constituted at 31 December 1985
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to the Act of Accession of Spain and Portugal, and in particular Article 90 thereof,
Whereas surpluses resulting in particular from the application of the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the United States of America, as approved by Council Decision 87/224/EEC (1), are among the main features of the market in maize in Spain;
Whereas imports under the Agreement make it difficult to dispose of Spanish maize, which traditionally finds an outlet on the home market;
Whereas the location of Spain's production and the rules governing trade between Spain and the Member States of the Community as constituted on 31 December 1985 prevent the said surpluses from being disposed of in those Member States;
Whereas the granting of an amount in respect of Spanish maize consigned to other Member States is likely to improve the flow of trade in the Community and, thereby, alleviate the situation on the market in maize in Spain; whereas the granting of such an amount could well, however, result in deflection of trade; whereas the only way to avoid the said deflection of trade is to grant the amount in question only in cases where the maize is consigned to the other Member States via what is, in the light of the location of Spain's production, the most suitable means of transport;
Whereas, in order to facilitate the administration of the scheme, the amount should be granted at a stage at which it can be deducted from the accession compensatory amount;
Whereas a provision should be introduced whereby operations pursuant to this Regulation are taken into account in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 of 21 April 1970 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3183/87 (3);
Whereas the Management Committee for Cereals has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chairman,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
1. An amount of 5,38 ECU per tonne, multiplied by the monetary coefficient referred to in Article 6 (3) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3153/85 (4), shall be granted when maize falling within subheading 10.05 B of the Common Customs Tariff, consigned from Spain by sea and fulfilling, in Spain, the conditions laid down in Article 9 (2) of the Treaty has been entered for home use and discharged in the Community as constituted on 31 December 1985.
2. The amount referred to in paragraph 1 shall be deducted, for the sole purpose of payment to the beneficiary, from the accession compensatory amount applicable to the product concerned.
3. The granting of the amount specified in paragraph 1 shall constitute intervention intended to stabilize the agricultural markets, within the meaning of Article 1 (2) (b) of Regulation (EEC) No 729/70.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
It shall apply to products entered for home use before 1 January 1988.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 6 November 1987. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1057/2001
of 31 May 2001
amending Regulation (EEC) No 1833/92 setting the amounts of aid for the supply of cereals products from the Community to the Azores and Madeira
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1600/92 of 15 June 1992 introducing specific measures in respect of certain agricultural products for the benefit of the Azores and Madeira(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2826/2000(2), and in particular Article 10 thereof,
Whereas:
(1) The amounts of aid for the supply of cereals products to the Azores and Madeira has been settled by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1833/92(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 831/2001(4), whereas, as a consequence of the changes of the rates and prices for cereals products in the European part of the Community and on the world market, the aid for supply to the Azores and Madeira should be set at the amounts given in the Annex.
(2) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The Annex of amended Regulation (EEC) No 1833/92 is replaced by the Annex to the present Regulation.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 June 2001.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 31 May 2001. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
1,
1,
0
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 189/2001
of 30 January 2001
amending Regulation (EC) No 1771/96 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of the specific measures for the supply of hops to the French overseas departments
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3763/91 of 16 December 1991 introducing specific measures in respect of certain agricultural products for the benefit of the French overseas departments(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2826/2000(2), and in particular Article 2(6) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1771/96(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2797/1999(4), establishes the quantities of the forecast supply balance for the French overseas departments of hops eligible for exemption from import duties or for Community aid from the rest of the Community as well as the amount of that aid. The above quantities should be established for the period 1 January to 31 December 2001.
(2) This Regulation will enter into force after the expiry of the time limit for submitting licence applications in January 2001. To avoid a break in supplies to the French overseas departments, provision should be made to derogate from Article 4(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 1771/96 and to allow, for that month alone, the submission of licence applications in the five working days following the entry into force of this Regulation and to set the time limit for the issue of such licences at 10 working days following the entry into force of this Regulation.
(3) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Hops,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1771/96 is hereby replaced by the following:
"Article 1
For the purposes of Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 3763/91, the quantity for the forecast supply balance for hops falling within CN codes 1210 and 1302 13 00 eligible for exemption from duty on importation into the French overseas departments or, for products from the rest of the Community, eligible for Community aid is hereby set at 15 tonnes for the period 1 January to 31 December 2001. This quantity shall be allocated as laid down in the Annex.
The French authorities may adjust the allocation within the overall limit set. They shall inform the Commission of any such adjustment."
Article 2
By way of derogation from Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1771/96, for January 2001 applications for licences shall be submitted to the competent authority no later than the fifth working day following the entry into force of this Regulation.
By way of derogation from Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1771/96, for January 2001 licences shall be issued no later than 10 working days after the entry into force of this Regulation.
Article 3
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
It shall apply from 1 January 2001.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 30 January 2001. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
COMMISSION DECISION of 6 October 1994 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 85 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (IV/34.776 - Pasteur Mérieux-Merck) (Only the English and French texts are authentic) (Text with EEA relevance) (94/770/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation No 17 of 6 February 1962, first Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty (1), as last amended by the Act of Accession of Spain and Portugal, and in particular Articles 2, 4, 6 and 8 thereof,
Having regard to the notification on 4 June 1993 by Merck & Co. Inc. and Pasteur Mérieux Sérums et Vaccins pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 (2),
Having regard to the Commission's decision on 5 July 1993 that the notified operation does not fall within the scope of Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 because it does not constitute a concentration within the meaning of Article 3 of the said Regulation (3),
Having regard to the parties' request pursuant to Article 5 (1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2367/90 (4), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 3666/93 (5), to treat the notification pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 as an application within the meaning of Article 2 and/or a notification within the meaning of Article 4 of Regulation No 17,
Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (hereinafter referred to as 'the EEA Agreement'), and to the parties' request on 26 January 1994, pursuant to Articles 5 and 8 of Protocol 21 to the EEA Agreement, that their notification be extended to Article 53 of the EEA Agreement,
Having published a summary of the application and notification pursuant to Article 19 (3) of Regulation No 17 (6),
After consulting the Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions,
Whereas:
I. THE FACTS A. The procedure (1) The notification concerns an operation under which Pasteur Mérieux Sérums et Vaccins (PMsv) and Merck & Co. Inc. (Merck) will organize their existing activities in the human vaccines and some related businesses within a territory being defined as the EC and EFTA, through a jointly-controlled company, Pasteur Mérieux MSD SNC (the JV). The operation is organized by the way of a set of different agreements between the parties, most dated 25 May 1993 and includes a set of so-called 'ancillary agreements', in particular the Overview Agreement between the JV and Behringwerke AG (Behring).
(2) Since 5 July 1993, the operation has been examined pursuant to Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty. Within two months, notably on 13 August 1993, the Commission informed the parties that it had serious doubts as to the compatibility of the notified operation with Community competition rules, and invited them to submit satisfactory proposals in order to prevent the case being closed by a negative decision.
(3) As a result the parties gave, with a viev to obtaining an exemption under Article 85 (3), an undertaking on 3 November 1993 to amend substantially the agreements with Behring and to grant specific rights to third parties in respect of some vaccines. This undertaking resulted in the following changes to the Behring agreements:
- conclusion of an exclusive manufacturing licence for Merck's monovalent Haemophilus Influenzae B (HIB) vaccine, used to prevent one of the forms of meningitis, in Germany (recital 27),
- conclusion of the Multivalent Technology Transfer Licence Agreement in the form described below (recital 44),
- amendments to the other agreements for the distribution of certain vaccines in Germany (recital 43).
The undertaking also resulted in the conclusion with Pierre Fabre Médicament SA (Pierre Fabre) of an exclusive manufacturing licence for Merck's monovalent Hib vaccine in France and distribution rights for France to Merck's measles/mumps/ rubella (MMR) vaccine and its individual and bivalent components (recitals 32 and 33).
The parties also undertook that the JV would provide the Commission with annual reports on volumes, prices and/or market shares in connection with the German and French HIB markets, and the French Hepatitis B and measles/mumps/rubella markets.
(4) The entry into force of the EEA Agreement on 1 January 1994 and the parties' request on 26 January 1994 to extend their notification to Article 53 of the EEA Agreement, led to a further undertaking on 25 February 1994 pursuant to which on 16 May a letter of intent has been concluded with the Finnish company, Orion Pharmaceutical International (Orion), to enter into negotiations to grant Orion an exclusive manufacturing licence for Merck's monovalent Hib vaccine in the Nordic EFTA countries. However, on 13 June Orion turned down this offer (recitals 34 and 35).
(5) Lederle-Praxis Biologicals (LPB) is a subsidiary of the US pharmaceutical company American Cyanamid Company and active on the US vaccine markets and since 1991 in Europe with its HIB vaccine. On 15 June 1993 (7), this company lodged an application pursuant to Article 3 (2) of Regulation No 17 for the initiation of a proceeding under Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty against Institut Mérieux, the parent company of PMsv; Merck and Smith Kline Beecham (SKB) (hereinafter referred to as 'the complaint'). The complaint consisted of two different parts. The first part related to LPB's allegation that the three firms are abusing their dominant positions in various Member States by not supplying Hepatitis B vaccine to LPB. LPB also requested the Commission to adopt interim measures to compel them to sell Hepatitis B vaccine to LPB on reasonable commercial terms and conditions including access to registration documents. The second part related to the formation of the JV between PMsv and Merck. The Commission has, by letter of 17 February 1994, pursuant to Article 6 of Commission Regulation No 99/63/EEC (8), informed LPB that it considers that there are not sufficient grounds for granting the first part of the application and that the second part will be dealt with in the context of the specific proceedings for notified agreements pursuant to Regulation No 17. LPB has, by letter of 22 April 1994, informed the Commission that it will not submit comments to the Commission's letter, but that it is intending to respond to the publication pursuant to Article 19 (3) of Regulation No 17 (see recitals 45 to 48).
B. The parties (6) PMsv is a subsidiary of Institut Mérieux, itself a subsidiary of Rhône-Poulenc, a privatized French group of chemical and pharmaceutical companies active worldwide. PMsv is a specialist manufacturer of human vaccine products, blood proteins and other related biological products. The turnover figures (million ecu for 1992) for Rhône-Poulenc and PMsv are: Rhône-Poulenc (worldwide: 11 962; EEA: 6 481) and PMsv (worldwide: 588, of which 414,6 from vaccine sales; EEA: 293, of which 226 from vaccine sales). PMsv's EEA turnover from immunoglobulins, in vivo diagnostics and sera was ECU 10,7 million in 1992.
(7) Merck is a major US company active worldwide in pharmaceuticals. Its total turnover (million ecu for 1992) was: (worldwide: 7 444, of which 374 from vaccine sales; EEA: 1 847, of which 43,9 from vaccine sales). In 1991 Merck formed a separate division for its vaccines business. Merck is not active in the fields of immunoglobulins, in vivo diagnostics and sera.
(8) In April 1992 the US Federal Trade Commission approved a joint venture between PMsv's indirect subsidiary, Connaught Laboratories Inc. and Merck for the research, development and marketing of new multivalent (i.e. a combination of several antigens in one vaccine) paediatric vaccines in the United States of America. The parent companies will distribute the vaccines for the JV by way of co-promotion: Merck distributes the vaccines to managed health care organizations and Connaught Laboratories Inc. to private paediatricians. The parties have also entered into similar co-promotion agreements for their existing paediatric vaccines.
C. The products (9) The business of the JV will relate to human vaccines, specific immunoglobulins, in vivo diagnostics, sera and such additional products as the partners may from time to time determine. This Decision does not cover such additional products.
1. The non-vaccine products (10) The specific immunoglobulins transferred by PMsv to the JV are rabies and tetanus immunoglobulins, which are life-saving products. These products are routinely administered with the vaccine after an animal bite or a wound. The diagnostics refer strictly to a tuberculin-test used in connection with PMsv's tuberculosis BCG vaccine. Sera are very minor products (ECU [. . .] (9) turnover in the EEA with 11 sera) which PMsv continues to provide for public health reasons. The most important product group within this operation, and the only one on which both PMsv and Merck are active, relates to human vaccines.
2. Characteristics of the vaccines sector 1. Vaccine R & D (11) The importance of vaccination for public health is generally recognized (10). However, vaccines are currently available for only a minority of the diseases for which they are required. R & D efforts for the development of new vaccines and vaccine technology are thus continuing and may be guided by reference to epidemiological studies. Just as for pharmaceuticals, however, R & D remains a complex, costly, long-term enterprise that requires large teams and multi-disciplinary approaches. The cost of development of a new product is very high (11) owing to enforced safety regulations and controls, risk of claims for damages and expensive clinical trials. Fundamental research, increasingly based on biotechnology and in particular recombinant DNA technology, is often conducted by specialized companies, scientific institutes or universities, which protect their research results through patents, the rights to which are then licensed to vaccine manufactures in return for royalty payments.
(12) Another objective is the combination of several existing vaccines into new multivalent vaccines. The R & D efforts involved here relate to the reformulation of each antigen, so that it can be effectively used in combination with the other antigens. With the exception of the combination of an inactivated vaccine with a live vaccine, all sorts of combinations are in theory possible (12).
(13) In the area of paediatric (obligatory or recommended) vaccinations, the development of a series of vaccine combinations, including any of DTP (diphtheria/tetanus/pertussis), HIB, polio and Hepatitis B - the so-called 'ideal children's vaccines' - is a generally recognized priority. The benefits of such, ideally heat-stable, vaccines would include: fewer injections; fewer clinic visits; increased family acceptance, resulting in better coverage; cost savings with regard to necessary supplies (e.g. needles, syringes, vials), cold chain storage space and administration by medical personnel; greater ease of delivery; simplified record keeping and more efficient post-administration monitoring services.
(14) The vaccine manufacturers consider that the ideal antigens for these combinations should be based on an improved, so-called acellular, pertussis antigen; an injectable polio antigen and a recombinant Hepatitis B antigen. As regards pertussis, this is the result of perceived side effects with whole cell pertussis. These perceived effects are the reason why immunization against pertussis in the form of DTP, despite decades of experience to back it up, is currently not in general paediatric use in Italy and Denmark. As regards polio, the vaccine used for general immunization in almost all countries is in oral form and based on an attenuated virus. For a multivalent, an injectable polio vaccine is required. Currently, only PMsv and RIVM (the Dutch Public Health Institute) produce, based on their proprietary know-how, an injectable polio vaccine, based on a killed virus. If vaccinated with a killed virus, the possibility that a healthy child might develop the disease following vaccination is totally excluded. As regards Hepatitis B, a plasma-based vaccine (such as the one previously produced by PMsv), is no longer approved by health authorities in view of the blood-related risks.
2. Vaccine production (15) Production of vaccines is a complex process involving growth of the cell culture, purification of the bulk vaccine, formulation, filling and packaging of the product. This process is often subject to proprietary know-how and may even be, as is the case with Hepatitis B production, patent-protected. The manufacturing facilities are controlled and qualified by the national regulatory authority according to the legal standards and provisions of the country where the production is located (including good manufacturing practice). As the regulatory qualification of the manufacturing facilities is part of the authorization of the vaccine product itself, a change of production facility or even change in production process will or may require the undergoing of new qualification and licensing procedure for the vaccine. Therefore even vaccine companies with worldwide activities manufacture all their products in one place where the national production qualification is recognized by the relevant authorities in all the countries in which the vaccine is to be distributed. Furthermore, in contrast to pharmaceutical products, in some countries vaccines need, in view of their biological nature and the inherent risks in such products of batch failures, a batch release from the relevant national control laboratory for each batch.
3. Vaccine distribution (16) Vaccine companies distribute their products in the EEA on a country-by-country basis, because of national differences (in spite of technical harmonization achieved so far) relating to:
- epidemiology: e.g. HIB vaccine is in paediatric use mainly in northern Europe; Hepatitis B is in paediatric use mainly in southern Europe,
- immunization schemes: in particular, vaccination with certain vaccines may be compulsory in certain countries, but only recommended in other EEA countries; even the time schedules for identical vaccines vary from country to country for some paediatric vaccines (the tuberculosis vaccine BCG, DTP and polio vaccines),
- pharmacovigilance (i.e. the observation of unexpected effects of vaccination) and, in some countries, batch release requirements which need to be fulfilled on a national level,
- the widely varying price and reimbursement mechanisms: in some EEA countries vaccination is free of charge for some or all vaccines, whereas in other countries patients receive a partial or complete reimbursement,
- differences in the demand structure: in the Nordic countries, the Netherlands and Greece the supply of vaccines is virtually exclusively generated by public health institutes who either produce their own vaccines or purchase products in bulk or finished form through public tenders (in Iceland, Norway and Finland these institutes still have an import monopoly); in Ireland, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom vaccines are purchased mainly through public tenders, but the doctors choose the vaccine they prescribe from a range of recommended available vaccines; in other EEA countries, chiefly France and Germany, vaccines are to a large extent supplied to the private market and distributed via wholesalers to pharmacies or directly to hospitals and (in the case of Germany), doctors; vaccine manufacturers therefore require a sales force to market successfully their products in these countries,
- differences in national preferences as to the presentation forms of vaccines, such as, e.g. vials, single-dose, multi-dose, multi-chamber syringes (13).
(17) These varying characteristics result in significant differences, from vaccine to vaccine, and from country to country.
This can be illustrated by reference to the three largest national markets in the EEA: France, Germany and Italy, each of which accounted for sales of about ECU 130 million in 1992. In Italy, the only country with a recommended general paediatric vaccination against Hepatitis B, sales of this vaccine alone totalled over 50 % of total sales, whereas there were virtually no sales of HIB vaccines. This last vaccine was in turn the most important vaccine in Germany with its sales amounting to about 25 % of total vaccine sales. Sales of flu vaccines in Germany were worth about ECU 15 million (12 % of total sales). In France, Hepatitis B and flu vaccines represented sales of over ECU 35 million each (giving each over 25 % of total sales).
3. The position of the parties on the vaccine markets 1. General overview (18) Merck's European vaccine portfolio consists of MMR and its individual and bivalent components, HIB, Hepatitis B and pneumococcus (14). Despite entering the European vaccine markets as early as the beginning of the 70s, Merck only has staff dedicated to vaccines in the Netherlands and Spain (between one and three in each case) and a small group (less than 10) in Germany. Its Hepatitis B vaccine is promoted in Italy by its general hospital sales force. Merck thus works almost exclusively via independent distributors and public health institutes for the distribution of its vaccine portfolio in Europe. The distribution of this complete portfolio occurs in only one EEA country, Germany, where the vaccines are distributed by Behring. Sales in Germany represented in 1992 almost 50 % of Merck's vaccine sales in the EEA totalling ECU 43,9 million (i.e. only 2,3 % of Merck's total combined turnover of all products in the EEA). Another 30 % of total sales was accounted for by Hepatitis B vaccine sales in Italy. No vaccine was distributed in France.
(19) PMsv has a much larger vaccine operation in the EEA. In 1992 it offered some 40 vaccine combinations against some 20 diseases. The distribution of these vaccines occurs predominantly via its own subsidiaries or via the Nordic, Dutch and Greek public health institutes (see recital 16). Independent distributors play a role only in Germany (Roehm for the Connaught vaccines), Portugal, Greece and Ireland and, for its flu vaccine only, throughout the EEA. PMsv is thus present in all EEA countries. Nevertheless, PMsv's vaccine sales are concentrated in certain countries. France accounted for over 50 % of PMsv's total vaccine sales in the EEA. In 1992, PMsv was the only producer of all vaccines offered in France with the exception of flu (where its products - distributed by PMsv itself and other independent distributors - commanded over 90 % of the market) and Hepatitis B (where it accounted for over 50 % of the market, SKB accounting for the remaining part). In particular for paediatric vaccination (DTP, polio, BCG, HIB and MMR), where 3 000 French paediatricians (3 % of French doctors) prescribe almost half of these vaccines, PMsv was in a very strong position, partially owing to its ability to offer the complete paediatric range which relieved the prescribing doctors of the need to maintain distribution relationships (information exchange including medical representation visits, use of refrigerator, discounts) with more than one producer.
United Kingdom sales accounted for almost 20 % and German sales for almost 10 % of PMsv's total turnover. PMsv does not have (as will be explained below) a Hepatitis B vaccine for offer outside France, or a widely accepted MMR vaccine (rentals 22 to 24).
2. Product portfolio overlap (a) Existing products (20) The parties' existing products' portfolio shows an overlap for HIB, MMR (and its monovalent components), Hepatitis B, and pneumococcal vaccines.
(21) PMsv supplies two different HIB vaccines, its own product and the product originating from its Canadian subsidiary, Connaught Laboratories Inc., which was the first such vaccine launched in EEA markets in 1990. This is now marketed under two different brands. Merck's HIB vaccine entered the first EEA markets in 1991. The HIB vaccine is mainly used as a paediatric vaccine to prevent one of the forms of meningitis.
(22) As regards MMR, clinical studies have showed increased side-effects for the mumps strain used by SKB and PMsv. This has led SKB to withdraw its mumps and MMR products from all EEA markets, whilst PMsv currently offers them only in France (15), Italy and Greece. This leaves Merck as the only producer with widely accepted mumps and MMR vaccines (Berna, another Swiss-based competitor, is currently registering its MMR in Greece and Austria). The MMR market is an important one with sales in 1992 totalling over ECU 40 million in six Community countries (Germany, Italy, France, United Kingdom, Spain and Belgium), out of a total of almost ECU 45 million for the complete MMR family in these countries. It is estimated that an improvement of the mumps strain will take between three to five years.
(23) The Hepatitis B vaccine is no longer produced on a plasma basis, in view of the blood-related risks. All current formulations are produced by way of genetic engineering. This is, however, subject to different patent claims. There is, furthermore, considerable uncertainty as to the legal validity and precise scope of the different patent claims for Hepatitis B vaccine technology. Some patent applications have yet to be granted, and some of them may either be opposed or have already been partly or entirely revoked or are under appeal. For this reason, Merck and SKB decided to enter into cross-licensing arrangements in relation to rights which had been licensed by several research institutions to them. This cross-licence does not allow these parties to sub-license their acquired rights to other companies whereas a sub-licence to an affiliate such as a JV is allowed. Other producers which would like access to the patent rights involved, in order to avoid uncertainty and costs of litigation, therefore need at least a sub-licence of both Merck and SKB under their respective rights. Apart from Merck and SKB, Hepatitis B vaccines are also offered by Berna and the United Kingdom company, Medeva. Berna has received from Teijin, a Japanese producer, distribution rights for its Hepatitis B vaccine for Switzerland (where it is already on sale), Portugal, Spain, Italy and Greece. Medeva is at present appealing against a judgment of the United Kingdom High Court which found that its product infringed Biogen's patent (licensed to SKB).
(24) PMsv is licensed to sell its recombinant Hepatitis B vaccine as a monovalent in France, but not outside France. Moreover, it does not have the licences to include its Hepatitis B in a multivalent (even in France). Furthermore, PMsv believes that it would be unlikely to obtain a registration for its recombinant (monovalent) Hepatitis B vaccine outside France, [. . .].
(25) Currently, the pneumococcal vaccine is prescribed in order to prevent pneumococcal pneumonia in patients, in particular those who are immunocompromised (notably, patients whose spleens have been removed) or who have chronic conditions which make them particularly at risk for pneumococcal pneumonia, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart disease, or liver disease. As a group, they are generally older adults.
Although the size of this target group is potentially large, the use of the vaccine has remained controversial. This is illustrated by the fact that, although the vaccines have been commercially available since the mid-70s in Europe and North America, the combined turnover in all EEA countries is estimated to total only about ECU 1,1 million, France being the largest single market with an estimated turnover of about ECU 500 000 (in some countries where the vaccine is sold it is even not registered, but provided on a 'named patient' basis). It should be noted that pneumococcal vaccine is different from the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine currently under development. This latter vaccine is expected to be used in infants and children to prevent a type of meningitis and inner ear infections. There is virtually no overlap of the target groups, or in the technology.
(b) Future vaccines (26) Each of the parties is active in R & D work for a series of vaccines, but their R & D pipeline for vaccines in later stages of development currently overlaps only as regards a Hepatitis A and a varicella vaccine for use in normal children. Their pre-clinical trial research overlaps only as regards a pneumococcal conjugate vaccine. Furthermore, Merck has no acellular pertussis, or injectable polio vaccine research programme.
3. Geographical specifications (a) Germany (27) At present both PMsv and Merck have monovalent HIB, measles and rubella vaccines on sale in Germany. The most important, in terms of turnover, of these markets is the monovalent HIB market which totalled sales of over ECU 30 million in 1992, of which vaccines belonging to PMsv or its Canadian subsidiary Connaught Laboratories Inc. realized about 75 % and the Merck vaccine, introduced in 1992 and distributed by Behring, about 10 %. The only other competitor is LPB which also introduced its vaccine in 1992 and achieved a market share of about 15 %.
However, the parties have, by agreement of 26 May 1994 (16), granted Behring an exclusive licence under the HIB patents and know-how to manufacture (and distribute) Merck's monovalent HIB vaccine for sale in Germany. The licence enables Behring to establish its own manufacturing facility, or to arrange for the manufacture to be subcontracted to Merck or to a licensee in the Community of Merck or the JV.
(28) The monovalent rubella market has an estimated 1992 turnover of about ECU 2,5 million and totalled over 400 000 doses (17). The bulk of the rubella vaccine is however sold as part of the MMR market which realized a turnover of more than ECU 20 million. The parties' monovalent rubella vaccines accounted for almost 95 % of the number of doses sold [. . .]. The remaining vaccines were sold by SKB and Wellcome, both internationally operating vaccine producers.
(29) The parties have a combined share of some 60 % [. . .] of the German monovalent measles market with a turnover in 1992 of less than ECU 300 000, the remaining market share realized with SKB's vaccines. The bulk of the measles vaccine is equally sold as part of the MMR vaccine.
(b) Greece (30) At present, both parties still sell their MMR vaccines, each via an independent distributor, on the Greek market. Their vaccines are the only ones currently sold in Greece with a total turnover in 1992 of less than ECU 700 000 [. . .]. Berna, a Swiss-based vaccine producer, is however registering its MMR vaccine in Greece.
(c) Portugal (31) On the Portuguese pneumococcal vaccine market, with a total turnover (ex factory prices) of less than ECU 3 000, the parties offered the only vaccines in 1992. However, none of the two vaccines is registered in Portugal, sales being made on a 'named patient'-basis as a service.
(d) France (32) The parties have granted (18) to Pierre Fabre, by agreement of 30 June 1994, distribution rights for France to Merck's MMR and its individual and bivalent components. These rights are exclusive, except for the JV or its French affiliate in regard to MMR, monovalent mumps and bivalent measles/mumps. Pierre Fabre has the option of using Merck's trademarks in France for MMR, monovalent mumps and bivalent measles/mumps, or of using its own trademarks. Pierre Fabre agrees that, for the duration of the agreement, which is for 10 years with the option (at the sole discretion of Pierre Fabre) of further five-year prolongations, it will not engage in activities with regard to competing products.
(33) Also by agreement of 30 June 1994 Pierre Fabre received an exclusive licence under the HIB patents and know-how to manufacture Merck's monovalent HIB vaccine for sale in France. This licence enables Pierre Fabre to establish its own manufacturing facility, or to arrange for the manufacturing to be subcontracted to Merck or to a licensee in the Community of Merck or the JV. The rights granted to Pierre Fabre shall not affect the right of the JV or its French affiliate to sell Merck's monovalent HIB vaccine in France, should any regulatory or medical problems arise in connection with the monovalent HIB (PRP-T) vaccine presently marketed by PMsv in France. The duration of the licence is 10 years with further five-year prolongations at the sole discretion of Pierre Fabre.
(e) Nordic EFTA countries (Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Finland) (34) PMsv's and Merck's HIB vaccines do not currently actively compete on the Nordic EFTA countries monovalent HIB markets. However, in 1991 and 1992 in Sweden and in 1992 in Norway, their vaccines were the only HIB vaccines sold, with 1992 sales totalling about ECU 4 million in Sweden and over ECU 1 million in Norway (PMsv's HIB vaccines accounting for some 90 % of these sales). However, the Swedish association of paediatricians recommended PMsv's PRP-T HIB vaccine for the general vaccination of infants in Sweden during 1993 and 1994. This recommendation, together with a clinical trial lasting from 1993 until May-June 1994 on 50 % of Swedish new born children involving PMsv's HIB vaccine, has led to Merck's vaccine almost disappearing from the market during 1993 and 1994. Statens Bakteriologiska Laboratorium, until June 1993 the holder of an import monopoly on vaccines, was the distributor of Merck's vaccine in Sweden and also offered it to the Norwegian State institute, but entered in June 1993 into a [. . .] supply agreement with PMsv.
(35) Nevertheless, in May 1994 the parties signed a letter of intent with Orion (19) whereby they agreed to enter into negotiations to grant Orion an exclusive licence to manufacture Merck's monovalent HIB vaccine for sale in the Nordic EFTA countries. Such a licence would have been along the same lines as the one entered into with Pierre Fabre for France. However, Orion informed the parties on 13 June 1994 that, after thoroughly investigating every possibility to introduce the vaccine in the Nordic countries, they had decided to turn down this offer. The parties indicated that the offer remains valid for other interested third parties.
D. The notified operation (36) Objectives and business scope of the JV
The primary purposes and objectives of the JV are:
- the creation and development of new multivalent vaccines which would result in significant public health benefits as indicated in recital 13,
- the distribution of existing (and new) products in countries where they are not yet marketed (or would not be were it not for the creation of the JV),
- future research in (i) new vaccines, concentrated on specific European requirements (with respect to epidemiological and/or biological characteristics of the vaccines, adapted dosages, combinations or traditionally preferred delivery systems), from post-clinical phase II onwards; and (ii) related new technologies such as, e.g. the improvement or elimination of preservatives, improved vectors/new delivery systems (oral delivery), DNA/RNA-based research.
The business scope of the JV will be to facilitate the research of, oversee the development of, register, arrange for the manufacture (in principle by either PMsv or Merck) of, distribute, market and sell in the EC and EFTA vaccines, immunoglobulins, in vivo diagnostics, sera and such additional products as the partners may from time to time require.
(37) Transfer of the existing business to the JV
The JV will be set up in the form of a 'Société en nom collectif' (SNC) under French law, capitalized with FF 265 million by Merck's French subsidiary (Merck Sub), but on closing Merck Sub and PMsv will each hold a 50 % ownership. The SNC assembly of partners will be composed of two voting members representing the parent companies. Day-to-day activities will be managed by the gérant in the form of a French 'Société anonyme à directoire et conseil de surveillance' in which each parent will have an equal shareholding and equal representation.
Each party will transfer to the JV its existing product registration rights and will exclusively license to the JV the existing patents and the know-how owned by or licensed to it, except for any rights retained (i) to permit the continued manufacture of products solely for sale to the JV in the territory and (ii) for sale for use outside the territory (20), and except for rights of third parties existing prior to the JV. All other existing product rights such as copyrights, trade dress and tradenames will be licensed or transferred to the JV.
In addition PMsv will transfer or license certain tangible assets, its 'fonds de commerce' and the capital stock of certain of its subsidiaries. Each parent will also transfer to the JV its respective rights and obligations under distribution agreements with third parties, except for the agreements between Merck and Behring, its German distributor, with whom the JV concluded the Behring Agreements.
(38) New vaccines
Each parent agrees, subject to third party rights, to transfer or license to the JV the product rights (other than registrations) necessary to market the pipeline products (i.e. those vaccines which are at a late development stage) in any country of the territory as they arise, or, at the option of the JV, to render all reasonable assistance to enable the JV to obtain these rights in its own name. If the JV elects to commercialize such a product, the originating party will permit the JV to obtain product registrations for the product in the territory, subject to retention of such registrations as the originating party may require to continue to manufacture such product solely (i) for sale for use outside the territory, or (ii) for sale to the JV for use within the territory. If the JV elects not to bring such a product on the market, it may transfer or license the product rights (except for a product containing Merck's Hepatitis B) to a third party. If the JV pursues the development, it will fund and direct the post-phase II testing and post-launch development studies used to support the registration and marketing of the product in the territory. The patents and know-how resulting from development work funded by the JV shall belong to the JV for the territory, whereas the party engaged in the relevant development work outside the territory shall own the patents and know-how there.
As regards products at an early development stage (the future pipeline products), the originating party will at the commencement of post-phase II testing, offer the product to the JV. If the JV accepts the product, the JV will receive an exclusive licence, subject to third-party rights in the territory, for the product rights. The mechanism for product registration, sharing of development costs and intellectual ownership is identical to that for pipeline products. If the JV does not want to bring the product on the market, it is the originating party which may transfer or license all rights to a third party in the territory on terms no more favourable than those offered to the JV.
A development committee will be assembled in order to formulate, implement and direct the R & D strategy of the JV and the parents for the benefit of the JV in the territory.
The development committee shall:
- oversee communications regarding the R & D activities of the parents undertaken for the JV, including communications concerning discoveries,
- oversee the development of JV multivalent products,
- identify the most efficient utilization of the available resources of the parents for such development activities, and also identify the appropriate multivalent products for development,
- advise the management bodies of the JV.
All patents and know-how resulting from development work funded by the JV with respect to multivalent products shall belong to the JV, provided that the parents shall each be granted a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-bearing licence.
(39) Other arrangements
Administrative and support services (including accounting, treasury, management information, currency hedging and other financial services, legal, medical and regulatory services) may be provided by each of the parents on a cost basis.
Merck and PMsv will each supply, on a cost basis, the JV's requirements of existing products, the rights to which the parent transferred or licensed to the JV, and future products with respect to which the parent is the originator, and these the JV will either sell (as monovalent) or include in multivalent products. PMsv will, for so long as it has the capacity and can do so at a competitive cost, complete the finishing of the JV's multivalents unless all components come from Merck. The JV shall have the right to audit all these costs every two years. In the event that the JV determines that the costs are not reasonable, it may procure the relevant services (if permissible under the terms of patents/licences relating to such products) from the other or a third party, provided that this is on substantially more advantageous terms than the existing party is willing to offer.
Connaught Laboratories Inc. shall grant the JV an exclusive (subject to any third party rights) licence for the territory of product rights to its future products for a term of 30 years, which agreement shall terminate in the event that Connaught ceases to be a PMsv affiliate. The JV shall manage the existing distribution arrangements of Connaught in the territory and, at the option of the JV, shall serve as Connaught's distributor for its existing products, subject to any third-party rights.
(40) Duration
The agreement shall terminate automatically at the end of the year 2023 unless extended by mutual consent in writing.
However, Merck has the right to sell its interest at any time after 2001, with PMsv having the first option to purchase.
(41) Non-competition
The parents agree not to sell or supply, nor to license to a third party, prior to termination, a JV product or a competing product for use in the territory.
Merck will not, for a period of five years following the sale of its interest, sell, supply or license to a third party a JV product sold by the JV prior to the sale of the Merck interest or a competing product.
None of the parents will solicit an employee of the JV to leave the JV for three years after the termination of the JV or the sale of its interest.
E. The Behring agreements (42) Behring
Behring is a subsidiary of the German chemical concern Hoechst AG and a producer and distributor of pharmaceutical products (therapeutical and diagnostical). Behring realized in 1992 a worldwide turnover of ECU 632,6 million of which less than 20 % is accounted for by vaccine sales. These vaccine sales were concentrated in Germany. A very substantial part of its German sales was with products of other producers, mainly Merck (distributor for pneumococcal, MMR and HIB, agent for Hepatitis B). This makes Behring currently the most important vaccine manufacturer and distributor in Germany accounting in 1992 for almost half of the turnover realized on the German vaccine markets. Outside Germany, Behring is not active in the EEA with the exception of its flu vaccine which is distributed in France by Cassenne, another subsidiary of Hoechst AG.
(43) Continuation of the distribution of Merck's existing vaccines (other than HIB - see recital 27) and co-promotion of some future JV vaccines
Until 2004 Behring will be, in Germany, subject to any rights of third parties:
- the exclusive but for the JV (i.e. the sole) distributor of Merck's existing MMR (and its components) and pneumococcal vaccines; these vaccines each account for at least 40 % of the German markets,
- the sole agent for the distribution of Merck's existing Hepatitis B vaccine; Behring will sell in its own name, but for the account of the JV, this vaccine which commanded about half of the German Hepatitis B market in 1992,
- the exclusive co-promoter of the JV's future varicella, MMR varicella and Hepatitis A vaccines. A co-promotion agreement is an agreement whereby one party (the co-promoter) lends its marketing force to promote, as regards the medical profession a product of the originating party, which party retains the final responsibility as to price, quality standards, and quality and quantity of promotional efforts to be dedicated to its products.
Behring will have the right to make sales outside Germany in response to unsolicited requests. If Behring distributes a product of a third party competing to any of these vaccines, Behring's appointment will become non-exclusive for that vaccine.
(44) Development by Behring of multivalents (21)
The parties have entered into a set of agreements with Behring under which Behring has the option to procure from the JV its requirements for HIB, acellular pertussis and/or Hepatitis B antigens for inclusion in multivalents to be developed by Behring for sale in Germany (with the right to make sales outside Germany in response to unsolicited requests). This right lasts until 2004, but should Behring develop a multivalent at any time before that date, the right to procure the JV's antigens for that particular multivalent shall last for a minimum of five years from its first marketing and in any event until 2004. This development work will be on the basis of a Multivalent Technology Transfer Licence Agreement enabling Behring to use, sell, make or have made Behring multivalents under the licensed technology. The JV is obliged not to license other undertakings to exploit the licensed technology, defined as 'multivalent know-how' (22), in Germany.
In view of the Hepatitis B patent situation (see recital 23), Behring's rights with respect to multivalents developed by it containing Merck's Hepatitis B antigen are limited to the use and sale of these products. The trademark and the product registrations of such vaccines will be owned by the JV; Behring will produce such vaccines as a subcontractor for the JV.
This agreement gives Behring the opportunity to develop a distinct set of multivalents for sale in Germany, based on its own antigens, JV antigens and/or third party antigens. Behring is also free to exploit outside Germany its own severable intellectual property rights created in developing a multivalent containing an antigen of the JV.
F. Third parties' observations (45) The Commission has received comments on the notified operation, the essential content of which was published pursuant to Article 19 (3) of Regulation No 17, from LPB and SKB, two companies that are in competition on some of the markets involved with the notifying parties. LPB objected to the Commission's intention to exempt the JV (23) in view of the oligopolistic nature of the European vaccine markets where, according to LPB, three companies account for close to 90 % of sales of paediatric vaccines and the JV would immediately have an overall market share (paediatric and all human vaccines) of close to 70 % in the Community.
(46) LPB believes that the JV will have a detrimental effect on the future structure of competition as the combination of the resources of the parties will severely hinder the ability of other companies to enter the market for, especially, the new paediatric multivalent products. LPB considers that the development of a paediatric hexavalent containing DTP, HIB, Hepatitis B and polio vaccines, will have a dramatic effect on sales of the monovalents included so that companies, including LPB, which do not have access to Hepatitis B due to the, according to LPB, exceptionally broad patents, will face a severe threat to their ability to remain on the vaccines markets. LPB considers access to the Hepatitis B antigen as crucial in view of the already current paediatric vaccination against Hepatitis B in Italy, Spain and Portugal and the acknowledgment by all public health administrations in northern Europe that the spread of the Hepatitis B virus cannot be effectively controlled through the vaccination of so-called adult high-risk groups so that these administrations intend to recommend paediatric vaccination if the incremental cost is in relation to its benefits.
(47) The launch of the hexavalent vaccine will, according to LPB, be a spur to universal immunization against Hepatitis B (as the precedent of MMR shows), and LPB believes that there is no reason why the current schedule for the application of Hepatitis B should not be altered once the hexavalent product is available.
(48) LPB therefore argues that the Commission is under an obligation to take measures to ensure that the likelihood of effective competition from third parties in multivalent vaccines is maintained and argues that the agreements with Behring do not provide an adequate remedy for the negative effect of the JV on competition in the future markets for multivalent vaccines as, on the contrary, the agreements remove Behring as an important possible partner for other manufacturers who might be forced to seek alliances to survive once confronted with the market power of the JV. LPB thus concludes that the Commission, if it would exempt the JV, should require the JV to supply Hepatitis B to LPB, as one of only two global vaccines manufacturers in addition to the JV.
(49) The Commission obtained from the notifying parties, in reaction to LPB's comments, some factual clarification. The parties confirmed that Italy was the only country with a general paediatric recommendation for Hepatitis B vaccination; in Spain the vaccine is recommended for infants by six of the seventeen regional health authorities (of which only two put the recommendation into practice), and one other regional authority purchases the vaccine despite not officially recommending it; in Portugal the vaccine is to be made available free to 11- to 13-year old adolescents (rather than for infants).
(50) The Commission also received observations from SKB, like the parties to the JV, a global vaccines producer. SKB has summarized its observations as follows:
- the competitiveness of Community vaccine producers depends upon innovation, and access to new technologies and vaccine components,
- the activities of the JV appear to be limited to marketing and distribution, with some ancillary administrative functions: on this basis SKB does not believe that the JV will become a new competitive, innovative force in vaccine markets,
- the wide scope (extending to all of Merck's and PMsv's current and future vaccine technologies) of the JV is such that the normal competitive processes in the vaccines markets in Europe, which ensure access to technology, are likely to be restricted,
- the duration of the arrangements is considerably longer than is usual or necessary for a distribution JV; SKB therefore believes that the Commission should retain an ability to review the effect of the JV on competition in vaccine markets at a later date,
- there are unlikely to be improvements to technology or production resulting from the formation of the JV; the improvements in distribution (despite the undertakings given by the parties in relation to Germany and France) are not likely to be substantial,
- cooperation arrangements could enable Merck and PMsv to collaborate productively for a limited period of time to bring needed combination products to the paediatric vaccine market. However, SKB believes that the terms of the JV go beyond what is reasonably necessary in this respect and may prevent competitors from bringing innovative new products to the market place, to the detriment of the public.
(51) In view of SKB's observation concerning access to vaccine technology, the parties amended their exclusive patent and know-how licences for the EEA to the JV by explicitly allowing the JV to sub- and or cross-license these intellectual property rights for the development and/or manufacture in the EEA of existing and future vaccines to other manufacturers.
II. LEGAL ASSESSMENT A. Article 85 (1) of the EC Treaty and Article 53 (1) of the EEA agreement 1. Agreement between undertakings (52) PMsv and Merck are undertakings within the meaning of the Articles 85 (1) of the EC Treaty and 53 (1) of the EEA Agreement. The set of agreements, most of them dated 25 May 1993, whereby the parties will organize their existing activities in the human vaccine business within a territory being defined as the EC and the EFTA, through a jointly-controlled company and the ancillary agreements which were also notified, are agreements within the meaning of Articles 85 (1) of the EC Treaty and 53 (1) of the EEA Agreement.
2. Relevant market 1. Relevant product market (53) Each vaccine ensuring immunity against a specific disease forms a different product market. From the viewpoint of the consumer, no substitutability exists between vaccines protecting against different diseases. Furthermore each vaccine presents specific characteristics in respect to its development and production. Different technologies are used to develop and produce vaccines, the production itself is subject to specific regulatory requirements.
(54) For these same reasons multivalent vaccines are also considered as belonging to a different product market than the equivalent monovalent vaccines. Although the launch of a multivalent may have, when it is accepted by the health authorities/ medical community (24), the effect of replacing part of the equivalent monovalents, this is not sufficient to consider both products as belonging to the same product market. Indeed, the consumer/prescriber adopts relatively quickly a distinct usage whereby the multivalent is preferred for general immunization whereas the monovalents are mainly used for either brush-up immunization or as a booster for non-protected persons (and also retained by the producer in order to cope with possible adverse reactions to some antigens included in the multivalent). Examples of such processes are to be found in past experience with DTP and MMR multivalents.
2. Relevant geographical market (55) At present, different conditions of competition prevail in the EEA countries in respect to the distribution of vaccines for the reasons laid down in recital 16. Another factor is the traditional preference for the national producer, which is often closely related to the State. For these reasons, and because it cannot be expected that the conditions of competition relating to, especially, epidemiology, the national legal frameworks and medical tradition, will change in the near future, the geographical markets are still national. Past experience with DTP and MMR has also shown this to be the case for multivalents.
3. Restrictions of competition 1. Between the parties (56) The parties transfer, by the different mechanismus described at Section D - The notified operation - to the JV their European distribution network, their existing European vaccine portfolio, their European-oriented R & D activities from post clinical phase II onwards and the resulting new vaccines and vaccine technology. This transfer has been strengthened by the non-competition obligations summarized in recital 41. In doing so, the parents eliminate competition on the European vaccine markets between themselves in so far as the parties are to be considered as actual or potential competitors.
a) Actual competition (57) The parties are currently in competition with each other on five vaccine markets (see recitals 27 to 31). The creation of the JV will lead to an appreciable restriction of competition only on the German monovalent rubella and measles markets (see recitals 28 and 29). With regard to the Greek MMR market (recital 30), it has already been noted that, even though both parties are currently selling their vaccines in Greece, the side effects noted with the mumps strain used by PMsv (see recital 22), may lead PMsv, possibly upon insistence of the national health authorities, to withdraw its MMR vaccine. The elimination of this already weakened actual competition through the creation of the JV can therefore not be considered as an appreciable restriction of competition. However, the reasons why potential competition on this and other national MMR markets is restricted, are stated in recital 60.
(58) With regard to the German monovalent HIB market, the licence described in recital 27 will result in a competitive situation on the relevant market whereby Merck, via its distributor Behring, will be replaced by Behring which will now be able to act as an independent competitor on the market. The fifth market on which the parties' vaccines are currently both available is the Portuguese pneumococcal market (see recital 31). This market is characterized by an extremely limited total turnover (less than ECU 3 000). This is a consequence of the absence of an economically viable market potential for these vaccines, e.g. the lack of any registration of the products. All sales now occur, in the absence of distribution efforts taken by the manufacturers, upon specific request from the doctor, so-called 'named patient' sales. In view of both the possibility for doctors of buying this vaccine from any other competitor who offers it somewhere in the EEA, and the marginal importance of this market, the creation of the JV will have no appreciable effect.
(b) Potential competition (i) Existing products (59) In view of the patent situation for Hepatitis B recombinant vaccines (see recitals 23 and 24), PMsv is not in a position to market, without the risk of litigation, this vaccine outside France. PMsv is therefore not considered as a potential competitor on the other EEA markets. This conclusion is strengthened by PMsv's belief that, in view of the characteristics of its product, it would be unlikely to obtain a registration outside France. Merck possesses all the necessary patent licences and its product could be registered in all EEA countries. In view of the Hepatitis B market potential in France, where 1992 sales totalled about ECU 40 million (i.e. almost as much as Merck's total turnover in the EEA), Merck has to be considered as a potential market entrant on the French market, even taking into account the French preference for a pre-filled syringe (see footnote 1 on page 5). The creation of the JV will thus lead to an appreciable restriction of competition on the French Hepatitis B market.
(60) With regard to the MMR market, it is considered that, in the absence of the JV, PMsv would have engaged in R & D to ameliorate its mumps strain so that it could have re-entered the MMR markets in three to five years, given the existing substantial demand for this multivalent vaccine. Merck's mumps strain is, as indicated in recital 22, currently the only one which is widely accepted. Therefore Merck can, in view of the limited distribution efforts currently needed, be considered as a realistic market entrant in all EEA MMR (25) markets where it is currently not established. The creation of the JV will thus lead to an appreciable restriction of competition on the MMR markets in all EEA countries since PMsv will not need to develop an improved MMR vaccine to compete with Merck's vaccine.
(61) The monovalent HIB vaccine has, in view of the epidemiology (see recital 16), only a limited market potential in Italy, Spain, Portugal and Greece where in 1992 no or almost no sales occurred. Merck's vaccine was sold in 1992 only in Germany (26), Sweden, Norway (27) (where sales were made by independent distributors) and in Spain (28). Furthermore, the JV has granted a manufacturing licence for Merck's monovalent HIB vaccine to an independent third party in France (recital 33). This party (Pierre Fabre) can decide, even if it would appoint Merck or another licensee as its subcontractor for the production of the vaccine, the basic commercial terms such as quantity, price and promotion. In all other EEA countries, Merck has no own vaccines sales force (see recital 18) and its product is not yet registered in Denmark, Ireland and Austria. In view of the presence of other vaccines (notably from PMsv and LPB) on these markets, the current level of demand for this vaccine and in the absence of circumstances which would lead to a specific request for Merck's product, it cannot be expected that Merck would enter these markets (i.e. the monovalent HIB markets in all EEA countries except Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Germany and France). This conclusion is corroborated by the impossibility of finding an independent third party to (re-)introduce, by way of a manufacturing licence, the vaccine in the Nordic EFTA countries (recitals 34 and 35). The creation of the JV will not, therefore, result in a restriction of competition on the monovalent HIB markets.
(62) The creation of the JV is not considered to lead to an appreciable elimination of competition on the pneumococcal markets. Both parties sell it in some EEA countries, but not in all. Potential entry in the other countries is not realistic, in view of the limited turnover and market potential for this vaccine on these markets (see recital 25).
ii) Future monovalents (63) As regards future products in an advanced stage of clinical trials ('pipeline products'), it is realistic to assume that the parties, in view of their past performance, financial strength and existing vaccine knowledge, can be considered as potential competitors for these new monovalents for which their actual R & D portfolio shows an overlap: Hepatitis A and varicella. The creation of the JV will result in an appreciable restriction of competition on these European vaccine markets, as it is the JV which will take over the post phase II clinical trials and which will distribute the final products.
(64) An assessment of the restriction of competition between the parties for other new monovalent vaccines in earlier stages of R & D ('future pipeline products') is far more difficult, in view of the extremely broad range of such future research and the lack of precise indications as to the chances of bringing successful products to the markets. Furthermore, the parties remain autonomous in their basic R & D decisions and on the way in which they will allocate their respective budgets, particularly with respect to the early phases of clinical work, and especially fundamental basic research (or the buying in of such basic research undertaken by specialized institutes) which is far from market-oriented. However, within the Development Committee of the JV (see recital 38), the R & D activities of the parents, including communications concerning discoveries, will be discussed. It cannot be excluded, therefore, that these discussions will lead to the coordination of the basic R & D, which has already been triggered, with regard to paediatric multivalents, by the other JV between the parties in the United States of America (recital 8). In view of the parties' important position on the vaccine markets (worldwide presence, R & D budget), this coordination is likely to have an appreciable effect on R & D for future pipeline products in the EEA.
(iii) Multivalents (65) The multivalents which could be developed are specified in recitals 12, 13 and 14. The parties' own product portfolio (i.e. their existing vaccines/antigens and the antigens in an (advanced) stage of development) would allow them both to develop an MMR varicella multivalent. Merck already disposes of a MMR vaccine, and PMsv would have improved its vaccine (see recital 60). Furthermore, both have a varicella vaccine for use in normal children at a late stage of development (recital 26).
(66) However, their own product portfolio does not overlap for any of the other possible combinations so that both parties could not have formulated any of these multivalents alone. In particular with regard to the possible paediatric combinations, including DTP acellular, injectable polio, HIB and Hepatitis B (recitals 13 and 14), the only antigen to which both have access is HIB.
(67) It is accepted that, in the absence of the JV, Merck could have theoretically obtained bulk supplies of the only vaccine which can be considered as a commodity product: DTPwholecell. Despite the current success of e.g. PMsv's DTPwholecell-HIB combination in Germany, it appears that, if Merck were to start a development programme on the basis of such bulk supplies, the resulting vaccine would be likely to come to the market at a time when some other competitors would already possess the more performant multivalents based on the acellular pertussis antigen. It can thus be concluded that this is not an economically viable course of action.
(68) It is, furthermore, not accepted that the parties could be considered as potential competitors for the development of these multivalents simply because of their ability to obtain access to the missing antigens via licences to proprietary know-how and/or patents, and possibly bulk supplies, from other manufacturers. Some of the potential antigens are not yet developed (Hepatitis C and E, most meningitis antigens). For the remaining antigens, and in particular DTPa, HIB and Hepatitis B, this is not a viable course of action.
It is not obvious that such licences would be granted, in view of their inherent complexity (the safety/stability problem for these relatively 'new' antigens when they are to be included in multivalents might give rise to serious liability risks). Furthermore, contractual relations with more than one manufacturer are required. And, in addition to the formal licence (and possibly bulk supply), there is a need for ongoing cooperation between the specialists of the originating parties when the antigens are 'blended' into multivalents involving a continuous, wide-ranging exchange of information on the basis of a trust relationship between different R & D teams.
Therefore, this course of action does not constitute a workable and flexible enough alternative to develop the wide range of different multivalents adapted to the needs of different European countries (e.g. in view of epidemiology, health policy approach and traditional preferences), which the JV intends to launch on the EEA markets.
(69) It can thus be concluded that the creation of the JV will result in an appreciable restriction only on the MMRvaricella multivalent markets.
2. Effects of the creation of the JV as regards third parties (a) Existing and imminent vaccines and vaccine technology (70) According to the notified agreements, the parent companies cannot supply or license their vaccines and vaccine technology to third parties for use in the EEA other than through the JV. Since the JV combines the individual parents' portfolios, the primary effect of the JV in relation to other producers results from the JV's increased sourcing autarky in relation to existing and imminent antigens ('pipeline products') and vaccine technology. Other producers will, in view of these arrangements, be limited in their possibilities to collaborate either with the parent companies or with the JV as a source for them to get access to their 'missing' antigens or vaccine technologies (delivery systems, vaccine combination technology, . . .). This outside sourcing could become important for the development of multivalents, and in particular for some of the paediatric combinations. Given the position of the parties on the relevant markets, this will result, as regards existing and imminent vaccine technology, in an appreciable restriction of competition towards third parties.
(b) Future vaccines and vaccine technology (71) In assessing the effects of the creation of the JV as regards other producers in relation to future antigens and vaccine technology, reference has to be made to the wide range of diseases against which vaccines could be developed and, if successful, lead to considerable sales opportunities, e.g. Hepatitis C, herpes or AIDS. Furthermore, no single firm can be considered, in view of the related costs (estimated cost of between US$ 100 to 200 million to bring a new vaccine to the market), to be capable of covering all these fields. Moreover, it is not only the limited number of vaccine producers with a European presence which at present spend, on a worldwide basis, more than ECU 25 million a year on vaccine related R & D (PMsv, SKB (29), Merck and LPB) that are able to engage in such research. Other producers, even those public and private 'national' companies, currently concentrating on the bulk paediatric markets (DTPwholecell, oral polio) recognize the importance of the costlier, more recent DNA-related research for the development of new vaccines. They can therefore, given the presence of numerous specialized companies, scientific institutes or universities engaged in basic biotechnology research, also be considered as potential competitors for some future vaccine markets.
There are, therefore, in view of the number of potential competitors for the wide range of future vaccines and vaccine technology, no indications that the creation of the JV will lead to appreciable restrictions of competition by reducing the sourcing-out possibilities of third producers for future vaccines and vaccine technology.
3. Restrictions of competition resulting from the Behring agreements (72) The continuation of the sole distribution agreements for Merck's MMR (and its components) vaccines (see recital 43) restricts intra-brand competition for these products in Germany in so far as the JV is prevented from appointing further distributors. This is considered an appreciable restriction of competition in view of the important market position of the existing Merck-origin vaccines (market shares of at least 40 % in 1992). As Behring is currently the leading vaccine producer/distributor in Germany, the agreement may also have an appreciable effect on inter-brand competition on these markets as Behring could only take up distribution of a competing brand whilst losing its exclusive right. The same can, however, not be said for the pneumococcal vaccine in view of its limited market potential (Merck's transfer price-revenue is below ECU 15 000 per year).
(73) The continuation of the 'sole' agency agreement for Merck's Hepatitis B vaccine (see also recital 43) also restricts intra-brand competition for this product in so far as the JV is prevented from appointing further agents, and has an equally restrictive effect on inter-brand competition as indicated for MMR above. The agreement is therefore also considered to constitute an appreciable restriction of competition.
(74) The appointment of Behring as exclusive co-promoter, except for prior existing third party rights, along with the JV in Germany for the JV's future Hepatitis A, varicella and MMR varicella vaccines (see also recital 43) is not considered to constitute an appreciable restriction of competition. It does not limit the JV's ability to appoint other independent distributors for the products, nor would it prevent Behring distributing competing products. As Behring has no established loyalty towards the medical community for these (future) products, it cannot be said that this last possibility is unrealistic.
(75) The exclusive (but for the JV) licence by the JV to Behring under the Multivalent Technology Transfer Licence Agreement relating to the multivalent know-how with respect to the JV's monovalent HIB antigen of Merck origin, acellular pertussis and Hepatitis B antigens, allowing Behring to make (except for multivalents containing Hepatitis B - see rectital 44), use and sell Behring multivalents in Germany constitutes, in view of the marketing potential of such multivalents, an appreciable restriction on competition in Germany as other vaccine producers will not be able to receive from the JV such a licence to make, use and sell multivalents based on the JV's key antigens in Germany.
(76) The granting of the exclusive patent, know-how and trademark licence by the JV to Behring for the manufacture and distribution of Merck's monovalent HIB vaccine in Germany constitutes, in view of the market share of this vaccine in Germany, which was about 10 % in 1992, an appreciable restriction of competition, as Merck and the JV can neither grant licences or other vaccine producers nor manufacture or distribute the product for active sale in Germany themselves.
4. Restrictions of competition resulting from the agreements with Pierre Fabre (77) The granting of the exclusive patent and know-how licence by the JV to Pierre Fabre for the manufacture and distribution of Merck's monovalent HIB vaccine in France constitutes, in view of the market potential of this vaccine in France, an appreciable restriction of competition, as Merck and the JV can neither grant licences to other vaccine producers nor manufacture or distribute (unless regulatory or medical problems arise in connection with the monovalent HIB vaccine presently marketed by PMsv in France) the product for active sale in France themselves.
(78) The exclusive (except for the JV or its French affiliate in regard to MMR, monovalent mumps and bivalent measles/mumps) distribution rights to Merck's MMR and its monovalent and bivalent components which are granted to Pierre Fabre for France constitute, especially in view of the market potential of Merck's MMR and monovalent mumps vaccine in France, an appreciable restriction of competition, as other vaccine distributors will not be able to distribute the products in France.
4. Appreciable effect on trade between Member States and Contracting Parties (79) The creation of a JV in which two out of the three leading worldwide vaccine producers bring together their total European vaccine business as from post phase II R & D until distribution, has, in view of the parties' actual and potential strength in vaccine R & D, production and distribution, an appreciable direct influence on the pattern of trade between Member States and Contracting Parties on those actual and/or future markets where the creation of the JV results in an appreciable restriction of competition.
(80) The Behring Agreements and the agreements with Pierre Fabre have an appreciable effect on trade between Member States and Contracting Parties as, by limiting the scope of the rights to the active marketing of the products in Germany and France respectively, the agreements render more difficult the unrestricted flow of trade which the Treaty and the EEA Agreement intend to create.
5. Conclusion (81) The creation of the JV between PMsv and Merck falls foul of Article 85 (1) of the EC Treaty and Article 53 (1) of the EEA Agreement in respect of its effects on the German monovalent measles and rubella markets; the French Hepatitis B market; the MMR, MMR varicella, varicella, and Hepatitis A markets; and, as far as future pipeline products are concerned, in the field of R & D. In view of its effect on third parties, the JV and related agreements are restrictive on competition in so far as they limit to an appreciable extent the access of competitors to existing and imminent vaccines and vaccine technology, in particular for paediatric combinations.
The distribution agreements for the MMR (and its component) vaccines in Germany and France, the German Hepatitis B agency agreement, the Multivalent Technology Transfer Licence Agreement, and the HIB manufacturing licences with Behring and Pierre Fabre also fall foul of Articles 85 (1) of the EC Treaty and 53 (1) of the EEA Agreement.
B. Article 85 (3) of the Treaty and Article 53 (3) of the EEA agreement 1. The JV 1. Improvement of production or distribution, promotion of technical or economic progress (a) Promotion of technical progress (82) Through the JV the parties will discuss their experience regarding their R & D activities, cooperate with regard to the development activities from post phase II clinical trials for 'European'-oriented (30) vaccines, and put their existing antigen and vaccine technology portfolio at its disposal to allow the JV to develop new and more performant vaccines which can, in view of the information inflow from a distribution network (31) covering all EEA countries, be adapted to the specific needs of each individual country. By avoiding R & D overlaps and benefiting of the parties' respective strengths, this will lead to a qualitative promotion of technical progress. An indication of such improvements can be given by reference to the following expamples:
(83) The development of multivalent vaccines is, as indicated in recital 13, a generally recognized priority in view of the numerous advantages it would have for immunization (fewer injections, clinic visits and medical administration/costs, increased family acceptance, leading to a better coverage rate). All leading medical authorities have repeatedly argued for the development of paediatric multivalents combining DTP, polio, HIB and Hepatitis B. The JV will be able to start a development programme for such combinations as it will be the first vaccine producer to possess all the necessary antigens. Furthermore, it has the ability to adapt the combinations to specific national vaccine needs. This is important in view of the epidemiological differences between the EEA countries and the traditional preferences for the way in which the antigens are currently made available. Such specific combinations, which the JV is in a position to bring to the market sooner than would have been possible otherwise, will thus realize an important technical progress.
(84) Also in the field of monovalent vaccines the JV will, through the pooling of its experience and know-how, stimulate technical progress by bringing new and more performant vaccines to the market. This can by illustrated by reference to a varicella vaccine. PMsv possesses an existing vaccine for immunocompromised children only and its vaccine for normal children is in clinical phase II to III (registration expected for 1996); Merck already has in the United States of America a varicella vaccine for use in normal children at a final stage of registration. However, Merck's vaccine needs storage in a freezer, a facility not common in the European vaccine distribution chain. However, it is estimated that due to a combination of Merck's vaccine and PMsv's stability factor allowing storage in a refrigerator (4 °C), a vaccine for normal children will be available sooner in the EEA than would have been the case in the absence of the JV.
This varicella vaccine will also be used for the development of a unique European MMR varicella vaccine involving PMsv's measles (32), Merck's mumps and the joint rubella strain.
(85) Another similar example is related to the future pneumococcal conjugate vaccine where the parties estimate that their vaccine will contain serotypes of both parents in order to optimize protection against the major strains of pneumococcus that causes meningitis, pneumonia and otitis media (inner ear infection) and whereby protein carriers (the medium) of both parties will be used for the conjugation. The JV's vaccine will thus have potentially fewer adverse effects (protein carrier technology), will be more directed to European epidemiology (serotypes-choice) and will be developed and made available sooner than without the JV.
(86) Advantages for technical progress are also expected in the development of new technologies to be used in overall vaccine production such as the improvement or elimination of preservatives, improved vectors/new delivery systems (oral delivery), DNA/RNA-based research, and so forth.
(b) Improvement in distribution (87) As indicated in recital 18, Merck has, despite entering the EEA markets more than 20 years ago, a very limited presence, with the only notable exception being Germany. The JV will be based on PMsv's existing comprehensive distribution network, and will be able to assure a better coverage of Merck's existing (and future) vaccines throughout the whole EEA.
(88) As far as the specific French market is concerned, the manufacturing licence for Merck's monovalent HIB vaccine and the distribution rights for MMR (and its mono- and bivalents) granted to Pierre Fabre, establish another vaccine distributor in France. Pierre Fabre has, with the beginning of a paediatric vaccine product range, the possibility of taking up the distribution of other vaccines of other vaccine producers in France, a market with a paucity of (independent) distributors (see recital 19). As in this way a barrier to entry for, especially paediatric, vaccine distribution in France is removed, these agreements between the JV and Pierre Fabre may not only lead to an improvement in distribution for these vaccines but also for other, especially paediatric, vaccines.
2. Benefits to the consumer (89) Achieving the above-indicated technical progress and improvements in distribution responds to a genuine public health concern. Numerous organizations, including the World Health Organization and the European Parliament, have underlined the benefits of accurate, stable and easy-to-administer vaccines for public health, and therefore also for consumers.
(90) The JV will, as stated above, be able to stimulate and speed-up the development of new vaccines, both mono- and multivalents, adapted to the needs of each EEA country. Furthermore, all the existing and future vaccines will be available throughout the EEA. By providing, sooner than otherwise might have been the case, an increased range of existing and future mono- and multivalents throughout the EEA, the consumer is allowed a fair share of the resulting benefits.
3. Indispensability (91) In order to develop (paediatric) multivalents, a vaccine producer either has to have access to all the required antigens (as both PMsv and Merck for the MMR varicella), or he needs to develop possible synergies with other producers (as almost all other producers for the paediatric hexavalent). Any other partnership than that between themselves would have required PMsv and Merck to conclude agreements with more than one producer in view of the lack of similar synergy possibilities for, at least, a pediatric hexavalent. Even if a cooperation network, limited to an exchange of licences and bulk supplies, between multiple partners would have been possible, this is considered as too rigid to achieve the ambition of the JV, i.e. the development of the wide range of multivalents, adapted to the needs of different European countries. Therefore one requires more open-ended and far-reaching cooperation, able to adapt to unforeseen or new circumstances resulting from the continuous exchange of information between the parties. It is believed that only a JV provides a mechanism which is flexible enough to achieve this.
In addition, a JV is the only legal alternative which allows, as indicated in recital 23, to share the totality of its Hepatitis B patent rights with PMsv. The fact that the parties can share all their intellectual property rights facilitates the realization of (paediatric) multivalents on the basis of the Hepatitis B antigen.
As it is the ambition of the parties to develop a wide range of multivalents adapted to the needs of all EEA countries, the development of paediatric multivalents containing Hepatitis B is, in view of the epidemiology of Hepatitis B in southern Europe, crucial.
(92) Furthermore, it is indispensable that the scope of the JV should be extended beyond the development of (paediatric) multivalent vaccines. Only a JV structure is flexible enough to enable all future opportunities to be taken into account, thus promoting the development of new monovalents and vaccine technology. In addition, it is feared that even the development of multivalents would be hampered in view of (i) the impossibility of separating from multivalent development work the vaccine research needed to support other key programmes such as the involvement in new preservatives, the planning of research of new antigens to be included in new combinations and the collaboration in research for new delivery systems and vectors, and (ii) the inherent reluctance to brief a partner on the above points which contain proprietary know-how, as they have an importance outside the mulivalent range.
(93) Furthermore, it is indispensable for a proper functioning of the JV and for the achievement of all advantages that the scope of the JV is extended to the joint distribution of the existing and future vaccines by the JV. This conclusion is based upon the following considerations:
- the restrictions of competition resulting from joint distribution are, as indicated above, extremely limited. This is a consequence of the weak presence of Merck in Europe,
- it is not realistic to assume that Merck would have developed either (a) its own Europe-wide distribution network as:
(i) Merck has, unlike a newcomer on the European vaccine markets such as LPB, no paediatric pharmaceutical sales force to build on;
(ii) for Merck's subsidiaries the vaccines business is of a relatively minor importance (2,3 % of their total sales) with all the consequences this has on the group-internal investment priorities;
(iii) physical distribution of vaccines requires considerable investment in a cold chain, or (b) extend distribution relationships with multiple independent third parties in view of the limited results achieved in the past 20 years (with the notable exception of Germany),
- there are only a limited number of vaccine distributors with a European-wide presence with whom Merck could have concluded an overall distribution agreement, notably PMsv and SKB,
- the alternative of a distribution agreement is not much less restrictive than a JV, and joint distribution facilitates the functioning of the JV by enabling Merck to divulge fully its R & D and production techniques to its partner as it, by the joint distribution, also fully benefits from the commercial advantage of its partner's strong own distribution network.
(94) Specific indications why joint distribution in the vaccine sector facilitates cooperation in R & D and production are:
- marketing plans for a vaccine are made at a very early stage, at the same time as one is engaged in R & D of the products, in particular by reference to epidemiological studies, which are used to orientate both R & D and clinical trials activities, and in turn for the subsequent marketing of the final products,
- pharmacovigilance (i. e. the observation of unexpected effects of vaccination) involves identification of significant health issues to enable any adverse health risks to be rectified; in the absence of joint distribution, the R & D and production teams would have to rely on two sets of data for identical products, creating, apart form duplication of efforts, a further burden on required shifts in R & D and production,
- batch release: the biological nature of vaccines and the inherent risks in such products of batch failures, requires a constant interface between manufacturing and distribution teams. In some EEA countries, the distribution team needs a release from the relevant national control laboratory for each batch, whereas this requirement does not apply for pharmaceutical products; batch release thus creates a daily interdependence between both teams,
- national distribution preferences need to be taken into account for the presentation forms of vaccines (and thus their development), such as e. g. vials, single-dose, multi-dose, multi-chamber syringes.
4. Elimination of competition (95) It is not considered that the creation of the JV will lead to an elimination of competition on the vaccine markets of the EEA. The reasons for this conclusion are the following:
a) Individual vaccine markets (96) In view of SKB's current share of the French Hepatitis B market (which is over 30 % and increasing), the creation of the JV does not lead to an elimination of competition on that market. The same is true for the German monovalent measles market where SKB commanded about 40 % of the market in 1992. Competition on the German monovalent rubella market is not eliminated either in view of (i) the presence of two internationally operating vaccine producers (SKB und Wellcome), who despite a market share of less than 10 % remain a competitive force on the market able to develop further their position, and (ii) the increased intra-brand competition between the JV and Behring (the most important vaccine distributor in Germany (33).
(97) With regard to the MMR multivalent, Merck's vaccine is indeed currently the only widely accepted vaccine. However, just as PMsv would have, in the absence of the JV, improved its mumps strain (recital 60), the other vaccine producers and in particular SKB are also likely to update their mumps strain and re-enter these markets. Furthermore, another competitor, Berna, which is currently registering its MMR in Greece und Austria, uses another mumps strain and therefore has the potential to increase penetration in EEA countries other than those where it is currently available. Therefore, there remains effective potential competition.
(98) With regard to future markets, the following observations can be made: SKB currently has the only Hepatitis A vaccine registered and commercially available (since 1991) in Europe, Berna has a product on clinical trials in Germany and Biocine-Sclavo's product is awaiting registration; SKB already has a varicella vaccine on the market for immunocompromised children (e.g. PMsv's existing vaccine) and is active with R & D to adapt the product for healthy children. From the above considerations it can be concluded that SKB also has the potential to develop a MMRV aricella vaccine.
(b) Overall market structure (99) The creation of the JV does not constitute an insurmountable barrier for other producers to enter future vaccine markets. The Commission has found no indication of a future vaccine market where competition would be eliminated as a result of this European JV. In particular with regard to the future paediatric hexavalent containing DTPa, polio, HIB and Hepatitis B, the creation of the JV will not bring about a change in the market structure. Only Merck and SKB were, in view of the Hepatitis B-patent situation (recital 23), in a legally secure position to bring such an hexavalent on the European markets. As a result of the creation of the JV, it is now the JV and SKB which are in a position to do so. Furthermore, it cannot be concluded, on the basis of the information at the disposal of the Commission, that SKB's possibility to develop such a hexavalent is purely theoretical.
(100) Furthermore, LPB's argument that the position on the vaccine markets of producers (such as itself) who currently market as a monovalent one of the antigens included in the hexavalent, is threatened, cannot be accepted. This alleged threat is based upon the presumption that the sales potential of the hexavalent (which the JV, contrary to LPB, is able to develop in view of its access to all the required antigens) will be such that sales of all other mono- or multivalents which do not combine all of the hexavalent antigens (e.g. DTPa, HIB, DTPa-HIB, DTP-polio, . . .), will not remain possible on economical viable terms.
(101) First of all, for the reasons stated in recital 54, the mono- or limited multivalents, belong to a different market than the possible paediatric hexavalent. These other vaccines will thus continue to be sold in those countries which might use the paediatric hexavalent for general immunization, albeit in a more limited number of doses, for either brush-up immunization or as a booster for non-protected persons.
Furthermore, the Commission does not consider, on the basis of the actual information in its possession, that the paediatric hexavalent will be used in all EEA countries. Whilst the availability of such a hexavalent would realize a highly desirable objective for public health, the health authorities/medical community of a particular country or region will only accept the hexavalent for general immunization if (i) the hexavalent responds to the relevant epidemiology, which, as indicated in recital 16, is different in the EEA for at least two of the components, HIB and Hepatitis B; (ii) the hexavalent can be fitted into the vaccination schedules, which continue to differ to a large extent for the two other components, polio and DTP, and (iii) the traditional attitudes towards immunization against a particular antigen, e.g. the 'negative' attitude in Denmark and Italy toward pertussis; or the strong preference for oral polio vaccination in almost all countries are surmountable.
2. The Behring agreements and the agreements with Pierre Fabre 1. Distribution of MMR (and pneumococcal) vaccines (102) The agreements whereby the JV agrees with Behring and Pierre Fabre to supply the MMR (and its mono- and bivalent components) vaccines for resale within Germany and France respectively only to Behring and Pierre Fabre respecitively fulfil the conditions laid down by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1983/83 of 22 June 1983 on the application of Article 85 (3) (34) of the Treaty to categories of exclusive distribution agreements (35) so that these agreements are exempted pursuant to the Regulation. The Behring agreement in relation to the pneumococcal vaccine would, if it had been considered to fall foul of Articles 85 (1) of the EC Treaty and 53 (1) of the EEA Agreement, also be exempted pursuant to the Regulation.
2. The agency agreement for Hepatitis B vaccine (103) The 'sole' agency agreement is considered to fulfil all the requirements laid down in Articles 85 (3) and 53 (3) for the granting of an individual exemption. The agreement will lead to an improvement in distribution because the JV is able to concentrate its sales activities, and it does not need to maintain numerous business relations with a larger number of dealers and is able, by dealing with only one dealer, to overcome more easily the distribution difficulties that exist in the German vaccine sector, resulting from linguistic, legal, and other differences relating, e.g. to medical tradition. The agreement facilitates the continued promotion of sales and is indispensable to intensive marketing and to continuity of supplies while at the same time rationalizing distribution. Consumers are allowed a fair share of the resulting benefit as German prescribers/doctors benefit via Behring's know-how and experience of an established information exchange network, which is concentrated on the specific German market. As there is another producer on the market and parallel imports and exports of the JV's product remain possible, competition is not eliminated.
3. The multivalent technology transfer licence (104) The set of agreements regulating the cooperation between the JV and Behring as to the development of Behring multivalents and in particular the multivalent technology transfer licence agreement is a pure know-how licensing agreement, containing ancillary provisions relating to trademarks or other intellectual property rights, to which only two undertakings are party as laid down in Article 1 (1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 556/89 of 30 November 1988 on the application of Article 85 (3) (36) of the EC Treaty to certain categories of know-how licensing agreements (37).
(105) The agreement contains the following obligations as referred to by Article 1 (1) of the Regulation:
(1) an obligation on the JV not to license other undertakings to exploit the licensed technology in the licensed territory;
(3) an obligation on Behring not to exploit the licensed technology outside Germany, i.e. in territories within the common market which are reserved for the JV;
(5) an obligation on Behring not to pursue an active policy of putting the Behring multivalents on the market outside Germany, and in particular not to engage in advertising specifically aimed at those territories or to establish any branch or maintain any distribution depot there as Behring only has the right to make sales outside Germany in response to unsolicited requests;
(7) an obligation on Behring to use for Hepatitis B multivalent products (i.e a Behring multivalent containing the JV's Hepatitis B antigen) a trademark owned by the JV (the product registration for these products will also be owned by the JV).
(106) Despite the fact that the agreement does not contain any other obligations to which Article 3 of the Regulation would apply (38), the agreement cannot benefit from the block exemption solely because of the fact that the agreement lasts for a period which might be longer than the 10 years allowed under Article 1 (2) in those circumstances where Behring would benefit from the provision that the right to procure the JV's antigens and know-how for a particular Behring multivalent shall last, beyond 31 December 2003, for a minimum of five years from its first marketing.
(107) However, the possibility for Behring to start, due to the multivalent technology licence, development work for multivalents based on antigens of its own, the JV and/or a third party, will possibly lead to another series of multivalents which would constitute an important element of technical progress on the German vaccine markets. The fact that the agreement guarantees a minimal commercialization period of five years for each Behring multivalent so developed, and therefore does not benefit from the know-how block exemption, does not exclude the granting of an individual exemption in this case, as the agreement thus provides a further incentive for Behring to continue its R & D work for the creation of such multivalents, until the end of the year 2003.
(108) The Behring agreements are beneficial to the consumer as the multivalent technology licence agreement may lead to a second source of multivalents based on some of the JV's key antigens in Germany coming on the market, even at the end of 2003. In so far as the agreement allows Behring to exploit its own severable intellectual property rights, created in developing a multivalent containing an antigen of the JV, ouside Germany, this agreement might also lead to benefits to public health in the other EEA countries.
(109) The possible extension beyond the 10 year duration of the know-how block exemption in the case of some individual Behring multivalents is indispensable as without this possibility for Behring, it would not actively pursue new developments during the last couple of years before the normal end of the agreement, 31 December 2003.
(110) And, as at least both the JV and SKB are in a position to develop a competing range of multivalent, competition is not eliminated on the German markets.
4. The HIB manufacturing and distribution licensing agreements (111) These agreements have been entered into by the parties to the JV with Behring and Pierre Fabre respectively, following intervention by the Commission, and contribute to the maintenance of effective competition on the German and French monovalent HIB markets.
(112) Without the agreement with Behring, competition on the German momovalent HIB market would be substantially reduced, as the parties to the JV would command control of three (PMsv's, Connaught Laboratories Inc's and Merck's) out of the four HIB vaccines offered in Germany, amounting to 85 % of the market. The granting of the exclusive manufacturing license to Behring, an independent vaccine producer and distributor, enables Behring to determine, in the short and long term, strategic decisions relating to price, quantities and distribution efforts devoted to the HIB vaccine of Merck origin. By permitting Behring to operate as an independent competitor on the German HIB market, the agreement contributes to an improvement in distribution while allowing consumers a fair share of the resulting benefit. As the exclusive nature of the licence is indispensable to allow Behring to operate as a viable source on the market and thus restores the competitive situation on the German monovalent HIB market, the agreement fulfils all the requirements laid down in Articles 85 (3) of the EC Treaty and 53 (3) of the EEA Agreement for the granting of an individual exemption.
(113) The agreement with Pierre Fabre for the French monovalent HIB market equally fulfils all the requirements for the granting of an individual exemption, for reasons similar to those indicated above. Not only does it contribute to the entry of a competitor to the French monovalent HIB market where currently PMsv's HIB vaccine is the only one offered, but it may also contribute to the entry of other vaccines to the French markets, particularly paediatric ones, as indicated in recital 85.
D. Duration (114) Pursuant to Article 8 (1) of Regulation No 17, an exemption shall be issued for a limited period.
In view of the fact that (i) the JV agreement will not terminate automatically before the end of the year 2023; (ii) that the Commission retains an ability to review the actual effect of the JV on competition in vaccine markets; (iii) that account has to be taken of the characteristics of the agreement and of the fact that the nature of the markets involved means that it takes a longer time before the advantages of the cooperation can be fully realized, e.g. the R & D work leading to the bringing of a new vaccine on the market usually takes in excess of 10 years, the Commission concludes that an exemption until 31 December 2006 is appropriate.
In the meantime, the Commission will follow closely the evolution of the different vaccine markets on which the JV will operate; in this context the Commission will take into account the information which the parties undertook to provide on an annual basis (see recital 3),
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
1. The provisions of Article 85 (1) of the Treaty and Article 53 (1) of the EEA Agreement, pursuant to Article 85 (3) and Article 53 (3) respectively, are hereby declared inapplicable to the set of agreements whereby Pasteur Mérieux Sérums et Vaccins and Merck & Co. Inc. will organize their existing activities in the human vaccines, immunoglobulins, in vivo diagnostics and sera businesses within a territory being defined as the EC and EFTA, through a jointly-controlled company, Pasteur Mérieux MSD SNC (the JV).
2. The provisions of Article 85 (1) of the Treaty and Article 53 (1) of the EEA Agreement are, pursuant to Article 85 (3) and Article 53 (3) respectively, hereby also declared inapplicable to the agency agreement for Hepatitis B vaccine, the multivalent technology transfer licence, and the HIB manufacturing and distribution licence between the JV and Behringwerke AG.
3. The provisions of Article 85 (1) of the Treaty and Article 53 (1) of the EEA Agreement are, pursuant to Article 85 (3) and Article 53 (3) respectively, hereby also declared inapplicable to the HIB manufacturing and distribution licence agreement between the JV and Pierre Fabre Médicament SA.
4. The exemption shall apply until 31 December 2006.
Article 2
This Decision is addressed to the following undertakings:
1. Merck & Co. Inc.,
One Merck Drive,
Whitehouse Station,
USA - New Jersey 08889-0100;
2. Pasteur Mérieux Sérums et Vaccins,
Avenue Leclerc 58,
BP 7046,
F-69348 Lyon.
Done at Brussels, 6 October 1994. | [
1,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 64/2007
of 25 January 2007
fixing the export refunds on cereal-based compound feedingstuffs
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 of 29 september 2003 on the common organisation of the market in cereals (1), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 provides that the difference between quotations or prices on the world market for the products listed in Article 1 of that Regulation and prices for those products within the Community may be covered by an export refund.
(2)
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1517/95 of 29 June 1995 laying down detailed rules for the application of Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 as regards the arrangements for the export and import of compound feedingstuffs based on cereals and amending Regulation (EC) No 1162/95 laying down special detailed rules for the application of the system of import and export licences for cereals and rice (2) in Article 2 lays down general rules for fixing the amount of such refunds.
(3)
That calculation must also take account of the cereal products content. In the interest of simplification, the refund should be paid in respect of two categories of ‘cereal products’, namely for maize, the most commonly used cereal in exported compound feeds and maize products, and for ‘other cereals’, these being eligible cereal products excluding maize and maize products. A refund should be granted in respect of the quantity of cereal products present in the compound feedingstuff.
(4)
Furthermore, the amount of the refund must also take into account the possibilities and conditions for the sale of those products on the world market, the need to avoid disturbances on the Community market and the economic aspect of the export.
(5)
The current situation on the cereals market and, in particular, the supply prospects mean that the export refunds should be abolished.
(6)
The Management Committee for Cereals has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its chairman,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The export refunds on the compound feedingstuffs covered by Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 and subject to Regulation (EC) No 1517/95 are hereby fixed as shown in the Annex to this Regulation.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 26 January 2007.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 25 January 2007. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
COUNCIL DECISION
of 21 June 1989
on the conclusion of a Supplementary Protocol to the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Norway concerning the elimination of existing and prevention of new quantitative restrictions affecting exports or measures having equivalent effect
(89/546/EEC)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Article 113 thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,
Whereas the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Norway (1), signed in Brussels on 14 May 1973, does not provide for the prohibition of quantitative restrictions affecting exports and measures having equivalent effect;
Whereas it is in the interest of the European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Norway to promote the free circulation of raw materials and goods by abolishing any such restrictions and measures and by preventing the creation of new restrictions or measures affecting their mutual trade;
Whereas it is necessary both to make arrangements for a phased abolition of current restrictions affecting certain products or measures having equivalent effect and to provide for safeguard measures in the event either of re-export towards third countries against which the exporting Contracting Party maintains restrictions or measures having equivalent effect or in the event of serious shortage of a particular product;
Whereas under Article 32 (1) of the Agreement, the Contracting Parties may, in the interest of their economies, develop the relations established by the Agreement by extending it to fields not covered thereby;
Whereas the Commission has held negotiations with the Kingdom of Norway, which have resulted in a Protocol,
HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Article 1
The Supplementary Protocol to the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Norway concerning the elimination of existing and prevention of new quantitative restrictions affecting exports or measures having equivalent effect is hereby approved on behalf of the Community.
The text of the Protocol is attached to this Decision.
Article 2
The President of the Council shall give the notification provided for in Article 4 of the Supplementary Protocol.
Article 3
This Decision shall take effect on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
Done at Luxembourg, 21 June 1989. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 1134/92 of 4 May 1992 fixing the minimum import price applicable to certain types of processed cherries during the 1992/93 marketing year
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 426/86 of 24 February 1986 on the common organization of the market in products processed from fruit and vegetables (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1943/91 (2), and in particular Article 9 (6) thereof,
Whereas, by Council Regulation (EEC) No 545/92 of 3 February 1992 concerning the arrangements applicable to the import into the Community of products originating in the Republics of Croatia and Slovenia and the Yugoslav Republics of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia and Montenegro (3), and in particular Article 10;
Whereas Council Regulation (EEC) No 3225/88 (4) fixes general rules for the system of minimum import prices for certain processed cherries;
Whereas, pursuant to Article 9 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 426/86, minimum import prices are to be determined having regard in particular to:
- the free-at-frontier prices on import into the Community,
- the prices obtained on world markets,
- the situation on the internal Community market,
- the trend of trade with non-member countries;
Whereas a minimum import price should be fixed on the basis of the abovementioned criteria for the 1992/93 marketing year for certain types of processed cherries listed in Annex I (B) to Regulation (EEC) No 426/86; whereas the minimum price thus established must apply to the same products originating in the Republics of Croatia and Slovenia and the Yugoslav Republics of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia and Montenegro, referred to in Regulation (EEC) No 545/92;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Products Processed from Fruit and Vegetables,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Pursuant to Article 9 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 426/86 and the second subparagraph of Article 5 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 545/92, for each of the products listed in the Annex to this Regulation, the minimum import price applicable during the 1992/93 marketing year shall be as set out in that Annex.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 10 May 1992.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 4 May 1992. | [
0,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1054/95 of 11 May 1995 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2723/87 laying down special detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on cereals exported in the form of pasta products falling within subheadings 1902 11 00 and 1902 19 of the combined nomenclature
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 3448/93 of 6 December 1993 laying down the trade arrangements applicable to certain goods resulting from the processing of agricultural products (1), and in particular Article 8 (3) thereof,
Whereas provision should be made so that pasta products falling within CN codes 1902 11 and 1902 19 and exported to the United States of America are accompanied either by a certificate stating that they are being exported following an inward processing operation or by a certificate stating that they qualify or do not qualify for a rate of refund applicable, in the case of exports to the United States of America, to the basic cereal products used in their manufacture;
Whereas it is necessary to bring up to date the name of the Commission department responsible for receiving from the Member States communications of statistics relating to the quantities of pasta products;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee on horizontal questions concerning trade in processed agricultural products not listed in Annex II,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2723/87 (2) is hereby amended as follows:
1. in Article 2 (1), 'Certificate for the export with refund of pasta to the USA` is replaced by the following: 'Certificate for the export of pasta to the USA`;
2. in Article 4, the second paragraph shall be replaced by the following:
'The competent authority shall indicate in the appropriate part of box 10 of the original and copies of the "certificate P2" whether or not the goods qualify for a refund. The customs office referred to in Article 3 (2) shall check that the document is duly completed and shall affix its stamp in box 10 of the original and copies of the "certificate P2".`;
3. Article 6 shall be replaced by the following:
'Article 6 The competent authorities of the Member States shall communicate to the Commission, by the end of each month at the latest, the statistics relating to the quantities of pasta products, by tariff subheading, specifying the quantities which qualify for an export refund and the quantities which do not qualify for an export refund, in respect of which certificates have been stamped in the course of the previous month by the customs offices where the export declarations were accepted, at the following address:
Commission of the European Communities,
Directorate-General III - Industry,
Non-Annex II products,
Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 200,
B-1049 Bruxelles/Brussel.` 4. Annex I shall be replaced by the Annex to this Regulation.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
It shall apply to exports in respect of which the export declaration has been accepted by customs as from 1 July 1995.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 11 May 1995. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
Council Regulation (EC) No 973/2001
of 14 May 2001
laying down certain technical measures for the conservation of certain stocks of highly migratory species
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 37 thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission(1),
Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament(2),
Whereas:
(1) The Community has by Decision 98/392/EC(3) approved the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which contains principles and rules relating to the conservation and management of the living resources of the sea. In the framework of its wider international obligations, the Community participates in efforts arising in international waters to conserve fish stocks.
(2) Pursuant to Decision 86/237/EEC(4), the Community has been a Contracting Party to the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, hereinafter called "the ICCAT Convention", since 14 November 1997.
(3) The ICCAT Convention provides a framework for regional cooperation on the conservation and management of tunas and tuna-like species in the Atlantic Ocean and adjoining seas by setting up an International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, hereinafter called the "ICCAT", and adopting recommendations on conservation and management in the Convention area which become binding on the Contracting Parties.
(4) The ICCAT has recommended a number of technical measures for certain stocks of highly migratory species in the Atlantic and the Mediterranean, specifying inter alia authorised sizes and weights of fish, and restrictions on fishing within certain areas and time-periods, with certain gears, and on capacity. These recommendations are binding on the Community and should therefore be implemented.
(5) Certain technical measures adopted by the ICCAT were incorporated into Council Regulation (EC) No 1626/94 of 27 June 1994 laying down certain technical measures for the conservation of fishery resources in the Mediterranean(5) and Council Regulation (EC) No 850/98 of 30 March 1998 for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures for the protection of juveniles of marine organisms(6). In the interests of clarity, these measures should be brought together in this Regulation and the relevant Articles of the above Regulations should be repealed.
(6) To take into account traditional fishing practice in certain areas, specific provisions on the capture and retention on board of certain tuna species should be adopted.
(7) The Community has by Decision 95/399/EC(7) approved the Agreement for the establishment of the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission. This agreement provides a useful framework for closer international cooperation and rational use of tunas and related species in the Indian Ocean by setting up the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission, hereinafter called the "IOTC", and adopting recommendations on conservation and management in the IOTC area which become binding on the Contracting Parties.
(8) The IOTC has adopted a recommendation laying down technical measures for certain stocks of highly migratory species in the Indian Ocean. This recommendation is binding on the Community and should therefore be implemented.
(9) The European Community has by Decision 1999/337/EC(8) signed the Agreement on the International Dolphin Conservation Program and by Decision 1999/386/EC(9) decided to apply it on a provisional basis pending its approval. The Community should therefore apply the provisions laid down in this Agreement.
(10) The objectives of the Agreement include the progressive reduction of incidental dolphin mortalities in the tuna purse-seine fishery in the Eastern Pacific Ocean to levels approaching zero, by setting annual limits, and the long term sustainability of the tuna stocks in the Agreement Area.
(11) Some provisions of this Agreement were incorporated into Regulation (EC) No 850/98. These provisions should be incorporated into this Regulation.
(12) The Community has fishing interests in the Eastern Pacific Ocean and has applied to accede to the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission, hereinafter "IATTC". Pending accession, and in accordance with its obligation to cooperate with the other Parties involved in the management and conservation of resources in this region under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the technical measures adopted by the IATTC should be applied by the Community. These measures should therefore be incorporated into Community law.
(13) The measures necessary for the implementation of this Regulation should be adopted in accordance with Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission(10),
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
This Regulation lays down technical conservation measures applicable to vessels flying the flag of Member States and registered in the Community, hereinafter referred to as "Community fishing vessels", with regard to the capture and landing of certain stocks of highly migratory species referred to in Annex I.
TITLE I
DEFINITIONS
Article 2
For the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions of maritime waters shall apply:
(a) Area 1:
all waters of the Atlantic Ocean and adjacent seas covered by the ICCAT Convention as defined in Article 1 thereof;
(b) Area 2:
all waters of the Indian Ocean covered by the Agreement for the establishment of the IOTC as defined in Article 2 thereof;
(c) Area 3:
all waters of the Eastern Pacific Ocean as defined in Article 3 of the Agreement on the International Dolphin Conservation Program.
TITLE II
TECHNICAL MEASURES APPLICABLE IN AREA 1
Chapter 1
Restrictions on the use of certain types of vessels and gears
Article 3
1. During the period 1 November to 31 January in the area specified in paragraph 2, it shall be prohibited for Community fishing vessels to:
- anchor floating objects,
- fish under artificial objects,
- fish under natural objects,
- fish using ancillary vessels,
- throw into the sea artificial floating objects with or without buoys,
- install buoys on floating objects found at sea,
- remove floating objects and wait for the fish attracted by these objects to gather underneath the vessel,
- tow floating objects outside the area.
2. The area referred to in paragraph 1 shall be bounded as follows:
- southern boundary at latitude 4° S,
- northern boundary at latitude 5° N,
- western boundary at longitude 20° W,
- eastern boundary at the coast of Africa.
3. Vessels shall be prohibited from commencing or continuing fishing in the area and during the period specified in paragraphs 1 and 2 without an observer on board.
4. Until 31 December 2002, Member States shall take the necessary steps to appoint observers and ensure that they are placed on board all vessels flying their flag or registered in their territory which are about to undertake fishing activities in the area referred to in paragraph 2.
5. Without prejudice to paragraph 4, Member States shall take the necessary steps to ensure that properly appointed observers remain on board the fishing vessels to which they have been assigned until they are replaced by other observers.
6. The master of a Community vessel operating in the area and during the period specified in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall receive the observer and cooperate with him in the performance of his duties during his stay on board.
The master of a vessel designated to receive an observer on board shall make every reasonable effort to facilitate his arrival and departure. During the observer's stay on board he shall be provided with appropriate accommodation and working facilities.
7. The practical arrangements for paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 shall be as defined in Annex II.
8. Member States shall send the Commission by 1 May each year at the latest a comprehensive report assessing the content and conclusions of the reports of the observers assigned to vessels flying their flag.
9. The period referred to in paragraph 1, the area referred to in paragraph 2 and the arrangements for the assignment of observers set out in Annex II may be amended by the Commission pursuant to ICCAT recommendations which are binding upon the Community and in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 19(2).
Article 4
1. It shall be prohibited to retain on board any quantity of skipjack, bigeye or yellowfin tuna which are caught using purse seines in waters under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of Portugal in ICES subarea X north of 36°30' N or in CECAF areas north of 31° N and east of 17°30' W, or to fish for the said species in the said areas with the said gears.
2. It shall be prohibited to retain on board tuna caught using drift-nets in waters under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of Spain or Portugal in ICES subareas VIII, IX and X, or in CECAF areas around the Canary Islands and Madeira, or to fish for the said species in the said areas with the said gears.
Article 5
1. Fishing for bluefin tuna with encircling nets shall be prohibited:
- from 1 to 31 May in the Mediterranean Sea as a whole and from 16 July to 15 August in the Mediterranean Sea excluding the Adriatic for vessels operating exclusively or predominantly in the Adriatic;
- from 16 July to 15 August in the Mediterranean Sea as a whole and from 1 to 31 May in the Adriatic for vessels operating exclusively or predominantly in the Mediterranean Sea excluding the Adriatic.
Member States shall ensure that all vessels flying their flag or registered in their territory are subject to the above rules.
For the purposes of this Regulation, the southern limit of the Adriatic Sea shall be a line drawn between the Albanian-Greek border and Cape Santa Maria di Leuca.
2. The use of aeroplanes or helicopters in support of fishing operations for bluefin tuna in the Mediterranean shall be prohibited during the period from 1 to 30 June.
3. Fishing for bluefin tuna in the Mediterranean using surface-set longlines from vessels greater than 24 metres in length shall be prohibited during the period from 1 June to 31 July each year. The applicable length shall be that defined by the ICCAT and given in Annex III.
4. The definition of the periods and areas referred to in this Article and the length of vessels given in Annex III may be modified by the Commission pursuant to ICCAT recommendations which are binding upon the Community and in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 19(2).
Chapter 2
Minimum size
Article 6
1. A highly migratory species shall be undersized if its dimensions are smaller than the minimum dimensions specified in Annex IV for the relevant species.
2. The dimensions set out in Annex IV may be modified by the Commission pursuant to ICCAT recommendations which are binding upon the Community and in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 19(2).
Article 7
1. Undersized fish of highly migratory species shall not be retained on board or be transshipped, landed, transported, stored, displayed or offered for sale, sold or marketed. These species shall be returned immediately to the sea.
However, the preceding subparagraph shall not apply to the species referred to in Annex IV caught by accident and which total no more than 15 %, expressed in numbers of individuals, of the quantities landed. In the case of bluefin tuna, that tolerance shall not apply to fish weighing less than 3,2 kg.
2. The release for free circulation or marketing in the Community of undersized fish of highly migratory species originating in third countries shall be prohibited.
Article 8
The measurement of the size of fish of highly migratory species shall be carried out in accordance with Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 850/98.
Chapter 3
Restrictions on the number of vessels
Article 9
1. The Council, acting in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 8(4)(i) of Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92(11), shall determine the number and total capacity in gross registered tonnage (GRT) of Community fishing vessels greater than 24 metres in length fishing for bigeye tuna as a target species. These shall be fixed as the average number and the capacity in GRT of Community fishing vessels fishing for bigeye tuna as a target species in Area 1 during the period 1991 to 1992.
2. By 31 January each year at the latest Member States shall forward to the Commission a list of all vessels flying their flag and registered in their territory which intend to fish for bigeye tuna in Area 1 during that year.
3. The lists shall give the internal number allocated to each vessel in the fishing vessel register in accordance with Article 5 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2090/98(12).
4. On the basis of the information provided by the Member States in accordance with paragraphs 2 and 3 the Council acting in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 8(4)(ii) of Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92, may distribute among the Member States the number and capacity in GRT determined in accordance with paragraph 1.
5. Before 15 August each year Member States shall send the Commission the list of fishing vessels greater than 24 metres in length fishing for bigeye tuna as a target species. The Commission shall send this information to the ICCAT secretariat before 31 August each year.
6. The list referred to in paragraph 5 shall contain the following information;
- vessel name, registration number,
- previous flag, where applicable,
- international call sign, where applicable,
- vessel type, length and GRT,
- name and address of the vessel owner(s).
Article 10
1. The Council, acting in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 8(4)(i) of Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92, shall determine the number of Community fishing vessels fishing for North Atlantic albacore tuna as a target species. The number of vessels shall be fixed as the average number of Community fishing vessels fishing for North Atlantic albacore tuna as a target species during the period 1993 to 1995.
2. By 31 January each year at the latest Member States shall forward to the Commission a list of all vessels flying their flag and registered in their territory which intend to fish for North Atlantic albacore tuna as a target species in Area 1 during that year.
3. The lists shall give the internal number allocated to each vessel in the fishing vessel register in accordance with Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 2090/98.
4. On the basis of the information sent by the Member States in accordance with paragraphs 2 and 3 the Council, acting in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 8(4)(ii) of Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92, may distribute among the Member States the number of vessels determined in accordance with paragraph 1.
5. Before 15 May each year Member States shall send the Commission the list of vessels flying their flag which carry out directed fishing for North Atlantic albacore tuna. Until 31 December 2001 that list shall not include those fishing vessels carrying out experimental fishing other than by means of drift-nets. The Commission shall send this information to the ICCAT Secretariat before 30 May each year.
Chapter 4
Other measures
Article 11
Member States may encourage the use of monofilament streamer lines on swivels so that live blue marlins and white marlins may be easily released.
Article 12
Notwithstanding Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 850/98, electric current or harpoon guns may be used to catch tuna and basking shark (Cetorhinus maximus) in the Skagerrak and Kattegat.
TITLE III
TECHNICAL MEASURES APPLICABLE IN AREA 2
Article 13
1. Before 15 June each year Member States shall send the Commission the list of vessels greater than 24 metres in length flying their flag which fished for bigeye tuna, yellowfin tuna and skipjack tuna during the previous year in Area 2. The Commission shall send this information to the IOTC Secretariat before 30 June each year.
2. The list referred to in paragraph 1 shall contain the following information:
- vessel name, registration number,
- previous flag, where applicable,
- international call sign, where applicable,
- vessel type, length and GRT,
- name and address of the vessel owner, operator or charterer.
TITLE IV
TECHNICAL MEASURES APPLICABLE IN AREA 3
Article 14
1. Only Community fishing vessels operating under the conditions laid down in the Agreement on the International Dolphin Conservation Program which have been allocated a DML shall be authorised to encircle schools or groups of dolphins with purse seines when fishing for yellowfin tuna in Area 3.
2. "DML" shall mean the dolphin mortality limit laid down in Article 5 of the Agreement on the International Dolphin Conservation Program.
Article 15
1. Before 15 September each year Member States shall send the Commission:
- a list of vessels flying their flag with a load capacity greater than 363 metric tonnes (400 net tonnes) which have applied for a DML for the whole of the following year;
- a list of vessels flying their flag which are likely to operate in the area in the course of the following year;
- a list of vessels flying their flag which have requested a DML for the first or second half of the following year;
- for each vessel requesting a DML, a certificate stating that the vessel had all the proper gears and equipment to protect dolphins and that its captain had completed an approved training course on rescuing and releasing dolphins.
2. Member States shall ensure that the applications for DMLs comply with the conditions laid down in the Agreement on the International Dolphin Conservation Program and the conservation measures adopted by the IATTC.
3. The Commission shall examine the lists and ensure that they comply with the provisions of the Agreement on the International Dolphin Conservation Program and the conservation measures adopted by the IATTC and shall send them to the Director of the IATTC.
Where this examination reveals that the application does not meet the conditions referred to in this paragraph, the Commission shall immediately inform the Member State concerned that it cannot send all or part of an application to the Director of the IATTC, stating its reasons.
4. The Commission shall send each Member State the overall DML to be distributed among the vessels flying their flag.
5. Each Member State shall send the Commission the breakdown of the DMLs among the vessels flying the flag of that Member State by 15 January each year.
6. The Commission shall send the Director of the IATTC the list and breakdown of the DMLs between Community fishing vessels by 1 February each year.
Article 16
1. The use of ancillary vessels to support vessels fishing with the aid of fish aggregating devices shall be prohibited.
2. Transshipments at sea shall be prohibited.
TITLE V
GENERALLY APPLICABLE PROVISION
Article 17
1. The encircling of schools or groups of marine mammals with purse seines shall be prohibited, except in the case of the vessels referred to in Article 14.
2. Paragraph 1 shall apply to every vessel flying the flag of a Member State or registered in a Member State, in whatever waters.
TITLE VI
FINAL PROVISIONS
Article 18
The measures necessary for the implementation of Article 3(9), Article 5(4) and Article 6(2), shall be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure referred to in Article 19(2).
Article 19
1. The Commission shall be assisted by the Committee established by Article 17 of Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92.
2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Articles 5 and 7 of Decision 1999/468/EC shall apply.
The period provided for in Article 5(6) of Decision 1999/468/EC shall be set at three months.
3. The Committee shall adopt its rules of procedure.
Article 20
1. Articles 24, 33 and 41 of Regulation (EC) No 850/98 and the entries in Annex XII thereto relating to bluefin tuna and swordfish shall be repealed.
2. Articles 3a and 5a of Regulation (EC) No 1626/94, the entries in Annex IV thereto relating to bluefin tuna and swordfish and Annex V thereto shall be repealed.
3. References to the above Regulations, Articles and Annexes shall be construed as references to this Regulation and shall be read in accordance with the table of equivalence in Annex V.
Article 21
This Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 14 May 2001. | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
Commission Decision
of 22 November 2001
amending Decision 95/454/EC laying down special conditions governing imports of fishery and aquaculture products originating in the Republic of Korea
(notified under document number C(2001) 3692)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2001/818/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Directive 91/493/EEC of 22 July 1991 laying down the health conditions for the production and the placing on the market of fishery products(1), as last amended by Directive 97/79/EC(2), and in particular Article 11(5) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Annex A of Commission Decision 95/454/EC of 23 October 1995 laying down special conditions governing imports of fishery and aquaculture products originating in the Republic of Korea(3), as last amended by Decision 2001/641/EC(4), lays down the model of health certificate for fishery and aquaculture products originating in the Republic of Korea and intended for export to the European Community.
(2) Commission Decision 95/453/EC of 23 October 1995 laying down special conditions for the import of bivalve molluscs, echinoderms, tunicates and marine gastropods originating in the Republic of Korea(5), as last amended by Decision 2001/676/EC(6), authorizes the imports of frozen and processed bivalve molluscs, echinoderms, tunicates and marine gastropods from the Republic of Korea. It is, therefore, necessary to complete the health attestation of the health certificate laid down in Decision 95/454/EC with the relevant mentions to the requirements for bivalve molluscs.
(3) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
Decision 95/454/EC is modified as follows:
Point IV of the Annex A is replaced by the following: "IV. Health attestation
The official inspector hereby certifies that the fishery or aquaculture products specified above:
1. were caught and handled on board vessels in accordance with the health rules laid down by Directive 92/48/EEC;
2. were landed, handled and where appropriate packaged, prepared, processed, frozen, thawed and stored hygienically in compliance with the requirements laid down in Chapters II, III and IV of the Annex to Directive 91/493/EEC;
3. have undergone health controls in accordance with Chapter V of the Annex to Directive 91/493/EEC;
4. are packaged, marked, stored and transported in accordance with Chapters VI, VII and VIII of the Annex to Directive 91/493/EEC;
5. do not come from toxic species or species containing biotoxins;
6. have satisfactorily undergone the organoleptic, parasitological, chemical and microbiological checks laid down for certain categories of fishery products by Directive 91/493/EEC and in the implementing decisions thereto;
7. in addition, where the fishery products are frozen or processed bivalve molluscs: the molluscs were obtained from approved production areas laid down by the Annex to Decision 95/453/EC of 23 October 1995 laying down special conditions for the import of live bivalve molluscs, echinoderms, tunicates and marine gastropods originating in the Republic of Korea.
The undersigned official inspector hereby declares that he is aware of the provisions of Directives 91/492/EEC, 91/493/EEC and 92/48/EEC and Decisions 95/453/EC and 95/454/EC."
Article 2
This Decision shall apply 45 days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
Article 3
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 22 November 2001. | [
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
COMMISSION DECISION
of 1 July 1999
on State aid which Spain is planning to implement in favour of Brilén SA
(notified under document number C(1999) 2131)
(Only the Spanish text is authentic)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(1999/672/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 88(2) thereof,
Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,
Having given interested parties notice, in accordance with the abovementioned Articles, to submit their comments(1) and having regard to those comments,
Whereas:
I. Procedure
(1) By letter dated 2 December 1997, Spain notified the Commission of a proposal to grant aid to Brilén SA, a company located at Barbastro in the Autonomous Community of Aragon (Brilén). By letter dated 22 December 1997, the Commission requested additional information. The Spanish authorities responded by letter of 12 February 1998.
(2) By letter dated 4 May 1998 the Commission informed Spain of its decision to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty in respect of the planned aid. Spain submitted its comments by letter of 10 June 1998.
(3) The Commission Decision to initiate the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Communities(2). The Commission invited interested parties to submit their comments on the aid.
(4) The Commission received comments from interested parties. It forwarded them to Spain, which was given the opportunity to react; its comments were received by letters dated 2 October 1998 and 20 May 1999.
(5) On 27 October 1998 a meeting was held between the Commission, the Spanish authorities and representatives of the company. By letter of 29 October 1998 the Commission invited the Spanish authorities to submit further comments. The Spanish authorities responded by letter dated 19 January 1999. By letter of 4 February 1999, the Commission requested clarification on certain points. The Spanish Government replied by letter dated 9 April 1999.
II. Description of the aid
The recipient
(6) Brilén belongs to the Samca group, also based in Aragon and active chiefly in the mining, agriculture, chemical, textiles, construction and other sectors. The group has a total workforce of 4000, with plants spread across the whole of Spain and in other countries including France, Italy and Argentina. Brilén has a workforce of 266 and in 1996 generated turnover of ESP 6059 million.
(7) Brilén produces and processes polyester and, as part of its activities in the textiles sector, has two product lines: polyester textile filament yarn and PET/staple fibre. The raw material for the manufacture of these products is supplied by the company's in-house polymerisation plant (32000 tonnes per year). Its extrusion capacity for textile yarn of 19370 tonnes per year determined the maximum combined output of the two end-products.
(8) Output in 1994 was 7554 tonnes of filament yarn and 6546 tonnes of PET/staple fibre, i.e. an extrusion capacity utilisation rate of 73 %.
(9) [...](3)
(10) Given the obsolescence of its production technology and the poor health of the market in staple fibre, a business plan was implemented over the period 1992-96 in order to bring production into line with new market requirements. Consequently, the PET/staple production line was dismantled and the company focused on the production of filament yarn. Total production of filament yarn before the Investment (1997) was 9987 tonnes, i.e. 52 % of total extrusion capacity.
(11) The polyester filament yarn line produces continuous filament yarn presented in cops; spin-draw yarn (SDY) presented in bobbins; draw-winder yarn (DWY) presented in bobbins; pre-oriented yarn (POY) presented in bobbins; and warped and sized yarn presented in beams. The market for the intermediate products manufactured by Brilén is the textiles industry, including the garment, hosiery and decoration sectors.
(12) The company exports about 30 % of its output to other Member States and about 5 % to the rest of the world, a pattern which is not expected to change significantly after the completion of the project.
(13) The Spanish authorities stressed that the company acts as a major driving-force in the regional economy, both through its own business activity and through the indirect employment it generates.
The project
(14) The Spanish authorities stated that the investment project was to be carried out between 1997 and 1998 and would relate exclusively to the technological rationalisation and upgrading of the polyester yarn production plant. While polymerisation capacity was to remain the same (32000 tonnes), extrusion capacity for continuous filament yarn would increase from 9500 tonnes per year to 11500 tonnes, with an equivalent reduction in PET/flock production from 22500 tonnes to 20500 tonnes. Nominal textile yarn production capacity was to remain unchanged at 19370 tonnes per year. Thus, after the project, the capacity utilisation rate was expected to be 59 %.
(15) According to the Spanish authorities, the combined capacity for these products will not change following the investment. Instead there will be a reorientation of production with a switch from staple fibre, for which the prospects are disappointing owing to the evolution of customers' quality and cost requirements, to polyester textile filament yarn, for which the market prospects are more promising.
(16) The investment is to cover four areas of production and concerns chiefly the purchase of new machinery, including a spinning line to produce spun dyed yarn, a draw winder draw-twisters and draw-warping lines. It will also include construction works and other ancillary installations, including electricity, steam, compressed air, air conditioning, internal transport, control equipment and safety systems. The company's intention is to opt for a new technology which allows a high degree of intermingling of the yarn filaments. This will improve the company's competitiveness and reduce pollution in the subsequent texturing processes. The company will thus be able to increase its market share in polyester yarn in its different presentations (bobbins, cops and beams) by entering the medium-high price markets. The project will begin to reverse the effects of the policy of abandonment and disinvestment in this sector in Spain which the main European producers have been pursuing over the last decade, in favour of their own domestic plants. As a result of the project 25 new jobs will be created.
(17) While 40 % of the planned investment will relate to activities falling outside the scope of the Code on aid to the synthetic fibres industry(4) (the Synthetic Fibres Code), the scope and provisions of which have periodically been amended, most recently in 1999(5), namely the drawing, warping and sizing operations (i.e. these processes do not form part of the extrusion/texturisation process and are not integrated with such machinery), the remaining 60 % will relate to the spinning area of production and therefore falls within the scope of the Synthetic Fibres Code.
(18) As far as external trade is concerned, it is expected that after the investment the company will increase its exports, particularly to non-member countries.
(19) The Spanish authorities stated that the total eligible investment costs amounted to ESP 2012 million (EUR 12,09 million) and that the proposed aid was ESP 201,2 million (EUR 1,21 million), with an aid intensity of 10 %. The aid was to be awarded under the approved regional economic incentives scheme(6). The legal basis was Law No 50/1985 of 27 December 1985 (Law on regional incentives to correct economic imbalances between different parts of the country)(7), Royal Decree No 1535/1987 of 11 December 1987(8) (regulations implementing Law No 50/1985) and Royal Decrees Nos 491/1988 of 6 May 1988(9) and 2486/1996 of 5 December 1996(10) (definition of eligible area in Aragon). The aid was to be conditional on the maintenance of the 266 existing jobs and the creation of 25 new jobs.
III. Comments by interested parties
(20) Comments were received from the International Rayon and Synthetic Fibres Committee (IRSFC) and from Brilén itself.
(21) The IRSFC stated that it was the representative body for the European man-made fibres industry, with its member companies accounting for 85 % of European Community production. It strongly supported full, rigorous and impartial implementation of the Synthetic Fibres Code. It stressed that, in the case concerned, the relevant product, in terms of the Synthetic Fibres Code, was polyester textile yarn and that the proposed aid was intended to assist an investment project which would increase Brilén's capacity for producing that fibre. It noted that, although Brilén's total production capacity for man-made fibres would remain below the levels of some years previously, the Code permitted only capacity for the relevant product to be taken into account. It stated that capacity utilisation for the relevant product in the EEA in 1996/97 averaged only 86 %, making it clear that the output of most producers was limited by demand rather than supply factors. Owing to the strong pressure from suppliers in Asia, it anticipated that imports from outside the EEA would maintain or even slightly increase their level and that structural overcapacity in this sector would continue at least until 2003.
(22) By letter dated 7 July 1998 Brilén submitted the following comments in response to the Commission's decision to initiate the procedure:
(23) Brilén did not agree with the Commission's statement that "the company exports about 30 % of its output, a figure which is not expected to change significantly after the completion of the project." The reality of the project was precisely the opposite: it was expected that the company would increase its exports, particularly to non-member countries, namely Argentina, Canada, the United States, Algeria and Israel.
(24) It did not agree that its investment project should be regarded as increasing its extrusion capacity. It stressed that there was no real increase in extrusion capacity, only a product substitution, namely a switch from standard staple fibre to specialised textile filament yarn. Between 1980 and 1994 the company had extrusion capacity of approximately 19370 tonnes of fibre per year. Brilén was currently producing approximately 9987 tonnes per year (96 dtex) of continuous filament, representing a capacity utilisation rate of only 52 %. After the polyester filament investment project, the company would produce 11500 tonnes per year (100 dtex), increasing the capacity utilisation rate to 59 %.
(25) It did not agree with the statement that the aid requested by Brilén would distort competition within the EEA. The aid requested represented only 10 % of the planned investment and only 1,6 % of the cost of sales and therefore could not significantly influence the investment decision or the company's competitiveness. Moreover, the expansion of Brilén's production of polyester textile filament yarn was not geared to the major commodities markets, in which there clearly existed excess capacity and which were not - and could not be - the target markets for a company of the size of Brilén.
(26) It disagreed with the treatment of Brilén as one of the large firms in the sector rather than as a small or medium-sized enterprise (SME), for the following reasons:
There were in fact four manufacturing plants that coexisted within Brilén:
- a plant producing polyester staple;
- a polyester yarn spinning plant;
- a warping and sizing plant;
- a plant producing preforms for bottles.
(27) Within each of these product ranges, Brilén would qualify as an SME on turnover and workforce criteria. As far as yarn production in particular was concerned, the company had a workforce directly employed of approximately 180 workers and a turnover (1997) of approximately ESP 4000 million (EUR 24,04 million). Furthermore, the Samca group to which Brilén belonged did not have any other interests or own any other companies in the sector, which meant that, except from a financial standpoint, the company was isolated industrially.
(28) Brilén's production accounted for only 5,5 % of the estimated total demand for polyester filament yarn in western Europe, which stood at 174000 tonnes in 1997. The proposed increase in polyester filament yarn capacity thus represented merely 1 % of demand in western Europe.
(29) It disagreed with the claim that there was no shortage of supply, for the following reasons:
According to consultants PCI, the forecast for supply was that "from 1998 onwards the market for polyester filament yarn will grow sharply and steadily until the year 2005". It was expected that demand for polyester filament yarn would grow at a steady rate, while production capacity would stagnate.
It was acknowledged among companies in the sector that a large proportion of production capacity was obsolete.
Although surplus production capacity possibly existed on an aggregate basis, it was a fact that Brilén had since 1996 been facing excess demand for the products it manufactures and sells. It therefore doubted whether it was proper to apply a calculation based on the total supply of all products and total demand for each product to the analysis of the appropriateness of an investment by a company of the size of Brilén. It argued that the analysis of the appropriateness of the aid should focus on the real state of Brilén's business broken down by product rather than an aggregate data, in view of the company's small size.
The Intrastat statistics showed that Spain's trade balance for 1997 was in deficit to the tune of over 12000 tonnes per year, corresponding to the volume of imports from non-member countries; a similar picture emerged if the situation was examined at Community level.
IV. Comments by Spain
(30) By letter dated 10 June 1998, the Spanish authorities essentially reiterated the views expressed by Brilén in the course of the procedure, adding that the proposed aid, with an intensity of 10 % (gross), amounted to less than half of the regional aid ceiling, which for the Aragon Economic Development Area is 20 % net gram equivalent.
V. Assessment of the aid
(31) The Commission must first determine whether or not the measure under examination constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty. In the light of the information available the Commission's assessment is as follows:
(32) Article 87(1) of the Treaty lays down the principle that, except where otherwise allowable, aid which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods is, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, incompatible with the common market. Similarly, Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement states that, except where otherwise allowable, such aid is incompatible with the functioning of the Agreement.
(33) The proposal to award aid to Brilén undoubtedly falls within the scope of Article 87(1) of the Treaty and Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement as it would allow the company to carry out the investment in question without having to bear the full cost. The product which would be supported by the aid is polyester filament yarn falling under Combined Nomenclature (CN) codes 5402 42 00, 5402 43 10 and 5402 43 90. Since there is significant intra-EEA trade in these products (approximately 48000 tonnes in 1997) the proposed aid would be likely to distort competition and affect trade within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty and Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.
(34) Having established that the proposed aid to Brilén constitutes state aid, the Commission must decide whether or not it is incompatible with the common market.
(35) The exceptions to that principle set out in Article 87(2) of the Treaty do not apply to the case in point, given the nature and objectives of the aid.
(36) As far as the exception provided for by Article 87(3)(b) is concerned, the aid is clearly not intended to promote the execution of an important project of common European interest or to remedy a serious disturbance in the Spanish economy. Nor has the Spanish Government attempted to justify the aid on such grounds.
(37) As regards the exception provided for by Article 87(3)(d) of the Treaty, the aid is clearly not intended to promote culture and heritage conservation.
(38) With regard to the exceptions provided for in Article 87(3)(a) and (c) for aid that promotes or facilitates the development of certain areas, the Commission notes that the region in which Brilén is located is eligible for regional aid pursuant to Article 87(3)(c). The exception provided in Article 87(3)(c) of the Treaty is for aid to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas, where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest.
(39) The Barbastro area is eligible for regional aid under Article 87(3)(c) of the Treaty. In that particular area, the regional incentives scheme approved by the Commission decision(11), as subsequently amended(12), allows a maximum aid intensity of 20 % of the eligible investment. Aid is granted for investment in new fixed assets and is conditional an the maintenance of existing jobs. Furthermore, in accordance with the guidelines on national regional aid(13), an exception to the incompatibility principle established by Article 87(1) of the Treaty may be granted in respect of regional aid only if the equilibrium between the resulting distortions of competition and the advantages of the aid in terms of the development of a less-favoured region can be guaranteed.
(40) In the case in point, the investment chiefly entails the purchase of new machinery and the construction of buildings and ancillary installations. The aim is to introduce new technology which will improve productivity and efficiency while reducing pollution levels. Grant of the aid is conditional on the company safeguarding the existing 266 jobs and creating 25 new ones. The investment in question may therefore facilitate the development of the Barbastro area. The intensity (10 %) and other aspects of the proposal to award aid under the regional incentives scheme in the form of a grant of ESP 201,2 million (EUR 1,21 million) towards an investment of ESP 2012 million (EUR 12,09 million) are in accordance with the terms on which the regional incentives scheme was approved by the Commission.
(41) However, the effects of regional aid on the synthetic fibres industry have to be controlled, even for the least developed areas of the Community. The conditions under which aid may be awarded to synthetic fibres producers have since 1977 been regulated by the Synthetic Fibres Code.
(42) As Brilén is a producer of synthetic fibres and as the aid in question relates to the upgrading of a polyester yarn production plant, it could only be considered compatible with the common market if it was also in line with the Synthetic Fibres Code.
(43) The Code requires the notification of any proposal to award aid to synthetic fibres producers in whatever form, irrespective of whether or not the Commission has authorised the scheme concerned and unless the aid would satisfy the de minimis(14) criterion, where the aid would be awarded by way of direct support for:
- extrusion/texturisation of all generic types of fibre and yarn based on polyester, polyamide, acrylic or polypropylene, irrespective of their end-uses, or
- polymerisation (including polycondensation) where it is integrated with extrusion in terms of the machinery used, or
- any ancillary process linked to the contemporaneous installation of extrusion/texturisation capacity by the prospective beneficiary or by another company in the group to which it belongs and which, in the specific business activity concerned, is normally integrated with such capacity in terms of the machinery used.
(44) The Code sets out in detail the criteria to be applied when the Commission scrutinises proposals falling within its scope. It states, among other things, that in assessing the compatibility of the proposed aid the fundamental consideration is the effect of that aid on the markets for the relevant products, namely the fibre/yarn whose production would be supported by the aid. Under the Code, investment aid will only be authorised:
(a) for larger firms, that is, firms that are not SMEs, at up to 50 % of the applicable aid ceiling:
- if the aid would result in a significant reduction in the relevant capacity, or
- if the market for the relevant products was characterised by a structural shortage of supply and the aid would not result in a significant increase in the relevant capacity,
(b) for SMEs, at up to 75 % of the applicable aid ceiling if the market for the relevant products was characterised by a structural shortage of supply and the aid would not result in a significant increase in the relevant capacity,
(c) for SMEs, at up to 100 % of the applicable aid ceiling:
- if the aid would result in a significant reduction in the relevant capacity, or
- if the market for the relevant products was characterised by a structural shortage of supply and the aid would not result in a significant increase in the relevant capacity and the relevant products were innovative.
(45) Contrary to the position taken by the Spanish authorities and the company, Brilén cannot be considered under the State aid rules to qualify as an SME. The definition laid down in the relevant Commission Recommendation(15) does not allow the size of a company to be determined on the basis of sectors or subsectors of its activity. In any event Brilén does not meet the independence criterion, being a subsidiary of the Samca group. Consequently, the criteria for investment aid to larger firms are applicable.
(46) According to the notification, 40 % of the eligible cost of the investment relates to activities falling outside the scope of the Synthetic Fibres Code, namely the drawing, warping and sizing operations (i.e. these processes do not form part of the extrusion/texturisation process and are not integrated with such machinery), while the remaining 60 % relates to the extrusion area of production and therefore falls within the scope of the Code. Since the project is for investment in new fixed assets, the risk of diversion of aid between activities covered by the Code and activities outside its scope is necessarily extremely small. The Commission is therefore able to accept, in the same proportion, that 60 % of the proposed aid would be awarded in direct support for the extrusion of one of the generic types of synthetic fibre falling within the scope of control of the Code, namely polyester textile filament yarn, while the remaining 40 % of the proposed aid would be granted under a scheme approved by the Commission but falling outside the scope of the Code.
(47) As regards the 60 % of the proposed aid which falls within the scope of the Synthetic Fibres Code, the Commission cannot accept the Spanish authorities' assertion that there will be no "overall" increase in extrusion capacity, since what matters is the extrusion capacity for the individual fibres and yarns covered by the Code in view of their different markets. The extrusion capacity for polyester yarn was 9500 tonnes per year prior to commencement of the project and will be 11500 tonnes per year after its completion. Therefore, as the company itself acknowledges, the investment will give rise to an increase of 21 % in extrusion capacity for the relevant yarn.
(48) Even though capacity utilisation rates in this sector at EEA level have improved in recent years, they have remained on average rather unsatisfactory and have increased only through rationalisation. The capacity utilisation rate for polyester filament yarn within the EEA was, as the Commission pointed out in its Decision to initiate the procedure, approximately 74 % in 1994, 78 % in 1995 and 82 % in 1996. The Spanish authorities have not challenged these figures. Although capacity utilisation rose to 89 % in 1997, draft figures for 1998 show a utilisation rate of 84 %. According to the Code, the capacity utilisation rate for production of the relevant fibre or yarn, averaged an an annual basis over the previous two years, would be expected to be at least 90 % if there were a structural shortage of supply. Consequently, there does not appear to be a structural shortage of supply in the relevant market, i.e. the market in polyester filament yarn.
(49) Although, according to available data, consumption of textured polyester fibre within the EEA did increase from 458000 tonnes in 1995 to 569000 tonnes in 1997 and imports from outside the EEA rose from 68000 tonnes to 104000 tonnes over the same period, the trend would appear to be chiefly the result of strong pressure from suppliers in Asia, where excess capacity is huge and rising, rather than supply factors within the EEA.
(50) Furthermore, the company points out that the aid requested amounts to only 10 % of the planned investment and represents only 1,6 % of the cost of sales, so that it cannot be regarded as significantly influencing the investment decision.
(51) The remaining 40 % of the proposed aid relates to processes, namely drawing, warping and sizing operations, that do not form part of the extrusion/texturisation process and are not integrated with such machinery. It therefore falls outside the scope of the Synthetic Fibres Code. As a result of the proportional calculation applied, the aid intensity of 10 % remains unchanged. The investment linked to the aid is for the purchase of new fixed assets and, in any event, the creation of 25 new jobs appears to be ensured in as much as, according to the company, the amount of the aid granted will not perceptibly influence the investment decision as a whole. It consequently satisfies the conditions on which the abovementioned regional incentives scheme was approved by the Commission.
VI. Conclusions
(52) Brilén is a larger firm producing synthetic fibres that fall within the scope of the Synthetic Fibres Code. 60 % of the notified aid would be awarded in direct support for the extrusion of one of the generic types of synthetic fibre and would lead to an increase in production capacity for the relevant fibre of 21 %. The capacity utilisation rates for polyester filament yarn within the EEA have in recent years remained on average below the 90 % level. Consequently, there does not appear to be a structural shortage of supply in the relevant market as defined by the Code.
(53) Accordingly, the Commission finds that the part of proposed aid to Brilén falling within the scope of the Synthetic Fibres Code and amounting to ESP 120720000 (EUR 725541,81) cannot be considered compatible with the Code and is therefore incompatible with the common market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement.
(54) On the other hand, the Commission does not raise objections in respect of that part of the aid, amounting to ESP 80480000 (EUR 483694,54), which falls within a Commission-approved scheme but outside the scope of the Code,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
The State aid amounting to EUR 725541,81 which Spain is planning to implement in favour of Brilén SA is incompatible with the common market.
This aid may accordingly not be implemented.
Article 2
The State aid amounting to EUR 483694,54 which Spain is planning to implement in favour of Brilén SA is compatible with the common market in accordance with Article 87(1) of the Treaty.
Implementation of this aid is accordingly authorised.
Article 3
Spain shall inform the Commission, within two months following notification of this Decision, of the measures taken to comply with it.
Article 4
This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Spain.
Done at Brussels, 1 July 1999. | [
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
1,
0
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1400/2004
of 30 July 2004
fixing the production refund on white sugar used in the chemical industry for the period from 1 to 31 August 2004
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (1), and in particular the fifth indent of Article 7(5) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
Pursuant to Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001, production refunds may be granted on the products listed in Article 1(1)(a) and (f) of that Regulation, on syrups listed in Article 1(1)(d) thereof and on chemically pure fructose covered by CN code 1702 50 00 as an intermediate product, that are in one of the situations referred to in Article 23(2) of the Treaty and are used in the manufacture of certain products of the chemical industry.
(2)
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1265/2001 of 27 June 2001 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 as regards granting the production refund on certain sugar products used in the chemical industry (2) provides that these refunds shall be determined according to the refund fixed for white sugar.
(3)
Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1265/2001 provides that the production refund on white sugar is to be fixed at monthly intervals commencing on the first day of each month.
(4)
The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sugar,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The production refund on white sugar referred to in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1265/2001 shall be equal to 41,257 EUR/100 kg net for the period from 1 to 31 August 2004.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 August 2004.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 30 July 2004. | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 2392/79 of 30 October 1979 on the classification of goods under subheading 29.22 A I of the Common Customs Tariff
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 97/69 of 16 January 1969 on measures to be taken for uniform application of the nomenclature of the Common Customs Tariff (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 280/77 (2), and in particular Article 3 thereof,
Whereas measures are necessary to ensure uniform application of the nomenclature of the Common Customs Tariff for the purpose of classification of the product dimethylammonium 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetate (2,4 D-Aminsalz) in aqueous solution;
Whereas the Common Customs Tariff annexed to Council Regulation (EEC) No 950/68 (3), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 882/79 (4), refers under heading No 29.16 to carboxylic acids with single oxygen function and under heading No 29.22 to amine-function compounds;
Whereas the product in question has the structure both of a carboxylic acid with single oxygen function and of an amine-function compound;
Whereas, pursuant to Note 3 to Chapter 29, goods which could be included in two or more of the headings of that Chapter are to be classified in the latest of those headings ; whereas, therefore, the product in question should be classified under heading No 29.22;
Whereas under heading No 29.22, it would be appropriate to choose subheading 29.22 A I;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on Common Customs Tariff Nomenclature,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The product dimethylammonium 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetate (2,4 D-Aminsalz) in aqueous solution shall be classified under the following subheading of the Common Customs Tariff:
29.22 Amine-function compounds:
A. Acyclic monoamines:
I. Methylamine, dimethylamine and trimethylamine, and their salts.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the 21st day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 30 October 1979. | [
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 869/91 of 9 April 1991 establishing the list of flint maize varieties on which prodution aid can be granted
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1835/89 of 19 June 1989 setting general rules on the production aid for high-quality flint maize (1), and in particular Article 3 (2) thereof,
Whereas the production aid is intended to encourage production of high-quality flint maize; whereas Article 3 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1835/89 sets out the qualifying requirements for high-quality varieties;
Whereas Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3771/89 of 14 December 1989 laying down detailed rules for the production aid for high-quality flint maize (2), as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 548/90 (3), sets out the procedure for inclusion of flint maize varieties on the list provided for in Article 3 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1835/89; whereas the Commission has received all the test results for the varieties for which an application for inclusion on the list was made; whereas the list of varieties on which the production aid referred to in Regulation (EEC) No 1835/89 can be granted should be adopted on the basis of these results;
Whereas the measures provided in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: Article 1
The list of varieties provided for in Article 3 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1835/89 is annexed to this Regulation. Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 9 April 1991. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
0
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
*****
COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 1654/90
of 18 June 1990
opening and providing for the administration of a Community tariff quota for herring, fresh or chilled, originating in Sweden
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Article 113 thereof,
Having regard to the Act of Accession of Spain and Portugal,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,
Whereas an Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Sweden was concluded on 22 July 1972; whereas, following the accession of Spain and Portugal, an Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters was concluded between the European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Sweden on the agricultural and fisheries sector; whereas this Agreement was adopted by Decision 86/558/EEC (1);
Whereas this Agreement provides for the opening, over a period to be determined by common accord, of a 20 000 tonne duty-free Community tariff quota for herring, fresh or chilled, whole, headless or in pieces, originating in Sweden; whereas, therefore, the tariff quota in question should be opened for the period 15 September 1990 to 14 February 1991;
Whereas equal and continuous access to the quota should be ensured for all Community importers and the rate of levy for the tariff quota should be applied consistently to all imports until the quota is used up; whereas, it is appropriate to take the necessary measures to ensure efficient Community administration of this tariff quota while offering the Member States the opportunity to draw from the quota volume the necessary quantities corresponding to actual imports; whereas this method of administration requires close cooperation between the Member States and the Commission;
Whereas, since the Kingdom of Belgium, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg are united within and jointly represented by the Benelux Economic Union, all transactions concerning the administration of this quota may be carried out by any one of its members,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
1. From 15 September 1990 to 14 February 1991 the Common Customs Tariff duty on the following products shall be suspended at the level and within the time limit of the Community tariff quota as shown herewith:
1.2.3.4.5 // // // // // // Order No // CN code (1) // Description // Amount of of quota (in tonnes) // Rate of duty (%) // // // // // // // // // // // 09.0615 // ex 0302 40 90 ex 0304 10 93 ex 0304 10 98 // Herring and meat of herring, fresh or chilled, originating in Sweden // 20 000 // 0 (a) // // // // //
(1) Taric codes: ex 0302 40 90 * 20, ex 0304 10 93 * 20, ex 0304 10 98 * 16.
(a) However when those products are imported into Portugal the duty applicable shall be 5,6 % in 1990 and 3,8 % in 1991 within the limit of the quantities for which this Member State is eligible.
2. Imports of the products in question shall not benefit from the tariff quotas referred to in paragraph 1 unless the free-at-frontier prices, which are determined by the Member States according to Article 21 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3796/81 of 29 December 1981 on the common organization of the market in fishery products (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 2886/89 (2), are at least equal to the reference prices if such prices have been fixed or are to be fixed by the Community for the product under consideration or the levy of the products concerned. For the calculation of the reference price, the following coefficients shall be applicable:
- whole herring: 1,
- flaps of herring: 2,32,
- pieces of herring: 1,96.
3. The Protocol on the definition of the concept of originating products and on methods of administrative cooperation, annexed to the Agreement between the European Economic Community and Sweden, shall be applicable.
Article 2
The tariff quota referred to in Article 1 shall be administered by the Commission, which may take all appropriate administrative measures in order to ensure effective administration thereof.
Article 3
If an importer presents, in a Member State, a declaration of entry into free ciruclation, including a request for preferential benefit for a product covered by this Regulation and if this declaration is accepted by the customs authorities, the Member State concerned shall inform the Commission and draw an amount corresponding to its requirements from the quota amount.
The drawing requests, with indication of the date of acceptance of the said declarations, must be transmitted to the Commission without delay.
The drawings are granted by the Commission by reference to the date of acceptance of the declarations of entry into free circulation by the customs authorities of the Member State concerned to the extend that the available balance so permits.
If a Member State does not use the quantities drawn, it shall return them as soon as possible to the quota amount.
If the quantities requested are greater than the available balance of the quota amount, allocation shall be made on a pro rata basis with respect to the requests. Member States shall be informed by the Commission thereof.
Article 4
Each Member State shall ensure that importers of the products concerned have equal and continuous access to the quota for such time as the residual balance of the quota volume so permits.
Article 5
Member States and the Commission shall collaborate closely in order to ensure that this Regulation is complied with.
Article 6
This Regulation shall enter into force on 15 September 1990.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Luxembourg, 18 June 1990. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 356/2006
of 28 February 2006
fixing the production refund on white sugar used in the chemical industry for the period from 1 to 31 March 2006
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (1), and in particular the fifth indent of Article 7(5) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
Pursuant to Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001, production refunds may be granted on the products listed in Article 1(1)(a) and (f) of that Regulation, on syrups listed in Article 1(1)(d) thereof and on chemically pure fructose covered by CN code 1702 50 00 as an intermediate product, that are in one of the situations referred to in Article 23(2) of the Treaty and are used in the manufacture of certain products of the chemical industry.
(2)
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1265/2001 of 27 June 2001 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 as regards granting the production refund on certain sugar products used in the chemical industry (2) provides that these refunds shall be determined according to the refund fixed for white sugar.
(3)
Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1265/2001 provides that the production refund on white sugar is to be fixed at monthly intervals commencing on the first day of each month.
(4)
The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sugar,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The production refund on white sugar referred to in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1265/2001 shall be equal to 26,917 EUR/100 kg net for the period from 1 to 31 March 2006.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 March 2006.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 28 February 2006. | [
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 2789/93 of 11 October 1993 amending Regulations (EEC) No 2312/92 and (EEC) No 1148/93 laying down detailed rules for implementing the specific measures for supplying the French overseas territories with live bovine animals and breeding horses
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3763/91 of 16 December 1991 introducing specific measures in respect of certain agricultural products for the benefit of the French overseas departments (1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3714/92 (2), and in particular Articles 4 (5) and 9 thereof,
Whereas Commission Regulation (EEC) No 131/92 (3), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 2596/93 (4), lays down common detailed rules for implementation of the specific measures for the supply of certain agricultural products to the French overseas departments;
Whereas Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2312/92 (5), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1734/93 (6), and (EEC) No 1148/93 (7), as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1734/93, lay down detailed rules for implementing the specific measures for supplying the French overseas departments with live bovine animals and breeding horses respectively;
Whereas, in the light of experience, it is necessary to alter the timetable for the submission of applications for, and the issue of, certificates, and to amend the period of their validity and the size of the security lodged by the party concerned;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Beef and Veal,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Regulation (EEC) No 2312/92 is hereby amended as follows:
1. Article 9 is amended as follows:
(a) in paragraph 1, 'during the first five working days' is replaced by 'during the first 10 working days';
(b) in paragraph 1 (b), 'ECU 30' is replaced by 'ECU 3';
(c) in paragraph 2, 'on the 10th working day' is replaced by 'on the 15th working day';
2. Article 10 is replaced by the following text:
'Article 10
Licences and certificates shall expire on the 90th day after their issue.'
Article 2
Regulation (EEC) No 1148/93 is hereby amended as follows:
1. Article 4 is amended as follows:
(a) in paragraph 1, 'during the first five working days' is replaced by 'during the first 10 working days';
(b) in paragraph 1 (b), 'ECU 30' is replaced by 'ECU 3';
(c) in paragraph 2, 'by the 10th working day' is replaced by 'by the 15th working day';
2. Article 5 is replaced by the following text:
'Article 5
The duration of validity of the aid certificates shall expire on the 90th day after their issue.'
Article 3
This Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 11 October 1993. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
*****
COMMISSION DECISION
of 30 November 1987
approving a programme submitted by the Federal Republic of Germany for the marketing of flowers and ornamental plants in Hessen pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC) No 355/77
(Only the German text is authentic)
(87/582/EEC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 355/77 of 15 February 1977 on common measures to improve the conditions under which agricultural and fishery products are processed and marketed (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 560/87 (2), and in particular Article 5 thereof,
Whereas on 3 November 1986 the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany submitted a programme for the marketing of flowers and ornamental plants in Hessen and supplemented it by additional information on 25 June 1987;
Whereas this programme relates to the rationalization of storage and the improvement of conditions of sale and of market transparency as regards the flowers and ornamental plants produced in the programme area and is intended to strengthen the competitiveness of this sector and to ensure the freshness of its produce; whereas it constitutes therefore a programme within the meaning of Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 355/77;
Whereas this programme contains the details required under Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 355/77, showing that the objectives laid down in Article 1 of the said Regulation can be achieved in respect of flowers and ornamental plants in Hessen; whereas the schedule for implementation of the programme does not exceed the time limit laid down in Article 3 (1) (g) of that Regulation;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Agricultural Structures,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
The programme for flowers and ornamental plants in Hessen submitted by the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 355/77 on 3 November 1986 and supplemented on 25 June 1987 is hereby approved.
Article 2
This Decision is addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany.
Done at Brussels, 30 November 1987. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
*****
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 1459/88
of 27 May 1988
re-establishing the levying of customs duties on synthetic camphor of the combined nomenclature CN code ex 2914 and other vitamins and their derivatives falling within CN code 2936, originating in China, to which the preferential tariff arrangements set out in Council Regulation (EEC) No 3635/87 apply
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3635/87 of 17 December 1987 applying generalized tariff preferences for 1988 in respect of certain industrial products originating in developing countries (1), and in particular Article 16 thereof,
Whereas, pursuant to Articles 1 and 14 of Regulation (EEC) No 3635/87, suspension of customs duties shall be accorded to each of the countries or territories listed in Annex III other than those listed in column 4 of Annex I, within the framework of the preferential tariff ceiling fixed in column 9 of Annex I;
Whereas, as provided for in Article 14 of that Regulation, as soon as the individual ceilings in question are reached at Community level, the levying of customs duties on imports of the products in question originating in each of the countries and territories concerned may at any time be re-established;
Whereas, in the case of synthetic camphor of the combined nomenclature code ex 2914 and other vitamins and their derivatives falling within CN code 2936 originating in China the individual ceiling was fixed at 280 000 and 830 000 ECU respectively; whereas, on 24 May 1988, imports of these products into the Community originating in China reached the ceiling in question after being charged thereagainst; whereas it is appropriate to re-establish the levying of customs duties in respect of the products in question against China,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
As from 31 May 1988, the levying of customs duties, suspended pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 3635/87 shall be re-established on imports into the Community of the following products originating in China:
1.2.3 // // // // Order No // CN code // Description // // // // 10.0165 // ex 2914 21 00 // Synthetic camphor // 10.0360 // 2936 22 00 2936 28 00 2936 29 90 // Other vitamins and their derivatives // // //
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 27 May 1988. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1974/96 of 15 October 1996 amending Regulation (EC) No 716/96 adopting exceptional support measures for the beef market in the United Kingdom
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 of 27 June 1968 on the common organization of the market in beef and veal (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1588/96 (2), and in particular Article 23 thereof,
Whereas Commission Regulation (EC) No 716/96 (3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1846/96 (4), provided exceptional support measures for the beef market in the United Kingdom in particular by enabling producers to be paid ECU 1 per kilogram liveweight for animals slaughtered under the scheme set out in the Regulation; whereas in the light of recent developments in market prices in the United Kingdom it is appropriate to adjust that amount; whereas, consequently, the Community contribution expressed in ecu should also be adjusted;
Whereas the same Regulation requires the head, internal organs and carcases of animals slaughtered under its provisions to be permanently stained and transported in sealed containers to authorized incineration or rendering plants for processing and destruction; whereas subject to the necessary control to be carried out by the United Kingdom competent authorities these authorities should be allowed to use a limited number of animals for research and educational purposes prior to destruction;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Beef and Veal,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Regulation (EC) No 716/96 is amended as follows:
1. in Article 1 the following paragraph 6 is added:
'6. Notwithstanding paragraph 1 and subject to the necessary control, the United Kingdom competent authority shall be authorized, before processing and destruction, to use a limited number of animals for research or educational purposes.`;
2. in Article 2 (1) the amount of 'ECU 1` shall be replaced by 'ECU 0,9` and the amount of 'ECU 392` shall be replaced by 'ECU 353`;
3. in Article 2 (2) the amount of 'ECU 1` shall be replaced by 'ECU 0,9`.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
It shall apply to animals purchased from the first Monday following the day of publication.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 15 October 1996. | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2440/97 of 5 December 1997 concerning the stopping of fishing for plaice and common sole by vessels flying the flag of Belgium
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2205/97 (2), and in particular Article 21 (3) thereof,
Whereas Council Regulation (EC) No 390/97 of 20 December 1996 fixing, for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, the total allowable catches for 1997 and certain conditions under which they may be fished (3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1974/97 (4), provides for plaice and common sole quotas for 1997;
Whereas, in order to ensure compliance with the provisions relating to the quantitative limitations on catches of stocks subject to quotas, it is necessary for the Commission to fix the date by which catches made by vessels flying the flag of a Member State are deemed to have exhausted the quota allocated;
Whereas, according to the information communicated to the Commission, catches of plaice and common sole in the waters of ICES division VIIa by vessels flying the flag of Belgium or registered in Belgium have reached the quotas allocated for 1997; whereas Belgium has prohibited fishing for these stocks as from 14 November 1997; whereas it is therefore necessary to abide by that date,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Catches of plaice and common sole in the waters of ICES division VIIa by vessels flying the flag of Belgium or registered in Belgium are deemed to have exhausted the quotas allocated to Belgium for 1997.
Fishing for plaice and common sole in the waters of ICES division VIIa by vessels flying the flag of Belgium or registered in Belgium is prohibited, as well as the retention on board, the transhipment and the landing of such stocks captured by the abovementioned vessels after the date of application of this Regulation.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
It shall apply with effect from 14 November 1997.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 5 December 1997. | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
Commission Decision
of 15 July 2002
amending Decisions 95/467/EC, 96/577/EC, 96/578/EC and 98/598/EC on the procedure for attesting the conformity of construction products pursuant to Article 20(2) of Council Directive 89/106/EEC as regards gypsum products, fixed fire-fighting systems, sanitary appliances and aggregates respectively
(notified under document number C(2002) 2586)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2002/592/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Directive 89/106/EEC of 21 December 1988 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to construction products(1), as amended by Directive 93/68/EEC(2), and in particular Article 13(4) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) The Commission has already adopted a series of decisions on attesting the conformity of construction products pursuant to Article 20(2) of Directive 89/106/EEC.
(2) The need may arise to adapt those decisions to technical progress.
(3) This is the case of Commission Decisions 95/467/EC(3), 96/577/EC(4), 96/578/EC(5) and 98/598/EC(6).
(4) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Construction,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
Decision 95/467/EC is hereby amended as follows.
1. In Annex 3, in the table for product family GYPSUM PRODUCTS (1/4) "fibrous gypsum plaster casts," is inserted after "fibrous gypsum boards,".
2. In Annex 3, in the table for product family GYPSUM PRODUCTS (2/4) "fibrous gypsum plaster casts," is inserted after "gypsum plasters,".
3. In Annex 3, in the table for product family GYPSUM PRODUCTS (4/4) the product family "fibrous gypsum plaster casts," is inserted after "ceiling elements and plasters,".
Article 2
Decision 96/577/EC is hereby amended as follows.
1. In Annex I, fifth indent, the following text is inserted after "nozzles/sprinklers/outlets.": "high pressure container valve assemblies and their actuators, selector valves and their actuators, non-electrical disable devices, flexible connectors, pressure gauges and pressure switches, mechanical weighing devices and check valves and non-return valves."
2. In Annex II, in the table for product family FIRE ALARM/DETECTION, FIXED FIRE FIGHTING, FIRE AND SMOKE CONTROL AND EXPLOSION SUPPRESSION PRODUCTS (1/1), the following row is inserted at the end of the fixed suppression and extinguishing section:
TABLE
Article 3
Decision 96/578/EC is hereby amended as follows.
1. In Annex III in the table for product family SANITARY APPLIANCES (1/1), the word "Sinks" is deleted from the first row of the table, such that the paragraph begins "Basins and communal troughs; ...".
2. In Annex III in the table for product family SANITARY APPLIANCES (1/1), the following row is inserted after the header row:
TABLE
Article 4
Decision 98/598/EC is hereby amended as follows.
1. In Annex III, in the table for product family AGGREGATES FOR USES WITHOUT HIGH SAFETY REQUIREMENTS (1/2), the indent in the first row "- for concrete mortar and grout", and the indent in the fourth row "- for concrete mortar and grout" are deleted.
2. In Annex III, in the table for product family AGGREGATES FOR USES WITHOUT HIGH SAFETY REQUIREMENTS (1/2) the following row is inserted:
TABLE
3. In Annex III, in the table for product family AGGREGATES FOR USES WITH HIGH SAFETY REQUIREMENTS (2/2) the indent in the first row "- for concrete mortar and grout", and the indent in the fourth row "- for concrete mortar and grout" are deleted.
4. In Annex III, in the table for product family AGGREGATES FOR USES WITH HIGH SAFETY REQUIREMENTS (2/2) the following row is inserted:
TABLE
Article 5
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 15 July 2002. | [
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 77/2001
of 5 January 2001
amending the Annexes to Regulation (EC) No 1547/1999 and Council Regulation (EC) No 1420/1999 as regards shipments of certain types of waste to Albania, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burundi, Jamaica, Morocco, Nigeria, Peru, Romania, Tunisia and Zimbabwe
(Text with EEA relevance)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community(1), as last amended by Commission Decision 1999/816/EC(2), and in particular Article 17(3) thereof,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1420/1999 of 29 April 1999 establishing common rules and procedures to apply to shipments to certain non-OECD countries of certain types of waste(3), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1208/2000(4), and in particular Article 3(5) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) In January 2000, the Commission sent a note verbale to all non-OECD countries (plus Hungary and Poland which do not yet apply OECD Decision C(92) 39 final). The purpose of this note verbale was three fold: (a) to inform these countries of the Community's new regulations; (b) to ask for confirmation of the respective positions as outlined in the Annexes to Regulation (EC) No 1420/1999 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1547/1999 of 12 July 1999 determining the control procedures under Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 to apply to shipments of certain types of waste to certain countries to which OECD Decision C(92) 39 final does not apply(5), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1552/2000(6), and (c) to have an answer from those countries which did not reply in 1994.
(2) Among the countries that replied, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burundi, Jamaica, Morocco, Nigeria, Peru, Romania, Tunisia and Zimbabwe notified the Commission that the import of certain wastes listd in Annex II to Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 is accepted either without any control procedure or subject to control pursuant to the control procedure applying to Annex III or IV thereto or laid down in Article 15 thereof. Concerning other waste, they have indicated that they do not wish to receive shipments.
(3) Albania replied to the note verbale stating that its position has not changed. However, the provisions concerning Albania need to be amended to take into account the new labelling system for certain types of waste laid down in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 259/93 as amended by Decision 1999/816/EC.
(4) In accordance with Article 17(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 259/93, the Committee set up by Article 18 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste(7), as last amended by Commission Decision 96/350/EC(8), was notified of the official request of these countries on 23 June 2000 (on 12 July 2000 for Burundi).
(5) In order to take into account the new situation of these countries, it is necessary to amend at the same time Regulation (EC) No 1420/1999 and Regulation (EC) No 1547/1999.
(6) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee set up by Article 18 of Directive 75/442/EEC,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Regulation (EC) No 1547/1999 is amended as follows:
1. Annex A is amended as set out in Annex A to this Regulation;
2. Annex B is amended as set out in Annex B to this Regulation;
3. Annex C is amended as set out in Annex C to this Regulation;
4. Annex D is amended as set out in Annex D to this Regulation.
Article 2
Regulation (EC) No 1420/1999 is amended as follows:
1. Annex A is amended as set out in Annex E to this Regulation;
2. Annex B is amended as set out in Annex F to this Regulation.
Article 3
This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 5 January 2001. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 853/2008
of 18 August 2008
amending Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 as regards the trigger levels for additional duties on apples and tomatoes
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 143(b) thereof, in conjunction with Article 4,
Whereas:
(1)
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules of Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2) provides for surveillance of imports of the products listed in Annex XVII thereto. That surveillance is to be carried out in accordance with the rules laid down in Article 308d of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (3).
(2)
For the purposes of Article 5(4) of the Agreement on Agriculture (4) concluded during the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations and in the light of the latest data available for 2005, 2006 and 2007, the trigger levels for additional duties of apples and tomatoes should be adjusted.
(3)
As a result, Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 should be amended accordingly.
(4)
The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Annex XVII to Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 is replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Regulation.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
It shall apply from 1 September 2008.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 18 August 2008. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
COMMISSION DECISION of 6 July 1995 relating to the institution of a Scientific Committee for Food (95/273/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Whereas the drafting and amendment of common rules concerning the composition, manufacturing characteristics, packaging and labelling of foodstuffs requires consideration of the problems relating to the protection of health and safety of persons;
Whereas the quest for solutions to these problems needs the participation of highly qualified scientific personnel, particularly in the fields associated with medicine, nutrition, toxicology, biology, chemistry or other similar disciplines;
Whereas contact with such groups should assume a permanent character in the form of a committee of a consultative nature established by the Commission;
Whereas Commission Decision 74/234/EEC of 16 April 1974 relating to the institution of a Scientific Committee for Food (1), as amended by Decision 86/241/EEC (2), provides that the said Committee shall be composed of not more than 18 members; whereas, in view of the further enlargement of the Community on 1 January 1995 and the increase in the Committee's workload since the said number of members was established, the maximum number of members provided for should be increased;
Whereas, according to Article 101, Protocol 37 and Chapter XII of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, the Commission has undertaken to ensure the participation in the Scientific Committee for Food of at least one highly qualified scientist from those Member States of the European Free Trade Association signatory to the Agreement;
Whereas scientific advice on matters relating to food safety must, in the interests of consumers and industry, be independent and transparent;
Whereas, in the interests of transparency, Decision 74/234/EEC should be replaced by this Decision,
HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Article 1
A Scientific Committee for Food hereinafter called the 'Committee` is hereby established by the Commission.
Article 2
1. The Committee shall be consulted by the Commission whenever a legal act requires so.
2. The Committee may be consulted by the Commission on any other problem relating to the protection of the health and safety of persons arising or likely to arise from the consumption of food, in particular on nutritional, hygienic and toxicological issues.
3. The Committee may draw the attention of the Commission to any such problem.
Article 3
The Committee shall be composed of not more than 20 members.
Article 4
The Members of the Committee shall be nominated by the Commission from highly qualified scientific persons having competence in the fields referred to in Article 2 (2).
Article 5
The Committee shall elect a chairman and two vice-chairmen from its members. The election shall take place by simple majority of the members.
Article 6
1. The mandate of a member, chairman or vice-chairman of the Committee shall have a term of three years. It shall be renewable. However, the chairman and vice-chairmen of the Committee may not be immediately re-elected after being in office for two consecutive periods of three years. The duties shall not be subject to remuneration.
After the expiry of the period of three years, the members, chairman or vice-chairmen of the Committee remain in office until their replacement or the renewal of their mandate.
2. Where a member, chairman or vice-chairmen of the Committee finds he is unable to fulfil his mandate, or where the circumstances which led to his nomination significantly change, or in the case of his resignation, he shall be replaced for the remaining term of the mandate in accordance with the procedure provided, as the case may be, in Article 4 or Article 5.
Article 7
1. The Committee may form working groups from amongst its members.
2. The mandate of the working groups shall be to report to the Committee on the subjects referred to them by the latter.
Article 8
1. The Committee and the working groups shall meet at the invitation of a representative of the Commission.
2. The representative of the Commission as well as other officials and interested agents of the Commission shall assist at the meeting of the Committee and the working groups.
3. The representative of the Commission may invite individuals having particular expertise in the subject being studied to participate at the meetings.
4. The Commission shall provide the secretariat of the Committee and the working groups.
5. The Commission shall codify the working practices and procedures of the Committee and make them available to interested parties.
Article 9
1. The deliberations of the Committee shall relate to the requests for opinion put by the representative of the Commission.
The representative of the Commission, in requesting the opinion of the Committee, may fix the length of time within which the opinion is to be given.
2. Where the opinion requested is the subject of the unanimous agreement of the members of the Committee, these latter establish the common conclusions. In the absence of unanimous agreement, the various positions taken in the course of the deliberations shall be entered in a report drawn up under the responsibility of the representative of the Commission.
3. The Commission shall publish the opinions of the Committee.
Article 10
Without prejudice to Article 214 of the Treaty members shall be obliged not to divulge information coming to their knowledge as a result of the work of the Committee when the representative of the Commission informs them that the opinion requested relates to material of a confidential nature.
In this case, only the members of the Committee and the representatives of the Commission shall be present at the meetings.
Article 11
Members shall be required to notify the Commission annually, and as they occur during the work of the Committee and its working groups, of interests which could prejudice their independence.
Article 12
Decision 74/234/EEC is hereby repealed.
Done at Brussels, 6 July 1995. | [
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
*****
COMMISSION DECISION
of 28 January 1983
establishing that the apparatus described as 'Tektronix - Transient Digitizer System, model WP2005, consisting of: R7912 Transient Digitizer, 605 Storage Monitor and 1350 Memory Display Unit' may be imported free of Common Customs Tariff duties
(83/58/EEC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN
COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1798/75 of 10 July 1975 on the importation free of Common Customs Tariff duties of educational, scientific and cultural materials (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 608/82 (2),
Having regard to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2784/79 of 12 December 1979 laying down provisions for the implementation of Regulation (EEC) No 1798/75 (3), and in particular Article 7 thereof,
Whereas, by letter dated 28 July 1982, the Federal Republic of Germany requested the Commission to invoke the procedure provided for in Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 2784/79 in order to determine whether or not the apparatus described as 'Tektronix - Transient Digitizer System, model WP2005, consisting of: R7912 Transient Digitizer, 605 Storage Monitor and 1350 Memory Display Unit', ordered on 24 August 1978 and intended for use in examining laser-induced plasma-imaging of particle spectra and, in particular, in recording and digitalizing short signals for further processing with a computer, should be considered to be a scientific apparatus and, where the reply is in the affirmative, whether apparatus of equivalent scientific value is currently being manufactured in the Community;
Whereas, in accordance with the provisions of Article 7 (5) of Regulation (EEC) No 2784/79, a group of experts composed of representatives of all the Member States met on 15 December 1982 within the framework of the Committee on Duty-Free Arrangements to examine the matter;
Whereas this examination showed that the apparatus in question is a conversion system;
Whereas its objective technical characteristics, such as the precision of the conversion, and the use to which it is put make it specially suited to scientific research; whereas, moreover, apparatus of the same kind are principally used for scientific activities; whereas it must therefore be considered to be a scientific apparatus;
Whereas, on the basis of information received from Member States, apparatus of equivalent scientific value capable of use for the same purpose is not currently manufactured in the Community; whereas, therefore, duty-free admission of this apparatus is justified,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
The apparatus described as 'Tektronix - Transient Digitizer System, model WP2005, consisting of: R7912 Transient Digitizer, 605 Storage Monitor and 1350 Memory Display Unit', which is the subject of an application by the Federal Republic of Germany of 28 July 1982, may be imported free of Common Customs Tariff duties.
Article 2
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 28 January 1983. | [
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 362/2003
of 27 February 2003
fixing the maximum export refund on common wheat in connection with the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 899/2002
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 of 30 June 1992 on the common organisation of the market in cereals(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1666/2000(2),
Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 of 29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 on the granting of export refunds on cereals and the measures to be taken in the event of disturbance on the market for cereals(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1163/2002(4), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1324/2002(5), and in particular Article 4 thereof,
Whereas:
(1) An invitation to tender for the refund on exportation of common wheat to all third countries with the exclusion of Poland, Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia was opened pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 899/2002(6), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2331/2002(7).
(2) Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 provides that the Commission may, on the basis of the tenders notified, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 23 of Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92, decide to fix a maximum export refund taking account of the criteria referred to in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95. In that case a contract is awarded to any tenderer whose bid is equal to or lower than the maximum refund.
(3) The application of the abovementioned criteria to the current market situation for the cereal in question results in the maximum export refund being fixed at the amount specified in Article 1.
(4) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
For tenders notified from 21 to 27 February 2003, pursuant to the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 899/2002, the maximum refund on exportation of common wheat shall be EUR 10,00/t.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 28 February 2003.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 27 February 2003. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
COUNCIL DECISION of 30 March 1995 authorizing the Federal Republic of Germany and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to apply a measure derogating from Article 3 of the Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes (95/114/EC)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes - Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (1), and in particular Article 27 thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,
Whereas, pursuant to Article 27 (1) of Directive 77/388/EEC, the Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission, may authorize any Member State to introduce special measures for derogation from that Directive in order to simplify the procedure for charging the tax or to prevent certain types of tax evasion and advoidance;
Whereas, by official letters, received by the Commission on 4 July and 17 August 1994 respectively, the Federal Republic of Germany and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg have requested authorization to introduce a special measure concerning the construction and maintenance of a transfrontier motorway bridge crossing the river Moselle to the north of Perl and Schengen and linking the German A8 motorway going west from Saarbruecken with the Luxembourg A13 motorway going east from the Dudelange motorway junction;
Whereas, in accordance with Article 27 (3) of Directive 77/388/EEC the other Member States were informed on 16 September 1994 of the requests for authorization received from the Federal Republic of Germany and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg;
Whereas in the absence of a special measure, for each supply of goods and services used for the construction and maintenance of the bridge in question it would have to be established whether the place of taxation was in Germany or Luxembourg; whereas such taxation arrangements would give rise to considerable practical difficulties;
Whereas the purpose of this derogation is to simplify the procedure for charging the tax on the construction and maintenance of the bridge in question;
Whereas the derogation will not affect the amount of tax due at the final consumption stage and will therefore not affect the Community's own resources arising from value added tax,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
By way of derogation from Article 3 of Directive 77/388/EEC, the Federal Republic of Germany and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg are hereby authorized, in respect of the motorway bridge over the river Moselle to the north of Perl and Schengen linking the German A8 motorway going west from Saarbruecken with the Luxembourg A13 motorway going east from the Dudelange motorway junction, to consider, for the duration of the construction of the bridge, the whole of the construction site as being within the territory of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, and, with effect from the completion of the bridge, the whole of the bridge to be within the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany.
Article 2
This Decision is addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
Done at Brussels, 30 March 1995. | [
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1003/2006
of 30 June 2006
fixing the representative prices and the additional import duties for molasses in the sugar sector applicable from 1 July 2006
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 of 20 February 2006 on the common organisation of the market in sugar (1), and in particular Article 27(2) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), stipulates that the cif import price for molasses is to be considered the representative price. That price is fixed for the standard quality defined in Article 27 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006.
(2)
For the purpose of fixing the representative prices, account must be taken of all the information provided for in Article 29 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, except in the cases provided for in Article 30 of that Regulation and those prices should be fixed, where appropriate, in accordance with the method provided for in Article 33 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006.
(3)
Prices not referring to the standard quality should be adjusted upwards or downwards, according to the quality of the molasses offered, in accordance with Article 32 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006.
(4)
Where there is a difference between the trigger price for the product concerned and the representative price, additional import duties should be fixed under the terms laid down in Article 39 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006. Should the import duties be suspended pursuant to Article 40 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, specific amounts for these duties should be fixed.
(5)
The representative prices and additional import duties for the products concerned should be fixed in accordance with Article 34 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006.
(6)
The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sugar,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The representative prices and the additional duties applying to imports of the products referred to in Article 34 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 are fixed in the Annex hereto.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 July 2006.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 30 June 2006. | [
0,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
COUNCIL DECISION of 24 September 1998 on the conclusion of the Additional Protocol to the Interim Agreement on trade and trade-related matters between the European Community, the European Coal and Steel Community and the European Atomic Energy Community, of the one part, and the Republic of Slovenia, of the other part, and to the Europe Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Slovenia, of the other part (98/658/EC)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 113 in conjunction with the first sentence of Article 228(2) thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,
Whereas the Commission has negotiated on behalf of the Communities an Additional Protocol to the Interim Agreement on trade and trade-related matters and to the Europe Agreement with the Republic of Slovenia;
Whereas it is necessary to approve this Additional Protocol,
HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Article 1
The Additional Protocol to the Interim Agreement on trade and trade-related matters between the European Community, the European Coal and Steel Community and the European Atomic Energy Community, of the one part, and the Republic of Slovenia, of the other part, and to the Europe Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, acting within the framework of the European Union, of the one part, and the Republic of Slovenia, of the other part, is hereby approved on behalf of the European Communities.
The text of the Additional Protocol is attached to this Decision.
Article 2
The President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person empowered to sign the Additional Protocol in order to bind the Community.
The President of the Council shall, on behalf of the Community, give the notification provided for in Article 3 of the Additional Protocol.
Done at Brussels, 24 September 1998. | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 3935/92 of 30 December 1992 amending Regulation (EEC) No 3855/89 laying down rules for implementing the import arrangements applicable to products falling within CN codes 0714 10 91, 0714 10 99, 0714 90 11 and 0714 90 19 and originating in the People's Republic of China
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 430/87 of 9 February 1987 concerning the import arrangements applicable to products falling within CN codes 0714 10 99, 0714 90 11 and 0714 90 19 and originating in certain third countries (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3909/92 (2), and in particular Article 2 thereof,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2727/75 of 29 October 1975 on the common organization of the market in cereals (3), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1738/92 (4), and in particular Article 12 (2) thereof,
Whereas Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3855/89 (5) lays down the detailed rules for administering the quota for manioc and similar products which the People's Republic of China may export to the Community at a levy subject to a ceiling of 6 % ad valorem; whereas that Regulation makes no provision for measures to be adopted where the quantities actually unloaded are less than the quantities appearing in the import licence or licences covering the operation; whereas, in accordance with the outcome of the consultations between the Commission and the Chinese authorities, provision should be made to carry forward the quantities found to be short for the benefit of the People's Republic of China as is customary for certain other exporting countries;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The following Article 10a is hereby inserted in Regulation (EEC) No 3855/89:
'Article 10a
1. Where it is found during release for free circulation that the quantities actually imported from and originating in the People's Republic of China are less than those stated in Sections 17 and 18 of import licences, the customs offices shall certify the quantities found to be short on the back of import licences.
2. By the end of the first six months of the following year at the latest, the Member States issuing the licences shall forward to the Commission a full list of quantities not imported, quoting the numbers of the relevant import licences and the names of the vessels concerned.
3. The Commission shall determine the total quantities found to be short on importation under cover of valid import licences and, where appropriate, shall carry those quantities forward to the quota authorized for the year following that during which the imports in question took place.'
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 30 December 1992. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 496/2000
of 6 March 2000
laying down measures for the application of Article 6(1a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 on the common organisation of the market in wine
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 of 16 March 1987 on the common organisation of the market in wine(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1677/1999(2), and in particular Article 6(1a) and (4) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) The production potential arrangements provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine(3) involve the granting of new planting rights, within a certain limit. These arrangements enter into force on 1 August 2000. The urgent need for additional rights in certain wine-growing regions has led the Council to amend Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 to permit Member States to grant some of the newly created rights in advance.
(2) Under Article 6(1a) of Regulation (EEC) No 822/87, as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1677/1999, the Member States may grant authorisation for new planting from 1 January 2000 until the end of the 1999/2000 wine year by using up to 20 % of the newly created planting rights allocating to them under Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999. These rights must be used in compliance with the provisions of Title II, Chapter I of that Regulation.
(3) Sound management of the system of allocating new planting rights under Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999, ensuring market equilibrium, requires knowledge of the exact situation with regard to the production potential involved.
(4) The Council acknowledges this requirement in Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999, in which it indicates that, to encourage Member States to compile an inventory, access to the regularisation of unlawfully planted areas, the increase in planting rights and support for restructuring and conversion should be limited to those who have compiled an inventory.
(5) It is therefore essential in such cases to determine the data relating to production potential before new rights are granted so as to avoid the risk of market disruption.
(6) The Management Committee for Wine has not delivered an opinion within the time limit laid down by its chairman,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Member States may grant the new planting rights referred to in Article 6(1a) of Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 only if information on wine potential as referred to in Article 2 of this Regulation has been submitted to the Commission. Member States must base on objective criteria their recognition that, owing to its quality, production of a quality wine psr or a table wine described by means of a geographical indication is far below demand.
Article 2
1. The information referred to in paragraph 2 may be broken down by region. It may also be presented for one region only.
2. Information must be submitted on:
(a) the total wine-growing area:
(i) broken down by category of wine in the case of areas planted with vines classified as wine-grape varieties (quality wines psr and table wines) including the area suitable for the production of wines described by a geographical indication; areas planted under each variety in excess of 5 % of the total area shall also be indicated; areas planted with varieties below that percentage shall be shown under "Other".
(ii) given separately in the case of areas planted with both vines classified as wine-grape varieties and varieties destined for another use; areas planted under each variety in excess of 5 % of the total area shall also be indicated; for this area class also, areas planted with varieties below that percentage shall be shown under "Other";
(b) the area of valid planting rights broken down into:
(i) new planting rights:
- granted to producers each marketing year,
- used for the same marketing year;
(ii) replanting rights held by producers.
3. The Commission must also be informed of the source(s) of the above information.
The information in point 2 should refer to:
- a historical reference year (to be fixed by the Member State),
- 1998, based on final figures,
- 1999, based on final or provisional figures.
Article 3
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 6 March 2000. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 114/2002
of 23 January 2002
determining the extent to which applications submitted in January 2002 for import licences for the tariff quota for beef and veal provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 2475/2000 for the Republic of Slovenia can be accepted
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2673/2000 of 6 December 2000 laying down detailed rules for the application of the tariff quota for beef and veal provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 2475/2000 for the Republic of Slovenia(1), and in particular Article 4(4) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2673/2000 fixes the quantity of fresh or chilled beef and veal originating in Slovenia which may be imported under special conditions from 1 January to 30 June 2002. The quantity of meat for which import licences have been submitted is such that applications may be granted in full.
(2) Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2673/2000 lays down that if, during the year of importation in question, the quantity for which licence applications are submitted for the first period specified in the preceding recital is less than the quantity available, the remaining quantity is to be added to the quantity available for the following period. In view of the quantity remaining for the first period, the quantity available for the country concerned for the second period, from 1 July to 31 December 2002, should be specified,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
1. Import licences shall be granted for the full quantities covered by applications submitted for the quota referred to in Regulation (EC) No 2673/2000 for the period 1 January to 30 June 2002.
2. The quantity available for the period referred to in Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2673/2000 running from 1 July to 31 December 2002 shall be 10420 t.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 24 January 2002.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 23 January 2002. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 487/89 of 27 February 1989 on the supply of olive oil as food aid
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3972/86 of 22 December 1986 on food-aid policy and food-aid management (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1870/88 (2), and in particular Article 6 (1) (c) thereof,
Whereas Council Regulation (EEC) No 1420/87 of 21 May 1987 laying down implementing rules for Regulation (EEC) No 3972/86 on food-aid policy and food-aid management (3) lays down the list of countries and organizations eligible for food-aid operations and specifies the general criteria on the transport of food aid beyond the fob stage;
Whereas following the taking of a decision on the allocation of food aid the Commission has allocated to to Algeria 1 200 tonnes of olive oil;
Whereas it is necessary to provide for the carrying-out of this measure in accordance with the rules laid down by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2200/87 of 8 July 1987 laying down general rules for the mobilization in the Community of products to be supplied as Community food aid (4); whereas it is necessary to specify the time limits and conditions of supply and the procedure to be followed to determine the resultant costs,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Olive oil shall be mobilized in the Community, as Community food aid for supply to the recipients listed in the Annex in accordance with Regulation (EEC) No 2200/87 and under the conditions set out in the Annex Supplies shall be awarded by the tendering procedure.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 27 February 1989. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
*****
COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 3785/87
of 14 December 1987
extending Regulation (EEC) No 3972/86 on food-aid policy and food-aid management
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Article 235 thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,
Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (1),
Whereas Regulation (EEC) No 3972/86 (1) is applicable until 31 December 1987 and whereas it should be extended for a period of six months;
Whereas the Treaty has not provided the necessary powers, other than those of Article 235,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
In the second paragraph of Article 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 3972/86, '31 December 1987' is replaced by '30 June 1988'.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 January 1988.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 14 December 1987. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
*****
COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 2072/90
of 16 July 1990
laying down, in respect of hops, the amount of aid to producers for the 1989 harvest
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Article 43 thereof,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1696/71 of 26 July 1971 on the common organization of the market in hops (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3998/87 (2), and in particular Article 12 (7) thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission (3),
Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (4),
Wheras Article 12 of Regulation (EEC) No 1696/71 provides that the aid may be granted to hop producers to enable them to achieve a fair income; whereas the amount of this aid is fixed per hectare and differs according to varieties, taking into account the average return on the areas in full production compared with the average returns for previous harvests, the current position of the market and trends in costs;
Whereas an examination of the results of the 1989 harvest shows the need to fix aid for groups of varieties of hops cultivated in the Community,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
1. For the 1989 harvest, aid shall be granted to the producers of hops cultivated in the Community for the groups of varieties set out in the Annex.
2. The amount of the aid for each group of varieties shall be as set out in the Annex.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 16 July 1990. | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
*****
COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 3129/86
of 13 October 1986
amending Regulation (EEC) No 2915/79 with regard to the inclusion of vacherin mont d'or cheese in subheading 04.04 A of the Common Customs Tariff and amending Regulation (EEC) No 950/68 on the Common Customs Tariff
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 of 27 June 1968 on the common organization of the market in milk and milk products (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1335/86 (2), and in particular Article 14 (6) thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,
Whereas Council Regulation (EEC) No 2915/79 of 18 December 1979 determining the groups of products and the special provisions for calculating levies on milk and milk products and amending Regulation (EEC) No 950/68 on the Common Customs Tariff (3), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 748/86 (4), provides for reduced levies for certain types of cheese;
Whereas the additional agreements concluded between the European Economic Community and EFTA countries following the accession of Spain and Portugal admit vacherin mont d'or cheese to the list of cheeses qualifying for the reduced levy; whereas, accordingly, this cheese must be inserted under subheading 04.04 A of the Common Customs Tariff and for this purpose the descriptions of goods listed in Annex II (a) and (b) of Regulation (EEC) No 2915/79 must be supplemented and vacherin mont d'or cheese added by way of exception;
Whereas Council Regulation (EEC) No 774/86 of 28 February 1986 laying down the arrangements applicable to trade in certain agricultural products with Austria, Finland, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland as a result of the accession of Spain and Portugal (5) authorizes the above change as from 1 March 1986 pending the entry into force of the aforementioned agreements;
Whereas the tariff nomenclature resulting from the application of Regulation (EEC) No 2915/79 is taken from the Common Customs Tariff; whereas the Common Customs Tariff adopted by Regulation (EEC) No 950/68 (6), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1355/86 (7), should therefore be amended,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
1. Points (a) and (b) in Annex II to Regulation (EEC) No 2915/79 are hereby replaced by the following:
1.2 // // // 'CCT heading No // Description // // // a) ex 04.04 A // Emmentaler, Gruyère, Sbrinz, Bergkaese, Appenzell, vacherin fribourgeois, vacherin mont d'or and tête de moine, not grated or powdered, of a minimum fat content of 45 % of weight in the dry matter, matured for at least 18 days in the case of vacherin mont d'or, at least two months in the case of vacherin fribourgeois and at least three months in the other cases: // // - Whole cheeses with rind, of a free-at-frontier value of not less than 348,46 ECU and less than 372,64 ECU per 100 kg net weight // // - Pieces packed in vacuum or inert gas, with rind on at least one side, of a net weight of not less than 1 kg but less than 5 kg and of a free-at-frontier value of not less than 372,64 ECU and less 1.
1.2 // // // CCT heading No // Description // // // b) ex 04.04 A // Emmentaler, Gruyère, Sbrinz, Bergkaese, Appenzell, vacherin fribourgeois, vacherin mont d'or and tête de moine, not grated or powdered, of a minimum fat content of 45 % by weight in the dry matter, matured for at least 18 days in the case of vacherin mont d'or, at least two months in the case of vacherin fribourgeois and at least three months in the other cases: // // - Whole cheeses with rind, of a free-at-frontier value of not less than 372,64 ECU per 100 kg net weight // // - Pieces packed in vacuum or inert gas, with rind on at least one side, of a net weight of not less than 1 kg and a free-at-frontier value of not less than 396,82 ECU per 100 kg net weight // // - Pieces packed in vacuum or inert gas, of a net weight of not more than 450 g and of a free-at-frontier value of not less than 430,67 ECU per 100 kg net weight' // //
2. In the Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 950/68, the description of the goods under subheading 04.04 A is hereby replaced by the following:
'A. Emmentaler, Gruyère, Sbrinz, Berkaese, Appenzell, vacherin fribourgeois, vacherin mont d'or and tête de moine, not grated or powdered'.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
It shall apply with effect from 1 September 1986.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Luxembourg, 13 October 1986. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
COMMISSION DECISION of 20 September 1995 declaring a concentration to be compatible with the common market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement (Case IV/M.582 - Orkla/Volvo) (Only the English text is authentic) (Text with EEA relevance) (96/204/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (1), and in particular Article 8 (2) thereof,
Having regard to the EEA Agreement, and in particular Article 57 (1) thereof,
Having regard to the Commission decision of 23 May 1995 to initiate proceedings in the case,
Having given the undertakings concerned the opportunity to make known their views on the objections raised by the Commission,
Having regard to the opinion of the Advisory Committee on Concentrations (2),
Whereas:
(1) On 18 April 1995 AB Fortos and Orkla AS notified the Commission of a proposed concentration by which they intend to combine their respective beverage interests into a new joint venture.
(2) After examination of the notification the Commission has concluded that the notified concentration falls within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 4064/89 and falls to be assessed by the Commission in cooperation with the EFTA Surveillance Authority in accordance with Article 58 of and Protocol 24 to the EEA Agreement.
I. THE PARTIES
(3) AB Fortos ('Fortos`) is a wholly-owned subsidiary of AB Volvo ('Volvo`), the Swedish motor vehicle group. Fortos, in turn is owner of BCP Branded Consumer Products AB ('BCP`) which owns AB Pripps, Bryggerier ('Pripps`), a Swedish beverage company, and Hansa Bryggeri A/S ('Hansa`) another beverage company which is based in and operates in Norway. Fortos is also the owner of Falcon Bryggerier AB ('Falcon`) which is a company producing beer, soft drinks and mineral water in Sweden.
(4) Orkla AS ('Orkla`) is a Norwegian company whose activities are concentrated in branded consumer products, chemicals and financial investments. Orkla owns the whole of the share capital of Ringnes A/S ('Ringnes`), a Norwegian beverage producer.
II. THE OPERATION
(5) The operation involves the creation, by Fortos and Orkla, of a jointly-owned beverage company 'BCP-JV`. This will be achieved by the creation of a new company [. . .] (3). The result of these steps in that the interests of Orkla and Fortos in Pripps, Hansa and Ringnes will be owned by BCP-JV. This company will produce, market and distribute a range of beers, soft drinks and mineral waters in both Sweden and Norway. These beverages include both those manufactured under its own name and those produced under licence, e.g. Carlsberg, Coca-Cola, etc.
(6) It is the aim of BCP-JV to become a significant, Scandinavian, beverage operation which is able to compete in a market which is expanding and becoming more international in nature. With this in mind, it is indicated in the business plan of the joint venture that the involvement of other shareholders will be sought, including [. . .] (4).
III. COMMUNITY/EEA DIMENSION
(7) Volvo and Orkla have a combined aggregate worldwide turnover of ECU 19 543 million; both companies also have a Community-wide turnover in excess of ECU 250 million (that of Volvo being ECU [. . .] (5) million and Orkla ECU [. . .] (6) million) of which not more than two-thirds is achieved in one and the same Member State. The operation therefore has a Community dimension.
(8) Both Volvo and Orkla have turnovers exceeding ECU 250 million in the territory of the EFTA States. Consequently, this case falls to be assessed by the Commission, in cooperation with the EFTA-Surveillance Authority, in accordance with Article 58 and Protocol 24 of the EEA Agreement.
(9) According to Article 8 of and Protocol 3 to the EEA Agreement, products set out at point 2202 of the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System and beers brewed from substances other than malt are not covered by the Agreement. This Decision is based on Article 57 of the EEA Agreement in accordance with the merger regulation and therefore does not relate to the Norwegian market for these products. However, these products are considered in so far as their production and distribution is relevant for the purpose of the assessment set out below for Norway.
IV. CONCENTRATION
Joint control
(10) Fortos and Orkla will own, respectively, 49 and 51 % of the shares of BCP-JV: however, BCP-JV is to issue a convertible bond by means of which Fortos's financial stake in BCP-JV will increase to 55 % and Orkla's interest will fall to 45 %.
(11) The parties have agreed to enter into a shareholders' agreement which provides that Fortos and Orkla will have equal influence over BCP-JV. Decisions affecting the development of commercial policy and competitive strategy, adoption and implementation of annual and long-term budgets and business plans as well as decisions regarding strategic or financial objectives shall be taken jointly by Fortos and Orkla.
(12) BCP-JV's board of directors will consist of four members with both Fortos and Orkla appointing two each. The chairman, who will be appointed jointly, will be one of the Orkla board members but will have no casting vote.
(13) The parties have prepared and jointly approved a business plan for the period 1995 to 1998 which indicates the direction BCP-JV intends to follow and the financial savings and positions that will result from the operation.
(14) On the basis of the foregoing it can be concluded that BCP-JV will be jointly controlled by Orkla and Fortos.
Autonomous economic entity
(15) The three beverage companies involved in the transaction, Hansa, Pripps and Ringnes, currently operate as independent companies in Norway and Sweden. BCP-JV will acquire the assets and liabilities of these existing undertakings including trademarks and know-how. The shareholders are to invest financial resources in BCP-JV which are sufficient to enable it to fulfil its plans to become an independent operator and a significant, international, beverage company.
(16) Consequently, BCP-JV will be an autonomous, economic entity.
Cooperative aspects
(17) In addition to its sake in BCP-JV, Fortos also retains a majority shareholding in Falcon, another beverage company active in the Swedish market. However, Orkla will leave the beverage market through the creation of BCP-JV and consequently it is apparent that coordination can not arise as only one parent, Fortos, remains active in the market of the joint venture (7). Therefore the operation does not lead to any relevant risk of coordination.
(18) Consequently, it is concluded that BCP-JV is concentrate in nature and that the present operation constitutes a concentration within the meaning of Article 3 of the merger regulation.
V. RELEVANT PRODUCT MARKETS
(19) The parties have identified three relevant product markets principally affected by the creation of BCP-JV being; beer, carbonated soft drinks (CSD) and mineral water. As regards CSD in Norway, the Commission is not competent (as explained in paragraph 9) to undertake any assessment in respect of BCP-JV. For Sweden no overlap for CSD occurs and no threat to potential competition (due to the power of international licensors such as Coca-Cola) takes place. Consequently, whilst not concluding that CSDs are a relevant product market in themselves, they are not assessed further in this Decision. Non-carbonated soft drinks account for a very small volume in Norway and Sweden and therefore have not been analysed separately.
Beer
(a) Norway
(20) Beer is classified by alcoholic strength by volume (ABV) as shown in the table below which also indicates the rates of excise duty applicable to each level of alcoholic strength:
TABLE
TABLE
(21) Accordingly it has to be considered whether the above beer classification needs to be taken into account in defining the different relevant product markets. The revised beer classes, which were introduced with effect from 1 January 1995, do not change the assessment set out below.
(22) It is important to note that the consumption of Class II beer is dominant in Norway accounting for some 90 % (8) of total consumption in both 1993 and 1994.
(23) The Norwegian Lov om omsetning av alkoholholdig drikk m.v. of 2 June 1989 No 27 ('Alcohol Act 1989`) restricts, in Section 3-1, the sale of Class III beers to the AS Vinmonopolet (the State-owned retail monopoly) or to the hotel and catering industry if the outlet has the appropriate licence from the local authority. Such beers accounted for less than 1 % (9) of total consumption in 1993 and 1994. Similarly there is limited evidence to suggest that consumers substitute Class 0 beers for CSD: such beers accounted for some 3 % (10) of total consumption in 1993 and 1994.
(24) Class III and Class 0 beers account for very small amounts of total consumption and the competitive assessment of the case would not be affected if these products were defined as separate product markets or not.
Substitution of Class II beer
(25) It is necessary to assess whether any substitution of Class II beers ('pils`) takes place in respect to other beverages. At the outset it is considered that as both the intermediate and the ultimate consumer buys pils beer for its alcoholic properties and taste they are unlikely to wish to substitute it for another beverage.
(26) As regards price differences between pils beers and other non-alcoholic drinks it is apparent that brewery retail list prices show a considerable difference between the products, e.g. 0,5 litre of Coca-Cola being some 50 % of the price of the equivalent volume of pils beer. Whilst not strictly comparable, such a difference is repeated for other alcoholic beverages: the lowest retail list price of the AS Vinmonopolet for a bottle of wine is currently some NOK 60, the brewery retail list price of a 0,7 litre bottle of pils beer is some NOK 14. Therefore in terms of price alone there is unlikely to be substitution between these products.
(27) Such price differences are repeated for the ultimate customer. For the retail sector customers are typically faced with prices three to four times higher for beer when compared to CSD. Similarly, in the hotel and catering industry pils beer is an estimated 40 % more expensive than an equivalent amount of CSD. Consequently in terms of price alone there is unlikely to be substitution between these products by the ultimate consumer.
(28) Therefore it is concluded that there is no likelihood of substitution between pils beers and the other products mentioned above.
Different competitive environments between the retail trade and the hotel and catering industry
(29) Canadean Limited's The 1995 West Europe Beer Report (the 'Canadean Report`) which is a generally used source in the sector, categories the sale of beer between sales by the retail trade and sales by the hotel and catering industry. The report concludes that the division between these two types of customer amounted to 75 %/25 % respectively for both 1993 and 1994 in Norway. Therefore it is necessary to investigate whether the relations between suppliers and these customer types result in different competitive environments for these categories of customers.
(30) The retail industry comprises four retail chains which account for some 97 % of the Norwegian grocery market with these stores stocking a wide range of bottled beers which is, in general, the only form available to the retail trade. This fact differentiates it from the hotel and catering industry where the bulk of supplies are made by way of tank or keg (barrel). The means of distribution is, in general, similar for both with the brewery delivering beer from the brewery to the retail store or bar or restaurant.
(31) The retail trade, in general, is supplied with beer at list prices which are lower than the equivalent prices to the hotel and catering industry; on the other hand the hotel and catering industry benefits from discounts to a greater degree than those available to the retail trade. The resulting net prices are, in general, lower for the hotel and catering industry than the retail trade.
(32) The ultimate customer in the hotel and catering industry is purchasing a product that differs from the retail industry in so far as the customer is buying a degree of service and atmosphere not present in the retail industry when the beer is consumed at home. This fact has been recognized by the European Court of Justice which has stated that 'From the consumer's point of view, the latter sector, comprising in particular public houses and restaurants, may be distinguished from the retail sector on the grounds that the sale of beer in public houses does not solely consist of the purchase of a product but is also linked with the provision of services . . . it follows that in the present case the reference market is that for the distribution of beer in premises for the sale and consumption of drinks` (11).
(33) Finally, it is unlikely that the hotel and catering industry would purchase bottled beer from retail outlets for sale in bars, etc. This is because the hotel and catering industry would find it impractical to handle and transport the bottled volumes required between the two types of sale outlet.
(34) For all the above reasons the Commission has concluded that the relevant product markets are the sale of beer to the retail and hotel and catering industries.
(b) Sweden
(35) As in Norway beer is categorized into classes according to its alcoholic strength as follows:
TABLE
(36) The market shares of these various classes, which differ in their stratification to Norway, are much less divergent in Sweden with Class I having 17 % of the total volume of the beer market in 1994, Class II 49 % and Class III 34 %.
(37) The Systembolaget (the Swedish State retail sales, alcohol monopoly), which generally sells Class III beer, plays a more important role in the market for beer, accounting for some 18 % of total beer consumption in 1994, than the AS Vinmonopolet in Norway which has sales accounting for less than 1 % of total beer consumption. In this respect it is understood that the Swedish competition authority has previously split beer into different product markets according to its alcoholic class.
(38) However as noted below there is no overlap between the parties in the beer market in Sweden. Therefore, it is not necessary to have a precise conclusion on this point for the assessment of this case and the assessment set out below only relates to the possible adverse effects of the exclusion of a potential competitor.
Bottled water
(39) The parties both sell bottled water in Norway: Ringnes [. . .] (12) million litres (a share of [. . .] (13) of sales of bottled water in Norway) and Hansa with [. . .] (14) million litres (share of [. . .] ) (15). Bottled water in Norway is an emerging market with relatively low consumption per capita, at about six to eight litres, and growing at high rates (30 % in 1994). This level of consumption is in strong contrast with the level of consumption in more mature markets, such as France (97 litres per capita per year), Italy (94 litres) or Germany (85 litres). Bottled water in Norway is bottled not only from a source but also from the tap water used to manufacture soft drinks. Therefore, and because of the absence of any brand image of this product for Norwegian consumers and the absence of barriers to entry, any bottler of soft drinks in Norway can easily produce and market bottled water. The market is in a phase of take-off and is not characterized by the proliferation of brands typical of more developed markets nor by the commercial barriers characterizing mature markets (in terms of massive advertising, access to shelf space and brand notoriety).
(40) In view of the initial take-off stage of the bottled water consumption in Norway, of the specific characteristics of the market outlined above and the lack of any significant barriers to entry in terms of brand support and advertising or saturation of the market, it is unlikely that the operation will significantly impede effective competition. In any event it has to be noted that the undertakings submitted by the parties in this case imply de facto, through the sale of Hansa's bottling assets, that there will be no reinforcement of Ringnes's previous position.
VI. THE RELEVANT GEOGRAPHIC MARKETS
(41) The main impact of the notified operation will be felt in Norway. Ringnes does not have any significant sales or market share for beverages in Sweden, so the overlap of the parties' activities and any possible competition concern under the merger regulation with the notified operation will therefore arise in Norway. The analysis will focus on Norway and will deal with Sweden to the extent that Ringnes could be a potential competitor to the Swedish breweries.
Beer
Brands
(42) Beer is a consumer product sold generally in glass bottles and under a brand name. In particular in Norway, domestic brands such as Hansa and Ringnes, and also a number of Norwegian brands sold mainly in certain regional areas, account for most (over 90 %) of consumption. The main foreign brands sold in Norway under licence (Carlsberg, Heineken, Tuborg and Guinness) and in most cases adapted to Norwegian alcohol specifications, represent together 10,6 million litres, i. e. around 5 % of consumption by volume (source: report of the Association of Norwegian Soft-drink Producers and Brewers).
Distribution
(43) Beer is a bulky product, subject to significant transport costs. The incidence of transport is particularly high in Norway for two basic reasons: the geographic conditions of Norway, where distances by road tend to be large and the fact that beer is distributed directly from the breweries to each retail outlet, be it in the food retailing or the hotel and catering markets. In Norway, most food products are distributed by wholesalers, in several cases linked to the large food retailing chains. The only exceptions to the general system are currently beverages, tobacco and fresh agricultural products, which are delivered by the producers to each selling point. The sale in Norway of beverages, and in particular beer, requires therefore the setting up of a dense distribution network, entailing significant costs and time. Such a distribution network could only be used for beverages and would have few alternative uses, since the retailing chains and their associated wholesalers have taken over distribution to their selling points for all other packaged food products. The impact of transport and distribution costs has confined a number of breweries in Norway to a regional dimension, in the sense that they concentrate the bulk of their sales in their home and surrounding districts.
Legal barriers isolating the Norwegian market
(44) There are a number of regulatory barriers that hinder the development of imports into Norway, and that, in any case, hamper seriously the price competitiveness of imported beer into Norway. These barriers are related to the alcohol legislation and the environmental taxes applied in Norway.
Alcohol legislation
(45) The basic regulatory texts applicable in Norway are The Alcohol Act of 1989 and the Beer Act of 1912. According to these regulations, sales of beers with an alcohol content by volume (abv) higher than 7 % are prohibited in Norway. Sales of beers with an abv higher than 4,75 % are restricted to the outlets of the AS Vinmonopolet (State Monopoly) and to hotels and restaurants that are licensed to serve these beers. These types of beers cannot be sold in foodstores with the consequence that while beers below 4,75 % abv can potentially be sold in around 5 300 outlets, the Vinmonopolet only has about 110 sales points. In order to appreciate the effects on possible imports of this legislation, it has to be noted that the typical abv of beers produced in the EU is between 5 and 5,5 %. This fact has been confirmed by both importers of beer into Norway and the leading breweries in the European Union.
(46) Beers with an abv above 4,75 % (generally imported beers) have therefore traditionally been taxed nearly twice as much as beers below 4,75 % (generally brewed by Norwegian firms). From the figures on prices supplied by the parties, it appears that the tax represents about two-thirds of the manufacturers' prices for a typical bottle of beer, so the effect of the tax is significant as to the price competitiveness of beers produced outside Norway. The tax per bottle of a typical pils will represent around 45 % of the retail price so the tax has an important impact on prices to consumers.
(47) Sections 8-12 and 9-2 of the Alcohol Act of 1989 prohibit discounts on the sales of beer to consumers and the advertising of beers with an abv above 2,5 %. This has the consequence of severely restricting the introduction of new beers into Norway, since it effectively limits the use of important marketing activities (advertising and promotions on selling points) to induce consumers to switch to new brands.
(48) Finally, the Beer Act of 1912 requires that all beer sold in Norway shall indicate its tax class on the label, the indication of the alcohol content being insufficient. This further complicates the imports of beers by requiring re-labelling of imported beer.
Environmental legislation
(49) Bottles that are not re-used or re-filled in Norway (one-way bottles) bear a special tax on the basis of environmental legislation. This tax represents a basic amount of Nkr 0,7 per bottle plus a variable, additional tax of a minimum of Nkr 3 per bottle which is reduced according to the rate of recycling of one-way bottles. Currently this additional tax represents Nkr 1,05 per bottle. Finally, a fee of Nkr 0,08 per bottle is paid to the company carrying out the recycling of glass containers. The total charge for bottles that are not re-used or re-filled in Norway amounts therefore to Nkr 1,83 per bottle, to be compared to a manufacturer's price of around Nkr 2,5 per bottle of 35 cl excluding taxes. Domestically bottled beer does not bear this environmental tax, since Norwegian brewers have set up a system to collectively recollect and re-use all beer bottles. Cans, the other traditional container for beer, still pay a higher tax, since there is no reduction as yet on the Nkr 3 tax per can. Cans are almost absent from the Norwegian market for beer. They represent an estimated 0,4 % of total consumption in Norway (source: Canadean Report).
Trade flows
(50) According to the notification, imports are estimated to represent 2,6 % of consumption in Norway in 1994. These imports are concentrated on Class 0 and Class II beers and target the city areas of the south. Statistics of the Confederation des Brasseurs du Marché Commun (CBMC), and the Canadean report show that imports of beer into Norway have remained at below 1 % of consumption in the period 1980 to 1991, and increased to 1,5 % in 1993. Imports have therefore significantly increased in 1994. Market operators attribute this increase to the removal of the purity law in Norway, the removal of the Vinmonopolet monopoly to import beer, and the acceptance in Norway of bottles of standard 33 cl size with the entry into force of the EEA Agreement in 1994. In spite of the significant increase of imports into Norway in this year, imports still remain very low when compared to other countries. In Sweden and in the Community, imports represented around 7 to 8 % of consumption in 1994 (source: Canadean report) and have considerably grown in terms of share of consumption since 1990. According to a Norwegian importer of beer, imports are not likely to increase further unless the legislation is changed in Norway; under the current legislation it estimates imports cannot exceed 2 to 3 % of consumption.
(51) Similarly there are few exports: Ringnes's beer exports amounted to [. . .] (16) of its sales in 1994. Hansa did not make any exports and, as these two companies account for the greater portion of Norwegian production, they can be taken as being indicative of the market as a whole. General sources (The Association of Norwegian Soft-drink Producers and Brewers and the Canadean report) indicate that exports represent less than 1 % of production.
Negotiations with clients
(52) Both in the hotel and catering and food retailing markets, the Norwegian suppliers negotiate directly with Norwegian customers. In spite of the progressive internationalization of food retailers, through mergers or alliances, all Norwegian breweries consulted by the Commission in its enquiry have stated that no negotiations, in particular regarding prices and discounts, are carried out directly with the international alliances of retailing chains.
Views of market operators
(53) Finally, the international brewers together with Norwegian national brewers contacted by the Commission consider that the Norwegian beer market is national in character with the international brewers confirming the above difficulties for import penetration.
Conclusion
(54) In view of the characteristics of the beer consumed in Norway, the impact of general and specific legislation in Norway affecting beer and bottles, the specificities of distribution of beer in Norway, the negligible trade flows between Norway and other countries, and the views of breweries and importers consulted by the Commission in its enquiry, it is concluded that the Norwegian beer market is national in character.
(55) To a certain extent, the market in Sweden represents similar characteristics, although it is more open to imports. In any case, since there is no overlap of the parties' activities in Sweden, the only possible competition concerns might arise with respect to Ringnes being a potential entrant in Sweden. Therefore the precise geographic market definition may be left open for the purposes of assessing the present case.
VII. ASSESSMENT
Norway
(a) Overall market position of the parties
(56) The parties have calculated their market shares, in the relevant product and geographic markets defined above as follows.
(57) TABLE
(58) In arriving at their calculation of market share the parties have employed the Canadean Report together with data from the Norwegian Soft-Drinks Association and Brewers report adjusted for imports and breweries which are not members of the Association.
(59) The Commission has recalculated this market, in respect of 1994, employing the same sources but also taking into account data supplied by the parties' competitors in Norway. The total market thereby established is some [ . . . ] (17) million litres greater which would reduce the parties' combined market share, in 1994, to [ . . . ] (18).
(b) Beer sold to food retailers
(i) Structure of supply
(60) The consumption of beer in the take-home segment in Norway in million litres (Canadean report), the parties' sales and their market share can be estimated as follows:
TABLE
(61) The main competitors of the parties are Mack, located in Tromsø and with about two-thirds of its sales concentrated in the north of Norway, Christianssand ('CB`) located in the County of Agder and concentrating the bulk of its sales in the south of Norway, and Borg and Aass, both located near Oslo and concentrating the bulk of their respective sales in the south east of Norway. All of these competitors have a market share in the retail market below 10 %. Ringnes has several breweries and bottling plants spread over Norway, so its sales of beer are in a strict sense, the only ones being distributed on a national basis. Hansa's plant is located in Bergen, and its beers are distributed mainly on the west coast of Norway.
(62) None of the competitors offer a national brand to compete with Ringnes national brand, and none of them has a national distribution network. Only the Hansa brand is sometimes qualified as a national brand or as an emerging national brand in Norway by food retailers and competitors of the parties.
(63) Norwegian breweries carry significant excess capacity. Brewing capacity can be estimated with a certain accuracy. The parties have submitted in their notification that Moss, CB, Mack, Borg, Aass and Grans carry a combined brewing excess capacity of 90 million litres, representing around 40 % of production in Norway. However, increases in production of beer to be sold to food retailers without incurring significant investment costs are dependent on tank capacity and bottling capacity as well. Bottling capacity is more difficult to estimate, since it can be increased by increasing the number of shifts. Indications by the parties themselves and competitors indicate however, that there is indeed certain excess capacity. It is accepted that there are indications that production of beer in Norway can materially be increased by both the parties and their competitors.
(64) However, it is more doubtful that competitors could increase their production to compete with the merged entity, if for instance, prices were to increase as a result of the proposed merger. There are three basic issues to consider in this respect: the distribution costs, the access to retailers' shelves and the pricing policies followed in the past by the Norwegian brewers.
Distribution costs
(65) The distribution system for beer in Norway has been described above under market definition. The impact of distribution costs for beer have been estimated by Ringnes as representing approximately [. . .] (19) of total costs. For Mack, due to its location, the impact of distribution costs are significantly higher. Answers from other competitors, however, tend to confirm this magnitude of the impact of distribution costs. Distribution costs play therefore a significant role in attaining a competitive price level, the more so since manufacturing technology is fairly standard and all breweries in Norway import their raw materials at similar conditions. Distribution is therefore one of the main areas to compete on prices. In this respect, all competitors have pointed out the importance of volume in order to achieve competitive costs in the transport of beverages. In particular, the combination of sales of cola drinks, with a much higher volume, is considered vital to achieve a competitive distribution for beer. In this respect it has to be noted that the parties will combine a large market share in beer with a large share of CSD sales.
Access to retailers
(66) Access to shelf space has been mentioned by competitors, in particular micro-breweries, as one of the main bottlenecks to gain sales. The conditions of access to retailers' shelves will be discussed in more detail below, but in any case, competitors of the parties have expressed fears that: (i) the financial resources of the merged entity, (ii) its combination of a broad brand portfolio including the only national brands in Norway, certain regional brands and the main foreign brands of beer, (iii) being the main supplier of Coca-Cola products and (iv) offering a large range of other packaged food products to retailers, shelf space availability for competitors can be severely restricted by the merged entity in future.
Pricing of beers
(67) Given the structure of the market after the merger, with the merged entity being much larger than any of its competitors in terms of sales and resources, it is to be expected that other breweries in Norway will tend to focus on their regional markets rather than competing with Ringnes/Hansa. Furthermore, an examination of the main brewers' price lists excluding the alcohol tax in the last three years indicates that the breweries concentrating their sales in the Oslo area, have tended to adjust their prices following those of Ringnes, which seems to confirm that their competitive capacity is limited, with the result that prices of the 35 cl pils bottle are aligned for Ringnes, Aass and Borg.
Conclusion
(68) The parties have submitted that the merged entity will be subject to local competition in all areas. The main reasons argued to support this hypothesis is that local brewers carry excess capacity and that retail chains will seek a second supplier as an alternative to Ringnes/Hansa in Norway, with the result that the overall market share of the merged entity will be lower than the addition of Ringnes and Hansa respective pre-merger market shares. Even if the merged entity would lose some sales as a result of the notified concentration, its market share will certainly remain at a very high level, both in absolute terms and, above all, in relation to its competitors. Furthermore, the evidence gathered during the investigation indicates that it would be difficult for the regional competitors to actually use their space capacity to increase their production and gain sales in competition with the merged entity. In any case, the strong market position of the merged entity would prevent an efficient development of the regional suppliers at a national level. It is concluded that in view of the absolute market shares, the significant gap in terms of sales volumes and market shares between the merged entity and its nearest competitors, the differences in the extension of brand portfolios, and the evidence offered by the pricing of beers in Norway in the recent years, the regional breweries will not be able to exert a significant competitive constraint on the merged entity.
(ii) Countervailing power by food retailers
(69) The structure of the food retailing sector in Norway is highly concentrated, with the four leading associations of chains (NorgesGruppen, Hakon-Gruppen, NKL-Coop and Rema) accounting for about 97 % of food retailing sales. Each of these groups centralizes the purchases and negotiations with producers for all the retail chains either owned or associated. Food retailers in Norway are following a policy of vertical integration, by setting-up their own wholesaling operations or establishing tight contractual relations with independent wholesalers. Traditionally, suppliers of groceries in Norway delivered their products to each retail outlet. At present, most of the packaged food products are distributed to the retail outlets by the chains themselves, through their own wholesalers or by independent wholesalers on their behalf. Retail chains have pushed producers to drop their own distribution to the selling points, sometimes against the will of the producers (a recent example is offered by a chocolate manufacturer whose products were delisted until it accepted to deliver to the retailer's wholesaler). Wholesalers consider that their logistics, economies of scale and efficiency allow them to reduce distribution costs by more than 50 %. Beverages, tobacco and fresh food products are the only categories of products where the suppliers remain in charge of deliveries to each selling point. Market sources attribute the exception for beverages to the returnable system arising from the environmental taxation for bottles, which has been explained above under geographic market definition.
(70) The parties have submitted that the retail chains dominate the market for beverages, since their high degree of concentration and their progressive vertical integration provides them with strong negotiating tools. Furthermore, their position would be reinforced by their association with international alliances of retailers, such as NAF International (NKL/Coop), the AMS Alliance (Hakon-Gruppen) or by transnational acquisitions (the Swedish retailer ICA has an important capital stake in Hakon-Gruppen). The two other main chains, Rema and NorgesGruppen, are negotiating to enter into international alliances/cooperation, and ICA-Hakon-Gruppen participates in a Viking Retail alliance with the Finnish retailer Kesko.
(71) The main negotiating tools that, according to the parties, allow the retailers to have a sufficient countervailing power are de-listing or shielding of certain products, their control of promotion programmes and activities at the selling points and the introduction of private labels.
International Alliances
(72) The Commission enquiry has found little supporting evidence that international alliances of retailers currently play a significant role in the Norwegian beer market. The parties have confirmed that at present, they do not carry out any direct negotiations for beverages with international alliances of retailers and this has been further confirmed by all market operators contacted by the Commission during its enquiries. If it is a fact that retailers are progressively associating with retailers in other countries, the functions and objectives of these alliances are very different depending on the particular alliance and generally there are no significant examples of centralized purchasing. In particular, given the specificities of the beer market in Norway (low abv, importance of national brands, lack of trade flows, and in particular virtual absence of exports) it does not seem reasonable to anticipate a change in the current situation leading to an effective influence of international alliances in the Norwegian beer market from the point of view of prices, product ranges and conditions of supply of beer to Norwegian retailers.
Negotiating tools
(73) The parties have supplied certain examples of delisting or shielding of food products by Norwegian or Swedish food retailers. As to delistings in Norway, they have presented three examples. The first one concerns a chocolate manufacturer, whose product range was partially delisted by all four retailers as it refused to allow wholesalers to carry out the distribution of its products. It is worth noting however, that the Norwegian retailers had at least an alternative supplier of chocolate products who had agreed to change its distribution policy. As to examples in the beer market, in particular regarding the parties' products, two examples are offered: (i) the delisting of the [ . . . ] (20) brand in most of the stores of [ . . . ] (21), a chain belonging to the [ . . . ] (22) focusing on a 'discounter` concept, and the further reduction of shelf space for [ . . . ] (23) brands, (ii) the delisting and shielding of [ . . . ] (24) brands in [ . . . ] (25), a chain belonging to [ . . . ] (26). Although a certain margin of negotiation for retailers cannot be totally denied, it has to be noted that the two examples of delisting/shielding are limited in scope. [ . . . ] (27) is an [ . . . ] (28) beer, a segment that represents a very small part of consumption in Norway (around [ . . . ] (29) of consumption). Sales of [ . . . ] (30) amounted to [ . . . ] (31) million litres in 1994, representing a negligible proportion of Ringnes total sales of beer ([ . . . ] (32) million litres). Furthermore, the examples show that delisting/shielding is done at the level of each individual sub-chain belonging to the retailer's group, not at a centralized level. The four firm concentration ratio therefore overstates the strength of retailers in this respect. Furthermore, it has to be noted that, unlike in other countries where the retailers' organizations are more integrated, listing fees or payments to purchase shelf space are not current practice in the Norwegian market for beer, as indicated by all suppliers approached by the Commission during its investigation.
(74) If delisting/shielding of brands can be regarded as extreme measures, retailers have certain control over the exposure of products in the selling points, and of promotions. Promotions do not play a major role in beer, since price discounts to the final consumers are legally prohibited for beer containing alcohol. Alcohol-free beer can be offered at discounted prices to consumers, but the low volume of this segment makes it unattractive. The discounts for activities or promotions on the sales points without price reductions for consumers have started to be used in Norway recently, but still seem to play a very limited role. Agreements between Ringnes and retailers regarding promotions, brand selection, merchandizing and volume for beer result in a total discount representing [ . . . ] (33) of the list prices. These discounts have been introduced in 1994. As a comparison, discounts offered to retailers for these activities in the CSD sector represent around [ . . . ] (34) of the list prices, and have been increasing significantly in the last five years. This reflects the difference in strategic importance for retailers between beer and colas. In particular, colas are an important parameter in competition among retailers, since they attract customers to the stores (so-called traffic builders in Norway). This does not happen to that extent with respect to beers, where in any case, retailers have a lesser margin of manoeuvre because of the legislation regarding alcohol, in particular the prohibition to offer discounts to their clients.
(75) In general, private labels have been comparatively slow in their introduction in Norway. According to a report prepared by NERA for the parties, private label penetration in Norway represents 5 % of sales, to be compared with a European average of 12 %, and rates as high as 47 % in Switzerland, 37 % in the United Kingdom and 16 % in France. In addition, the estimated discount of private labels in Norway relative to proprietary brands is among the lowest in Europe, at an estimated 9 %, to be compared with discounts as high as 36 % in Switzerland, 30 % in Germany, 22 % in France and 17 % in the United Kingdom. With respect to beers, there are no private labels at present in Norway, and the prospects for their introduction are affected by the general policy in Norway to restrict alcohol sales. In other non-alcoholic beverage markets private labels have started to appear very recently. The main private label is a cola introduced by the Hakon-Gruppen in February 1995. There is an example also for a bottled water introduced in the same month by Coop.
Conclusion
(76) In spite of the apparent high concentration of the retail chains, the structure of food retailing seems to present important differences in Norway when compared to other European countries. Beer plays a relatively smaller role in the competition among retailers. Even if retailers have a strong bargaining position and they would try to obtain better terms and discounts than their competitors, it is less clear that they would have an interest in preventing general price increases through list prices. The low level of discounts in beer, the reduced scope for promotions of beer at selling points, the absence of listing fees, and the absence of private labels indicate that the countervailing power of retailers is not playing a significant role in this market. Moreover, food retailers could exert countervailing power if they would have at least an alternative supplier to which they could switch their orders. Food retailers contacted by the Commission have indicated that imports are not a practical alternative as long as the environment tax is in force in Norway. It also has to be noted that the merged entity will be the only nation-wide supplier of beer. The more retailers integrate their purchasing and marketing functions, the more they will depend on a brewery with nationwide distribution networks and brands. It has to be noted in this respect that the disappearance of Hansa as a competitor of Ringnes removes the main brewery with a potential to become a national player in Norway, either through cooperation or through merger with smaller breweries located in complementary regions.
(77) It is concluded that there are no sufficiently clear indications that the strong position of the merged entity in the Norwegian beer market is likely to be constrained by the food retailers.
(iii) Potential competition and entry
(78) The parties have identified in their notification a number of ways in which entry could take place into the Norwegian beer market. They indicate in their notification first the possibility of acquisition, with the examples of the Swedish brewer Spendrups acquiring CB in 1991 or Pripps acquiring Hansa in the same year. Examples of new entry are provided by Tromi, a CSD producer who entered the beer market in 1993, and currently has a [ . . . ] (35) share in the city of Trondheim, with sales of around [ . . . ] (36) million litres of its own beer and a small amount of sales of Hansa beer. Tromi complemented its CDS business with the distribution of beer from Mack, Hansa and Tou in mid and northern Norway. Tromi entered into production of beer when the distributorships with Mack and Tou were terminated, in order to keep its beer sales. Other examples of entry are provided by micro-breweries, that address a niche market for specialty premium beers. Oslo Bryggerikompani is one such example, with current sales of around 700 000 litres and a market share of 1 to 2 % in Oslo. The strategy and resources of these companies do not allow them to adopt a volume-based policy.
(79) Even if transport costs are significant for bottled beer, distances from certain European countries to Oslo are shorter than distances within Norway. The parties argue that transport costs do not disadvantage imports of beer. However, the difficulties associated with imports of bottled beer into Norway have already been pointed out. In particular it has to be noted that one-way bottles cannot compete on price with the returnable bottles. Differences in abv and brands are additional factors. Even if these factors together would not completely remove the possibility to import bottled beer into Norway, they certainly hinder their competitiveness in the volume-oriented market of Ringnes' and Hansa's best selling products. The environmental tax could be avoided if beer is imported in tanks or barrels and then is bottled in Norway. This is done for instance by Hansa with its alcohol-free beer Clausthaler. Yet, an entrant following this route to compete in the volume pils market would still suffer the cost disadvantage of transporting bulk beer relative to the established breweries in Norway. More importantly, it would still be subject to the barriers indicated above under geographic market definition (alcohol legislation, commercial barriers).
(80) Licensing of foreign brands to Norwegian suppliers is another way of entering the market. This has been already done by companies such as Carlsberg (Carlsberg and Tuborg brands), Heineken and Guinness. All these brands have been licensed either to Ringnes or Hansa, which offer the largest potential market to a foreign supplier. Moreover, these brands enjoy collectively a very small share (around 5 %) of the Norwegian market. Usually, foreign brands, even when they have an abv below 4,75 % sell at a premium over the domestic pils beers.
(81) The parties have pointed out that the Norwegian beer market will grow in the next two to three years at higher rates when compared with other European countries; also consumption per capita is relatively lower in Norway. However, the relatively small size of the Norwegian market, its heavy regulation and the high level of taxes make it in principle unattractive as a market for entry. Furthermore, the restrictions on advertising and discounts of prices to consumers remove the effect of consolidating established positions, and hinder the development of a new entrant. Most large breweries outside Norway contacted by the Commission indicated that they do not currently have specific plans to enter the Norwegian market above existing levels.
Conclusion
(82) Although it is not possible to exclude completely entry in a market with absolute certainty, in particular when there are large export-orientated companies outside the relevant geographic market, the market structure described so far and the evidence available to the Commission indicate that entry at a competitive level is not likely to erode the parties' position in the foreseeable future. Furthermore, the Commission has not found any concrete indications of plans to enter this market. Therefore, and more importantly, the mere threat of entry does not seem to be credible enough so as to conclude to the contestability of the Norwegian beer market.
(iv) Overall assessment
(83) For the reasons outlined above, it appears that the notified transaction further increases the concentration of supply in an already concentrated market. There are several indications that it will lead to a situation where the merged entity could act in the retailing beer market independently of the competitive constraints prevailing in less concentrated markets. By the proposed transaction, Ringnes reinforces its strong position on the Norwegian beer market, and practically removes the possibility that another national supplier develops in it.
(84) The proposed concentration therefore creates a dominant position as a result of which effective competition would be significantly impeded in the Norwegian market for sales of beer through food retailers.
(c) Beer sold to the hotel and catering industry
(i) Structure of the industry
(85) The Norwegian hotel and catering industry is largely fragmented with, at the end of 1993, 4 793 (source: Statistisk Sentralbyrå) separate sales outlets, licensed for the serving of beers, in the form of hotels, restaurants, bars, etc. These outlets are granted licences based on Chapter 4 of the Alcohol Act 1989. Accordingly about 56 % of the establishments are licensed to sell a full range of beers including those between 4,75 % abv and 7 % abv being the upper legal limit on sales of either domestic or imported beers in Norway.
(86) There are a few exceptions to this general fragmentation in that a number of either national or regional hotel chains have been established; however it should be noted that the combined beer sales of, for example, SAS International Hotels A/S and Rica Hotell-og Restaurantkjede AS accounted for only some [ . . . ] (37) of the total beer sales by the hotel and catering industry in 1994. A further example is that of McDonald's Norge A/S, which only sells Class A (alcohol free) beer. The total sales of this beer amounted to some 8,4 million litres in total in 1994. On the assumption that the ratio of retail/hotel and catering industry sales applies equally to such beers an estimated total of 2,1 million litres were sold in total by the whole hotel and catering industry in 1994 being some 3 % of total sales.
(87) The hotel chains noted above have stated that currently there are only three breweries in Norway which are capable of meeting their requirements of national coverage, these being Ringnes, Hansa and Mack. However Mack is handicapped by the fact that it is located in the far north of Norway, in Tromso, meaning that national distribution is difficult given the logistics of transporting beverages over long distances. The fact that 11 % of the Norwegian population lives in Oslo, and 31 % in the Oslo fjord area, should also be noted in this respect. Furthermore this area accounts for some 4 % of the total area of Norway.
(88) Consequently the hotel chains are concerned that should Ringnes and Hansa be combined in BCP-JV their choice of supplier would be limited to either that of BCP-JV or Mack. Given the hotels' reluctance to carry high stock levels, their preference for frequent deliveries (two or three times a week) and their wish for a wide and timely geographic coverage for their deliveries means that it is unlikely that Mack alone (as Mack is currently cooperating with Hansa to supply Rica Hotels, an agreement that will lapse should Hansa enter BCP-JV) could, at least in the short term, fulfil these requirements completely. Therefore the establishment of BCP-JV would limit the choice of the hotel industry to one supplier only.
(89) The position of Ringnes and Hansa as major suppliers to the hotel and catering industry must also be noted. Based on consumption figures for beer calculated by the Canadean Report and to sales data submitted by the parties and competitors it is clear that Ringnes was the major supplier to the industry in 1994 with some [ . . . ] (38) of the market. By adding Hansa's sales to those of Ringnes the combined market share of these two companies increases to [ . . . ] (39) in respect of 1994. It is believed that the companies' market shares were of a similar magnitude in 1993.
(90) Therefore it appears that Ringnes held a major part of the market before the proposed establishment of the joint venture; its establishment would serve to strengthen the market position of the parties.
Competitors
(91) There are a number of smaller competitors, to the parties, who supply beer to the hotel and catering industry. In addition to Mack noted above the more important of these are Aass, Borg and CB. These companies have indicated that they each supply an estimated one to six million litres of beer to the industry per annum.
(92) Each of these breweries makes sales in the greater Oslo area and CB and Mack are also present in more than 50 % of the Norwegian counties. By way of comparison both Ringnes and Hansa operate in Oslo and Ringnes is present in all but one of the counties and Hansa in 67 % thereof.
(93) Consequently it would appear that competitors to Ringnes and Hansa are not in a position to be able to compete given their smaller volume of sales and more limited geographic coverage.
Tie-in of existing customers
(94) The parties have submitted that their distribution agreements with the hotel and catering industry, in respect of Ringnes last [ . . . ] (40). For Hansa agreements last, in general, [ . . . ] (41).
(95) The Commission has been supplied with a copy of a 'standard` Ringnes supply agreement which indicates that [ . . . ] (42). The 'standard` agreement lasts for [ . . . ] (43) years. This [ . . . ] (44) has been confirmed by a customer, based in Oslo, who attempted to introduce keg beer from a small, local brewery.
(96) Ringnes does have a very strong position as regards beer supplies in the Oslo area because it is the sole permitted supplier of some CSDs (such as Coca-Cola) in the region. This would indicate that bars or restaurants that wish to be supplied with Coca-Cola should also take Ringnes beer.
(97) Furthermore, since the ending, in 1987, of the regional division of sales and distribution among the various breweries, they have provided finance, either in the form of loans or bank guarantees, for the establishment and modernization of premises. In addition equipment in the form of refrigerators, furniture, etc. is also provided.
(98) The provision of finance ensures the loyalty of an outlet to one brewery; the provision of refrigerators would appear to be limiting the possibility of second suppliers to source bars with bottled beers. The Commission has been informed, by beverage importers, that Ringnes has tried and succeeded in refusing access to its refrigerators, for their imported beers, effectively excluding them from certain outlets.
(99) As noted above Ringnes already controls a major part of the sales to the hotel and catering industry: by the introduction of long-term, exclusive draught beer agreements and by the attempted limiting of sales of bottled beer in the hotel and catering industry it can effectively limit potential new entrants to the industry.
Prices
(100) The Commission has undertaken an analysis of recent price movements in respect of the sales prices of the best selling draught beers (in terms of volume) to the hotel and catering industry. This analysis indicates that there is negligible competition between the breweries in terms of list prices for their best selling brands of draught beer to the hotel and catering industry. In addition it has been stated by several smaller breweries that they follow increases in the list prices set by the market leader Ringnes.
(101) Accordingly, based on this analysis it would appear that Ringnes has a sufficient market presence to influence the prices of its smaller competitors, a situation that is likely to be exacerbated should it be combined with Hansa.
Countervailing market power
(102) As stated above there are few extensive hotel or catering chains in Norway that would be able to limit the market power of the BCP-JV. Consequently it is not considered that there would be any countervailing market power by the hotel and catering industry to be able to offset the effect of the establishment of BCP-JV.
(ii) Potential competition
(103) The parties have argued that a new supplier, for the hotel and catering industry, could enter the market thereby limiting the effects of BCP-JV's market presence. Such supplies could either be in the form of bottled or draught beers and the latter could be made available either in kegs or in tanks for re-bottling in Norway.
(104) Imports of beer into Norway amounted to 6,4 million litres in 1994 an increase of 52 % on the previous year and of 33 % in comparison to 1992. It should be noted that these percentage increases are exaggerated due to the low volumes of imports. It is probable that, given the premium nature of such beers, a greater proportion than the national average of 25 % of such beers are consumed by the hotel and catering industry. However, on the assumption that 50 % of imported beers are consumed by the hotel and catering industry, (the West European average for total consumption for 1994 being 48,7 % according to the Canadean Report) this volume amounts to some 5 % of total consumption by the hotel and catering industry.
(105) It is admitted that the volume of imports is likely to grow: the Canadean Report foresees growth of 6,8 % between 1994 and 1995 and of 64 % between 1995 and 1997. However it should also be noted that there is a discrepancy between the import figure of 6,4 million litres provided by the Association of Norwegian Soft-Drink Producers and Brewers and the 3,7 million litres of imports noted by the Canadean Report for 1994. Consequently these growth rates should be treated with caution.
(106) However the problems, identified below, facing existing and potential importers cannot be underestimated.
- recycling: in order to benefit from a reduction in the environment tax, from Nkr 3,0 and the basic tax of Nkr 0,7 to a lower level, an importer would have to establish a recycling system for bottles. At present two systems operate: one concerning refillable, returnable bottles, which is used by the domestic brewers, which ensures that the whole of the environment tax is recovered by the ultimate consumer. Another system concerns non-refillable, returnable bottles, being principally those which are imported, allows a reduction of 65 % in the environment tax. Consequently imported bottled beers automatically suffer a Nkr 1,83 tax difference being the basic tax of Nkr 0,70, environment tax of Nkr 1,05 and a recycling payment of Nkr 0,08 which is not paid by domestic brewers.
Importers could avoid this tax by bottling the beer, imported by way of tank, in 'standard` Norwegian bottles (which is in fact completed by Hansa for Clausthaler). However this would mean either building a new bottling plant or leasing existing spare capacity and having access to the domestic brewers' return system. Alternatively beer could be imported by way of keg but again the importer would have to establish a method for the distribution and the return of the keg from the bar or restaurant to its country of origin. Contact with the catering industry has indicated that such a proposal would be improbable,
- fiscal differences: historically beer of between 2,5 % abv and 4,75 % abv has accounted for the major part of Norwegian consumption (an estimated 90 % in 1994). With effect from 1 January 1995 beer stronger than 4,75 % abv and less than 5,75 % abv bears excise duty at Nkr 18,16 per litre being a rate 42 % higher than beer of 4,75 % abv. As most international beers imported into Norway have an alcohol content in excess of 4,75 % abv (e.g. bottled Guinness with 5 % abv; Hoegaarden 4,9 % abv) it is apparent that they suffer a significant duty disadvantage in comparison to domestic brands,
- outlet licensing: in order to be able to sell beer greater than 4,75 % abv (being largely imported beers) bars etc. are required to hold an additional licence. Only some 56 % of all bars hold such licences thereby excluding a number of outlets from purchasing, for supply, stronger beers. The possible market for importers is accordingly reduced,
- tie-in of existing customers: as noted above there would appear to be a considerable barrier to the introduction of both draught and bottled beer in bars already supplied by Ringnes. Therefore it is unlikely that either forms of imported beer could be easily introduced in the future.
(107) For the above reasons, it is unlikely that a significant growth in the level of imports will be achieved.
(108) The parties have also indicated other possible means by which potential competitors could enter the Norwegian market:
- brewing under licence: it should be noted that Ringnes and Hansa already hold licences for brewing Tuborg, Carlsberg and Heineken and for the distribution of Guinness. Therefore the only other international European brands that could wish to enter the market are considered to be either Interbrew SA or Brasseries Kronenbourg; in addition there are also Australian or American companies that may wish to enter the market. However the size of the market needs to be considered. Total sales of the above licensed brands amounted to some 10 million litres in 1994 some 4 % of the total beer market. Therefore there would appear to be little commercial incentive for the licensing of new beer products,
- establishment of a new brewery: the Commission is aware of two such examples which together produce less than two million litres (less than 1 % of the total market for beer). Consequently whilst there will always be a niche role for such operators it is improbable that they would present a serious threat to BCP-JV's position.
(iii) Overall assessment
(109) On the basis of the above factors it is apparent that Ringnes already holds a significant share of the hotel and catering industry beer market. Given the fact that existing customers can be tied-in to Ringnes's supplies, to the detriment of other suppliers; that there would seem to be negligible countervailing market pressure and that there is little chance for market entry either by way of import or the establishment of a new business, the addition of Hansa to Ringnes would serve to consolidate this market presence.
(110) As has been noted by several customers the only current national alternative to Ringnes is Hansa; the establishment of BCP-JV would eliminate this choice.
(111) The proposed concentration therefore creates a dominant position as a result of which effective competition would be significantly impeded in the Norwegian market for sales of beer through the hotel and catering industry.
Sweden
(112) The Commission has considered the market position of Pripps in Sweden as regards beer: the market shares are set out in the following table, the sources for which were the Canadean Report (all volumes are in millions of litres):
TABLE
(113) The market share of Falcon ( [ . . . ] (45) in 1994) has not been taken into account in the above table. This is because Volvo, on the basis of an undertaking given to the Stockholm District Court in October 1994, is to refrain from pursuing the integration of Pripps and Falcon. Moreover, it is indicated in Volvo's strategic plan that Falcon will be sold within the next few years as the Volvo Group wishes to return to its core vehicle activities. Finally, it should be noted that the undertaking is backed by a penalty fine of SKr 50 million (ECU 5,5 million) should the undertaking be countermanded.
(114) The establishment of BCP-JV does not add to these market shares given the fact that neither Ringnes nor Hansa operate in Sweden. This is further supported by the national nature of the markets and the fact that imports of beer into Sweden from Norway, are negligible. Such imports amounted to 0,76 million litres of beer in 1994, a negligible amount in comparison to total consumption.
(115) It has to be recalled that there are presently three major operators in the Swedish market being Pripps [ . . . ] (46), Falcon [ . . . ] (47) and Spendrups Bryggeri AB [ . . . ] (48). In view of the high concentration of beer supply in Sweden, the Commission has examined whether the notified transaction might have the result of removing a potential competitor.
(116) Ringnes's largest brewery is located in Oslo which is the brewery located closest to the more highly populated areas of Sweden. This brewery is currently running at [ . . . ] (49) brew capacity and [ . . . ] (50) bottling capacity. [ . . . ] (51).
(117) Furthermore, there is a large number of international large brewers who would be in the same, if not better position than Ringnes to enter the Swedish market.
(118) The Commission has therefore concluded that the creation of BCP-JV does not raise any problems of competition in respect of the merger regulation in Sweden.
VIII. CONCLUSION
(119) For the reasons outlined above, it appears that the notified transaction further increases the concentration of supply in an already concentrated market and that this will lead to a situation where the merged entity could act in the Norwegian beer markets independently of competitive constraints.
(120) The proposed concentration therefore creates a dominant position as a result of which effective competition would be significantly impeded in the Norwegian market for sales of beer through the retail industry and the hotel and catering industry.
(121) Consequently, the proposed concentration would lead to the creation or strengthening of a dominant position through which effective competition in a substantial part of the territory covered by the EEA Agreement would be significantly impeded.
(122) As to the effects of the concentration in Sweden, the Commission has not identified any creation or reinforcement of a dominant position.
IX. COMMITMENTS PROPOSED BY THE PARTIES
(123) The parties have offered to modify the original concentration plan as notified by entering into the following commitments:
'Orkla AS and AB Fortos (hereinafter referred to as the "Parties") hereby give the following undertaking (hereinafter referred to as the "Undertaking"), on their own behalf and on behalf of their respective group of companies, to the Commission with respect to the beer business of Hansa Bryggeri A/S (hereinafter referred to as "Hansa") comprising [ . . . ] (4) (hereinafter referred to as the "Business"). The Business shall be sold as an ongoing concern.
1. The Parties shall within [ . . . ] (4) from the date of the Commission's decision clearing the concentration subject to the fulfilment of this Undertaking have found a purchaser for the Business, it being understood that such purchaser shall be a viable existing or potential competitor or financial or industrial company or institution independent of the Parties or BCP-JV and with the financial capacity to continue the Business.
The Parties shall be deemed to have complied with this undertaking if BCP-JV has within this period entered into a binding letter of intent for the sale of the Business subject to due diligence and other conditions [ . . . ] (4) beyond the Parties' control, provided that a final agreement for such sale has been concluded within [ . . . ] (4) from the date of the letter of intent.
2. If the Parties are not able to fulfil their undertaking to divest by the end of the period set out in 1 above, the time limit shall be extended by a period of [ . . . ] (1) upon request by the Parties accompanied by a written motivation for such extension showing best efforts to fulfil their Undertaking and on condition that the Parties shall prior to such extension appoint an independent firm of accountants, law firm or investment bank or similar consultancy firm (hereinafter referred to as the "Trustee"), to be approved by the Commission, to act on the Commission's behalf in overseeing the ongoing independent and separate management of the Business and the continued efforts by the Parties to divest.
The Trustee shall be remunerated by the Parties.
Should divestiture according to 1 above not have been accomplished by the end of the extension period, the parties shall give the Trustee an irrevocable mandate to find a purchaser for the Business and to sell the Business, on best possible terms and conditions within an additional extension period of [ . . . ] (1). The Parties shall provide the Trustee with all assistance and information necessary for the execution of such sale and for the obtaining of the best possible conditions subject to the Parties' reasonable secrecy interests.
3. Prior to the sale of the Business to a third party, the Parties shall hold separate the Business from the businesses of BCP-JV and the Parties. Structural changes of the Business until such date shall not be undertaken by the Parties until two weeks after the Parties have informed the Commission and the Commission has not explicitly opposed such change.
The Parties shall further ensure that the Business is managed separately from BCP-JV and the Parties with its own management. The Parties shall replace those members of the board of directors of Hansa who belong to the board of directors or the management of BCP-JV. The Parties shall not appoint or second employees from the Parties or BCP-JV as management of Hansa until the Business has been divested. The board of directors and the management of Hansa shall make best efforts to keep the value of the Business until its divestiture.
The Parties shall finally see to it that BCP-JV does not obtain any business secrets relating to the Business.
4. The Parties or the Trustee, as the case may be, shall report to the Commission in writing before a letter of intent is to be signed and in any event every four months on relevant developments in their negotiations with third parties.
If, within [ . . . ] (1) from the receipt of a report indicating a purchaser with whom the Parties or the Trustee propose to sign a letter of intent, the Commission does not formally indicate its disagreement with the choice of purchaser with due regard to the qualifications set out in 1 above, the sale to such purchaser shall be free to proceed.
The Commission shall be given, for the purpose of information only, copies of prospectuses or similar written documentation provided by the Parties to relevant purchasers of the Business.
(4) Deleted; business secret.
(1) Deleted; business secret.`(124) The Commission is satisfied that the parties' undertaking to divest the beer business of Hansa in its entirety addresses the competition concerns outlined above. The divestiture of the beer business of Hansa effectively implies that there will be no further concentration of the supply in the relevant markets arising from the notified operation, and no addition of sales and market shares to the pre-concentration position of Ringnes in Norway,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
The concentration notified by AB Fortos and Orkla AS on 18 April 1995, relating to the creation of BCP-JV, is declared compatible with the common market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement subject to the condition of full compliance with the commitments made by the parties, in their undertaking to the Commission in respect of the Hansa beer business, as set out in recital 123 of this Decision.
Article 2
This Decision is addressed to:
Orkla AS
PO Box 308
N-1324 Lysaker
and
AB Fortos
Norra Bankogränd 2
Box 2278
S-103 17 Stockholm.
Done at Brussels, 20 September 1995. | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 3588/92 of 11 December 1992 amending Regulation (EEC) No 223/90 as regards the rate of Community part-financing applicable to Portugal for the measures referred to in Council Regulation (EEC) No 2328/91
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2328/91 of 15 July 1991 on improving the efficiency of agricultural structures (1), and in particular Article 31 (2) thereof,
Whereas the budget funds allocated to the measures referred to in Regulation (EEC) No 2328/91 for 1992 and 1993 under the Community support framework for Portugal as regards assistance from the various structural Funds enable the rate of Community part-financing fixed by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 223/90 (2), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3126/91 (3), to be raised to 75 % for the Member State in question for 1992 and 1993;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on Agricultural Structures and Rural Development,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Annex I to Regulation (EEC) No 223/90 is hereby amended as follows:
1. In the first indent 'Portugal' is deleted.
2. Before the first indent, the following indent is added:
'- Portugal 75 %'.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
Article 1
shall apply to expenditure incurred by Portugal in 1992 and 1993. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 11 December 1992. | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
COMMISSION DECISION
of 27 April 2007
on the clearance of the accounts of the paying agencies of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia concerning expenditure in the field of rural development measures financed by the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), Guarantee Section, for the 2006 financial year
(notified under document number C(2007) 1893)
(Only the Czech, English, Estonian, Greek, Hungarian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Polish, Slovak and Slovenian texts are authentic)
(2007/325/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (1), and in particular Article 7(3) thereof,
After consulting the Fund Committee,
Whereas:
(1)
On the basis of the annual accounts submitted by the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia concerning expenditure in the field of rural development measures, accompanied by the information required, the accounts of the paying agencies referred to in Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 are to be cleared. The clearance covers the integrality, accuracy and veracity of the accounts transmitted in the light of the reports established by the certification bodies.
(2)
The time limits granted to the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia for the submission to the Commission of the documents referred to in Article 6(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) 1258/1999 and in Article 4(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1663/95 of 7 July 1995 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 regarding the procedure for the clearance of accounts of the EAGGF Guarantee Section (2), have expired.
(3)
The Commission has checked the information submitted and communicated to the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia before 31 March 2007 the results of its verifications, along with the necessary amendments.
(4)
For the rural development expenditure covered by Article 7(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 27/2004 of 5 January 2004 laying down transitional detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 as regards the financing by the EAGGF Guarantee Section of rural development measures in the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia (3) the outcome of the clearance decision is to be deducted from or added to subsequent payments made by the Commission.
(5)
In the light of the verifications made, the annual accounts and the accompanying documents permit the Commission to take, for certain paying agencies, a decision on the integrality, accuracy and veracity of the accounts submitted. The details of these amounts were described in the Summary Report that was presented to the Fund Committee at the same time as this Decision.
(6)
In the light of the verifications made, the information submitted by certain paying agencies requires additional inquiries and their accounts cannot be therefore cleared in this Decision.
(7)
For the rural development expenditure covered by Regulation (EC) No 27/2004, the amounts recoverable or payable under the clearance of accounts decision are to be deducted from or added to subsequent payments.
(8)
In accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 and Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1663/95, this Decision, does not prejudice decisions taken subsequently by the Commission excluding from Community financing expenditure not effected in accordance with Community rules,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
Without prejudice to Article 2, the amounts which are recoverable from, or payable to, each Member State pursuant to this Decision in the field of rural development measures applicable in the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia are set out in Annex I and Annex II.
Article 2
For the 2006 financial year, the accounts of the Member States’ paying agencies in the field of rural development measures applicable in the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia, set out in Annex III, are disjoined from this Decision and shall be the subject of a future clearance Decision.
Article 3
This Decision is addressed to the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic.
Done at Brussels, 27 April 2007. | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
1,
0
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
*****
COMMISSION DECISION
of 7 October 1988
approving the plan for the eradication of classical swine fever presented by the Kingdom of Belgium
(Only the French and Dutch texts are authentic)
(88/529/EEC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Directive 80/1095/EEC (1), of 11 November 1980 laying down conditions designed to render and keep the territory of the Community free from classical swine fever, as last amended by Directive 87/487/EEC (2), and in particular Article 3a thereof,
Having regard to Council Decision 80/1096/EEC (3) of 11 November 1980, introducing Community financial measures for the eradication of classical swine fever, as last amended by Decision 87/488/EEC (4), and in particular Article 5 thereof,
Whereas, by letter dated 28 December 1987, the Kingdom of Belgium has communicated to the Commission a new plan for completing the eradication of classical swine fever;
Whereas, the plan has been examined and found to comply with Council Directive 80/217/EEC (5) of 22 January 1980, introducing Community measures for the control of classical swine fever as last amended by Directive 87/486/EEC (6), and with Directive 80/1095/EEC and whereas the conditions for financial participation by the Community are therefore met;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee; whereas the Fund Committee has been consulted,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
The plan for completing the eradication of classical swine fever presented by Belgium is hereby approved.
Article 2
Belgium shall bring into force by 1 January 1988 the laws, regulations and administrative provisions for implementing the plan referred to in Article 1.
Article 3
This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Belgium.
Done at Brussels, 7 October 1988. | [
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 280/2005
of 18 February 2005
fixing the rates of the refunds applicable to eggs and egg yolks exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2771/75 of 29 October 1975 on the common organisation of the market in eggs (1), and in particular Article 8(3) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
Article 8(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2771/75 provides that the difference between prices in international trade for the products listed in Article 1(1) of that Regulation and prices within the Community may be covered by an export refund where these goods are exported in the form of goods listed in the Annex to that Regulation. Commission Regulation (EC) No 1520/2000 of 13 July 2000 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of granting export refunds on certain agricultural products exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty, and the criteria for fixing the amount of such refunds (2), specifies the products for which a rate of refund should be fixed, to be applied where these products are exported in the form of goods listed in Annex I to Regulation (EEC) No 2771/75.
(2)
In accordance with Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1520/2000, the rate of the refund per 100 kilograms for each of the basic products in question must be fixed for a period of the same duration as that for which refunds are fixed for the same products exported unprocessed.
(3)
Article 11 of the Agreement on Agriculture concluded under the Uruguay Round lays down that the export refund for a product contained in goods may not exceed the refund applicable to that product when exported without further processing.
(4)
The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Poultrymeat and Eggs,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The rates of the refunds applicable to the basic products listed in Annex A to Regulation (EC) No 1520/2000 and in Article 1(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2771/75, exported in the form of goods listed in Annex I to Regulation (EEC) No 2771/75, are fixed as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 21 February 2005.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 18 February 2005. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 741/2000
of 7 April 2000
derogating temporarily from Regulation (EC) No 1370/95 laying down detailed rules for implementing the system of export licences in the pigmeat sector
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2759/75 of 29 October 1975 on the common organisation of the market in pigmeat(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 3290/94(2), and in particular Articles 8(2), 13(12) and 22 thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Article 3(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1370/95(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2399/1999(4), provides that export licences are to be issued on the Wednesday following the week in which licence applications are lodged, provided that no special measures are taken by the Commission in the meanwhile.
(2) Given the dates of public holidays in 2000 and the consequent irregular publication of the Official Journal of the European Communities, the period for consideration is too short to ensure effective market management and it should therefore be extended temporarily.
(3) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Pigmeat,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Notwithstanding Article 3(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/95, licences for which applications are lodged during the following periods shall be issued on the dates indicated, provided that none of the special measures referred to in paragraph 4 of that Article are taken before the dates concerned:
- from 17 to 21 April 2000, to be issued on 27 April 2000,
- from 24 to 28 April 2000, to be issued on 4 May 2000,
- from 1 to 5 May 2000, to be issued on 12 May 2000,
- from 5 to 9 June 2000, to be issued on 15 June 2000,
- from 7 to 11 August 2000, to be issued on 18 August 2000,
- from 18 to 22 December 2000, to be issued on 29 December 2000,
- from 25 to 29 December 2000, to be issued on 5 January 2001.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 7 April 2000. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
Commission Decision
of 9 July 2001
concerning the non-inclusion of parathion in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing this active substance
(notified under document number C(2001) 1772)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2001/520/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market(1), as last amended by Commission Directive 2001/36/EC(2), and in particular the fourth subparagraph of Article 8(2) thereof,
Having regard to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 of 11 December 1992 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the first stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1972/1999(4), and in particular Article 7(3A)(b) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC provided for the Commission to carry out a programme of work for the examination of the active substances used in plant protection products which were already on the market on 15 July 1993. Detailed rules for the carrying out of this programme were established in Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92.
(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 933/94(5), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2230/95(6), has designated the active substances which should be assessed in the framework of Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92, designated a Member State to act as rapporteur in respect of the assessment of each substance and identified the producers of each active substance who submitted a notification in due time in accordance with Article 4(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92.
(3) Parathion is one of the 90 active substances designated in Regulation (EC) No 933/94.
(4) In accordance with Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92, Italy, being the designated rapporteur Member State, submitted on 30 November 1998 to the Commission the report of its assessment of the information submitted by the notifiers in accordance with the provisions of Article 6(1) of this Regulation.
(5) On receipt of the report of the rapporteur Member State, the Commission undertook consultations with experts of the Member States as well as with the main notifier (Cheminova) as provided for in Article 7(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92.
(6) The assessment report prepared by Italy has been reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on Plant Health. This review was finalised on 12 December 2000 in the format of the Commission review report for parathion, in accordance with Article 7(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92.
(7) Assessments made on the basis of the information submitted have not demonstrated that it may be expected that, under the proposed conditions of use, plant protection products containing parathion satisfy in general the requirements laid down in Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC, in particular with regard to the safety of operators potentially exposed to parathion and with regard to the fate and behaviour of the substance in the environment and its possible impact on non-target organisms.
(8) The main notifier informed the Commission and the rapporteur Member State that it no longer wished to participate in the programme of work for this active substance, and therefore further information will not be submitted.
(9) Therefore it is not possible to include this active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC.
(10) Any period of grace for disposal, storage, placing on the market and use of existing stocks of plant protection products containing parathion allowed by Member States, in accordance with the provisions of Article 4(6) of Directive 91/414/EEC should be limited to a period no longer than 12 months to allow existing stocks to be used in no more than one further growing season.
(11) This Decision does not prejudice any action the Commission may undertake at a later stage for this active substance within the framework of Council Directive 79/117/EEC(7).
(12) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plant Health,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
Parathion is not included as active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC.
Article 2
Member States shall ensure that:
1. authorisations for plant protection products containing parathion are withdrawn within a period of six months from the date of adoption of the present Decision;
2. from the date of adoption of the present Decision no authorisations for plant protection products containing parathion will be granted or renewed under the derogation provided for in Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC.
Article 3
Any period of grace granted by Member States in accordance with the provisions of Article 4(6) of Directive 91/414/EEC, shall be as short as possible and not longer than 18 months from the date of adoption of this Decision.
Article 4
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 9 July 2001. | [
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2230/97 of 7 November 1997 concerning the stopping of fishing for plaice by vessels flying the flag of Belgium
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 686/97 (2), and in particular Article 21 (3) thereof,
Whereas Council Regulation (EC) No 390/97 of 20 December 1996 fixing, for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, the total allowable catches for 1997 and certain conditions under which they may be fished (3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1974/97 (4), provides for plaice quotas for 1997;
Whereas, in order to ensure compliance with the provisions relating to the quantitative limitations on catches of stocks subject to quotas, it is necessary for the Commission to fix the date by which catches made by vessels flying the flag of a Member State are deemed to have exhausted the quota allocated;
Whereas, according to the information communicated to the Commission, catches of plaice in the waters of ICES division VII f and g by vessels flying the flag of Belgium or registered in Belgium have reached the quota allocated for 1997; whereas Belgium has prohibited fishing for this stock as from 19 October 1997; whereas it is therefore necessary to abide by that date,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Catches of plaice in the waters of ICES division VII f and g by vessels flying the flag of Belgium or registered in Belgium are deemed to have exhausted the quota allocated to Belgium for 1997.
Fishing for plaice in the waters of ICES division VII f and g by vessels flying the flag of Belgium or registered in Belgium is prohibited, as well as the retention on board, the transhipment and the landing of such captured by the abovementioned vessels after the date of application of this Regulation.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
It shall apply with effect from 19 October 1997.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 7 November 1997. | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
Commission Decision
of 6 June 2003
amending Decision 96/603/EC establishing the list of products belonging to Classes A "No contribution to fire" provided for in Decision 94/611/EC implementing Article 20 of Council Directive 89/106/EEC on construction products
(notified under document number C(2003) 1673)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2003/424/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Directive 89/106/EEC of 21 December 1988 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to construction products(1), as amended by Directive 93/68/EEC(2),
Having regard to Commission Decision 2000/147/EC of 8 February 2000 implementing Council Directive 89/106/EEC as regards the classification of the reaction to fire performance of construction products(3), and in particular Article 1(1) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Commission Decision 96/603/EC(4), as amended by Decision 2000/605/EC(5), established a list of products belonging to Classes A "No contribution to fire" provided for in Tables 1 and 2 of the Annex to Commission Decision 94/611/EC(6), which described the European classification system for expressing the reaction to fire performance of construction products.
(2) Decision 94/611/EC has been replaced by Decision 2000/147/EC.
(3) The notes for "Mortar with inorganic binding agents" in the table set out in the Annex to Decision 96/603/EC should be adapted to technical progress.
(4) Decision 96/603/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.
(5) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Construction,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
In the table set out in the Annex to Decision 96/603/EC, for "Mortar with inorganic binding agents" the notes "Rendering/plastering mortars and mortars for floor screeds based on one or more inorganic binding agent(s), e.g. cement, lime, masonry cement and gypsum" are replaced by "Rendering/plastering mortars, mortars for floor screeds and masonry mortars based on one or more inorganic binding agent(s), e.g. cement, lime, masonry cement and gypsum".
Article 2
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 6 June 2003. | [
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
*****
COMMISSION DECISION
of 5 February 1982
establishing that the apparatus described as 'Tracor digital signal analyzer, model TN-1500-8, with accessories' may not be imported free of Common Customs Tariff duties
(82/141/EEC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN
COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1798/75 of 10 July 1975 on the importation free of Common Customs Tariff duties of educational, scientific and cultural materials (1), as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1027/79 (2),
Having regard to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2784/79 of 12 December 1979 laying down provisions for the implementation of Regulation (EEC) No 1798/75 (3), and in particular Article 7 thereof,
Whereas, by letter dated 20 July 1981, the Federal Republic of Germany has requested the Commission to invoke the procedure provided for in Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 2784/79 in order to determine whether or not the apparatus described as 'Tracor digital signal analyzer, model TN-1500-8, with accessories', to be used for mass-spectrometric quantification of total-hydrolyzates of biological systems and isotope analysis of natural materials in the trace range and also for mass-fragmentography of content materials, occuring in traces, of biological systems, should be considered as a scientific apparatus and, where the reply is in the affirmative, whether apparatus of equivalent scientific value is currently being manufactured in the Community;
Whereas, in accordance with the provisions of Article 7 (5) of Regulation (EEC) No 2784/79, a group of experts composed of representatives of all the Member States met on 15 December 1981 within the framework of the Committee on Duty-Free Arrangements to examine the matter;
Whereas this examination showed that the apparatus in question is an analyzer;
Whereas it does not have the requisite objective characteristics making it specifically suited to scientific research; whereas, moreover, apparatus of the same kind are principally used for non-scientific activities; whereas its use in the case in question could not alone confer upon it the character of a scientific apparatus; whereas it therefore cannot be regarded as a scientific apparatus; whereas the duty-free admission of the apparatus in question is therefore not justified,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
The apparatus described as 'Tracor digital signal analyzer, model TN-1500-8, with accessories', which is the subject of an application by the Federal Republic of Germany, of 20 July 1981, may not be imported free of Common Customs Tariff duties.
Article 2
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 5 February 1982. | [
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 1039/91 of 25 April 1991 authorizing Germany to maintain special measures for the disposal of skimmed milk
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/90 of 4 December 1990 on the transitional measures and adjustments required in the agricultural sector as a result of German unification (1), and in particular Article 3 thereof,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 of 27 June 1968 on the common organization of the market in milk and milk products (2), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3641/90 (3), and in particular Article 10 (3) thereof,
Whereas Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3634/90 (4) authorizes Germany to maintain special measures for the disposal of skimmed milk and skimmed-milk powder until 28 February 1991; whereas the difficulties of adaptation justifying those measures remain; whereas the application of those measures should be extended in respect, however, of liquid skimmed milk only, in view of the resumption of buying in of skimmed-milk powder since 1 March;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Milk and Milk Products,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: Article 1
1. Germany is hereby authorized until 31 August 1991 to maintain special measures for the disposal of liquid skimmed milk produced within the territory of and from milk originating in the former German Democratic Republic and intended for feeding to animals other than young calves.
2. The German authorities shall ensure:
- that the skimmed milk is used by breeding or fattening establishments located within the territory of the former German Democratic Republic,
- that the delivery price to such establishments is not less than ECU 1,30 per 100 kilograms of skimmed milk.
3. The measures referred to in paragraph 1 shall be financed by the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) up to the amount set out in Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1634/85 (5).
4. Germany shall notify the Commission:
- forthwith, of the control measures adopted for the application of this Regulation,
- by the 20th day of each month at the latest in respect of the month preceding that of notification, of the quantities of skimmed milk for which aid has been applied for under this Regulation. Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
It shall apply with effect from 1 March 1991. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 25 April 1991. | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
1,
1,
0
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |
COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1124/2007
of 28 September 2007
amending Regulation (EC) No 367/2006 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film originating in India
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2026/97 of 6 October 1997 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (basic Regulation) and in particular Article 19 thereof,
Having regard to the proposal submitted by the Commission after consulting the Advisory Committee,
Whereas:
A. PROCEDURE
I. Previous investigation and existing measures
(1)
The Council, by Regulation (EC) No 2597/1999 (2), imposed a definitive countervailing duty on imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film falling within CN codes ex 3920 62 19 and ex 3920 62 90, originating in India (the product concerned). The investigation which led to the adoption of that Regulation is hereinafter referred to as the ‘original investigation’. The measures took the form of an ad valorem duty, ranging between 3,8 % and 19,1 % imposed on imports from individually named exporters, with a residual duty rate of 19,1 % imposed on imports of the product concerned from all other companies. The countervailing duty imposed on imports of PET film manufactured and exported by Jindal Poly Films Limited, formerly known as Jindal Polyester Ltd (3), (Jindal or the company) was 7 %. The original investigation period was 1 October 1997 to 30 September 1998.
(2)
The Council, by Regulation (EC) No 367/2006 (4), following an expiry review pursuant to Article 18 of the basic Regulation, maintained the definitive countervailing duty imposed by Regulation (EC) No 2597/1999 on imports of PET film originating in India. The review investigation period was 1 October 2003 to 30 September 2004.
(3)
The Council, by Regulation (EC) No 1288/2006, following an interim review concerning the subsidisation of another Indian PET film producer, Garware Polyester Limited (Garware), amended the definitive countervailing duty imposed on Garware by Regulation (EC) No 367/2006.
II. Ex officio initiation of a partial interim review
(4)
Prima facie evidence was available to the Commission indicating that Jindal benefited from increased levels of subsidisation, compared to the original investigation, and that the changes to such levels were of a lasting nature.
III. Investigation
(5)
As a result, the Commission decided, after consulting the Advisory Committee, to initiate ex officio a partial interim review in accordance with Article 19 of the basic Regulation, limited to the level of subsidisation to Jindal, in order to assess the need for the continuation, removal or amendment of the existing countervailing measures. On 2 August 2006 the Commission announced, by a notice of initiation published in the Official Journal of the European Union (5), the initiation of this review.
(6)
The review investigation period (review IP) ran from 1 April 2005 to 31 March 2006.
(7)
The Commission officially advised Jindal, the Government of India (GOI) and Du Pont Tejin Films, Luxembourg, Mitsubishi Polyester Film, Germany, Toray Plastics Europe, France and Nuroll, Italy, which represent the overwhelming majority of Community PET film production (hereinafter the Community industry), of the initiation of the partial interim review. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set in the notice of initiation.
(8)
In order to obtain the information necessary for its investigation, the Commission sent a questionnaire to Jindal, which cooperated by replying to the questionnaire. A verification visit was carried out at Jindal’s premises in India.
(9)
Jindal, the GOI and the Community industry were informed of the essential results of the investigation and had the opportunity to comment. Comments were received by Jindal and are discussed below. The GOI did not submit any comments.
B. PRODUCT CONCERNED
(10)
The product concerned is polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film, originating in India, normally declared under CN codes ex 3920 62 19 and ex 3920 62 90, as defined in the original investigation.
C. SUBSIDIES
I. Introduction
(11)
On the basis of the information available and the reply to the Commission’s questionnaire, the following schemes, allegedly involving the granting of subsidies, were investigated:
(a) Nationwide schemes
(i)
Advance Licence Scheme;
(ii)
Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme;
(iii)
Export Oriented Units Scheme/Special Economic Zones Scheme;
(iv)
Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme;
(v)
Export Income Tax Exemption Scheme;
(vi)
Export Credit Scheme;
(vii)
Duty-Free Replenishment Certificate.
(12)
The schemes (i) to (iv) and (vii) above are based on the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act 1992 (No 22 of 1992) which entered into force on 7 August 1992 (the Foreign Trade Act). The Foreign Trade Act authorises the GOI to issue notifications regarding export and import policy. A multi-annual plan relating to the Indian foreign trade policy for the period 1 September 2004 to 31 March 2009, which succeeded the former export and import (EXIM) policy, was published by the GOI (FTP 2004 to 2009). In addition, a handbook of procedures governing the FTP 2004 to 2009 (HOP I 2004 to 2009) was published by the GOI and is updated on a regular basis (6).
(13)
The Export Income Tax Exemption Scheme specified in (v) above is based on the Income Tax Act 1961, which is amended annually by the Finance Act.
(14)
The Export Credit Scheme specified in (vi) above is based on Sections 21 and 35A of the Banking Regulation Act 1949, which allows the Reserve Bank of India to instruct commercial banks regarding export credits.
(b) Regional Schemes
(15)
On the basis of the information available and the reply to the Commission’s questionnaire, the Commission also investigated the Package Scheme of Incentives (hereinafter, the ‘PSI’) of the Government of Maharashtra (the GOM) 1993. This scheme is based on resolutions of the GOM Industries, Energy and Labour Department.
II. Nationwide Schemes
1. Advance Licence Scheme (ALS)
(a) Legal basis
(16)
The detailed description of the scheme is contained in paragraphs 4.1.3 to 4.1.14 of the FTP 2004 to 2009 and Chapters 4.1 to 4.30 of the HOP I 2004 to 2009. The scheme was replaced in April 2006, i.e. after the end of the review IP, by the ‘Advance Authorisation Scheme’. However, this appears to be essentially a name change. The following analysis focuses on the ALS in place during the review IP.
(b) Eligibility
(17)
The ALS consists of six sub-schemes. Those sub-schemes differ, inter alia, in the criteria for eligibility. Manufacturer-exporters and merchant-exporters ‘tied to’ supporting manufacturers are eligible for the ALS for physical exports and for the ALS for annual requirement. Main contractors which supply to the ‘deemed export’ categories mentioned in paragraph 8.2 of the FTP 2004 to 2009, such as suppliers of an export oriented unit (EOU), are eligible for ALS deemed export. Manufacturer-exporters supplying the ultimate exporter are eligible for ALS for intermediate supplies. Finally, intermediate suppliers to manufacturer-exporters are eligible for ‘deemed export’ benefits under the sub-schemes Advance Release Order (ARO) and back-to-back inland letter of credit. Since only the first four of the six sub-schemes were used by Jindal during the review IP, only those will be described in more detail below.
(c) Practical implementation
(18)
An Advance Licence can be issued for:
(i)
Physical exports: This is the main sub-scheme. It allows the duty-free import of input materials for the production of a specific resultant export product. ‘Physical’ in this context means that the export product has to leave Indian territory. An import allowance and an export obligation, including the type of export product, are specified in the licence.
(ii)
Annual requirement: Such a licence is not linked to a specific export product, but to a wider product group (e.g. chemical and related products). The licence holder can - up to a certain value threshold set by its past export performance - import duty free any input to be used in manufacturing any of the items falling under such a product group. It can choose to export any resultant product falling under the product group using such duty-exempt material.
(iii)
Deemed exports: This sub-scheme allows a main contractor the duty-free import of inputs required in manufacturing goods to be sold as ‘deemed exports’ to the categories of customers mentioned in paragraph 8.2(b) to (f), (g), (i) and (j) of the FTP 2004 to 2009. According to the GOI, deemed exports refer to those transactions in which the goods supplied do not leave the country. A number of categories of supply are regarded as deemed exports provided the goods are manufactured in India, e.g. supply of goods to an EOU or to a company situated in a special economic zone (SEZ).
(iv)
Intermediate supplies: This sub-scheme covers cases where two manufacturers intend to produce a single export product and divide the production process. The manufacturer-exporter produces the intermediate product. It can import duty free input materials and can obtain for this purpose an ALS for intermediate supplies. The ultimate exporter finalizes the production and is obliged to export the finished product.
(19)
As stated above, Jindal used the ALS during the review IP. More precisely, it made use of the four sub-schemes indicated under (i) to (iv) above.
(20)
For verification purposes by the Indian authorities, a licence holder is legally obliged to maintain ‘a true and proper account of licence-wise consumption and utilisation of imported goods’ in a specified format (Chapter 4.30 HOP I 2004 to 2009) (hereinafter the consumption register). The verification showed that the company did not properly maintain its consumption register, i.e. that it did not record the link between input material and the final destination of the resultant product, as required by the format required by the GOI, despite the fact that it not only exports the resultant product but sells it on the domestic market as well.
(21)
With regard to sub-schemes (i) and (iii) above, both the import allowance and the export obligation (including deemed export) are fixed in volume and value by the GOI and are documented on the licence. In addition, at the time of import and of export, the corresponding transactions are to be documented by Government officials on the licence. The volume of imports allowed under this scheme is determined by the GOI on the basis of standard input-output norms (SIONs). SIONs exist for most products including the product concerned and are published in Volume II of the HOP I 2004 to 2009. The SIONs for PET film and PET chips, an intermediate product, were revised downwards in October 2005.
(22)
With regard to sub-scheme (iii) it was noted that the deemed exports fulfilling the respective obligation under the ALS were essentially intra-company sales, i.e. a PET chip manufacturing unit of Jindal (which is not a separate legal entity) sold the PET chips for further downstream production of PET film to Jindal’s EOU. The import of raw materials took place in the context of the manufacture of the intermediate product (PET chips). In other words, under sub-scheme (iii) domestic sales are considered to be exports.
(23)
With regard to sub-scheme (iv) input materials domestically procured by Jindal are written off from Jindal’s Advance Licence and an intermediate Advance Licence is issued to the domestic supplier. The holder of such intermediate Advance Licence can import, duty-free, the goods needed to produce the product that will subsequently be supplied to Jindal as raw material for the production of the product concerned.
(24)
In the case of sub-scheme (ii) listed above (Advance Licence for annual requirement), only the import allowance in value is documented on the licence. The licence holder is obliged to ‘maintain the nexus between imported inputs and the resultant product’ (paragraph 4.24A(c) HOP I 2004 to 2009).
(25)
Imported input materials are not transferable and have to be used to produce the resultant export product. The export obligation must be fulfilled within a prescribed time frame after issuance of the licence (18 months with two possible extensions of six months each, i.e. a total of 30 months).
(26)
The verification showed that the company’s specific consumption rate of key raw materials needed to produce one kilogram of PET film, in various degrees depending on the quality of the PET film and as reported in the consumption register, was lower than the corresponding SION. This was clearly the case with regard to the old SION for PET film and PET chips, and, to a lesser extent, to the revised SION which came into force in September 2005, i.e. during the review IP. In other words, Jindal was allowed to import duty-free, as per the SION, more raw materials than actually needed for its manufacturing process. This made the consumption register, in line with the FTP 2004 to 2009, the crucial verification element. However, this register was neither properly kept nor ever inspected by the GOI. The company claimed that the GOI would adjust the excess benefit when the licences expired, i.e. 30 months from the issuance of a licence, as the common practice is to make use of the two possible extensions of six months each. However, this claim could not be verified as no licence used by Jindal had yet been redeemed.
(27)
Changes in the administration of the FTP 2004 to 2009, which became effective in autumn of 2005 (mandatory sending of the consumption register to the Indian authorities in the context of the redemption procedure) had not yet been applied in the case of Jindal. Thus, the de facto implementation of this provision could not be verified at this stage.
(d) Conclusion
(28)
The exemption from import duties is a subsidy within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a)(ii) and Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation, in that the non-collection of import duties otherwise due is a financial contribution of the GOI, which conferred a benefit upon Jindal by improving its liquidity.
(29)
In addition, the four sub-schemes used by Jindal (i.e. the ones listed above under (i) to (iv)) are contingent in law upon export performance, and therefore deemed to be specific and countervailable under Article 3(4)(a) of the basic Regulation. Without an export commitment a company cannot obtain benefits under these schemes. Obviously, this is the case with regard to schemes (i), (ii) and (iv), but even the ALS deemed exports fulfils this criterion in the present case because the supply to an EOU ultimately aims at real exports.
(30)
The sub-schemes used in the present case cannot be considered as permissible duty drawback systems or substitution drawback systems within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a)(ii) of the basic Regulation. They do not conform to the strict rules laid down in Annex I point (i), Annex II (definition and rules for drawback) and Annex III (definition and rules for substitution drawback) of the basic Regulation. The GOI did not effectively apply its verification system or procedure to confirm whether and in what amounts inputs were consumed in the production of the exported product (Annex II(II)(4) of the basic Regulation and, in the case of substitution drawback schemes, Annex III(II)(2) of the basic Regulation). The SIONs for the product concerned were not sufficiently precise. The SIONs themselves cannot be considered a verification system of actual consumption because the design of those overly generous standard norms does not enable the GOI to verify with sufficient precision what amount of inputs were consumed in the export production. Furthermore, no effective control by the GOI based on the consumption register took place.
(31)
The company, in its post-disclosure comments, maintained that it keeps a proper consumption register and, as such, that a proper verification system is in place in accordance with Annex II to the basic Regulation. It further claimed that the ALS works as a substitution scheme, so that duty-free inputs may be used to produce products sold domestically, as long as the duty-free inputs are, either directly or through substitution, consumed in the production of goods subsequently exported within a reasonable period of time. However, even though the company might keep a register of the consumption of raw material to produce a quantity of the product concerned, it failed to maintain a system whereby it could be verified which inputs were consumed in the production of the exported product and in what amounts, as stipulated by the FTP 2004 to 2009 (Appendix 23) and in accordance with Annex II(II)(4) to the basic Regulation. Further, it does not maintain a system whereby it can be verified that the quantity of the input for which drawback is claimed does not exceed the quantity of similar product exported, in accordance with Annex III(II)(2). In the present case, it is, after careful consideration, maintained that there is no link between the duty-free input consumed and the exported product, and that there is therefore no proper verification system in place.
(32)
The sub-schemes are therefore countervailable.
(e) Calculation of the subsidy amount
(33)
The subsidy amount was calculated as follows. The numerator is the sum of the import duties foregone (basic customs duty and special additional customs duty) on the material imported under sub-schemes (i) to (iii) respectively applicable to imports via the intermediate manufacturer; in the case of sub-scheme (iv), the numerator is the sum of the import duties foregone on inputs used in producing the product concerned during the review IP.
(34)
The company claimed, in its post-disclosure comments, that the customs duties for the raw materials needed for the production of PET film decreased from 15 % to 7,5 % from March 2006, i.e. after the end of the IP, and requested that the Commission take this change into account in the calculation of the subsidy rate for ALS. However, although there have been instances where events occurring after the IP have been taken into account, this is restricted to extraordinary circumstances which do not appear to apply in this case. Therefore, in accordance with Articles 5 and 11(1) of the basic Regulation, this request has to be rejected.
(35)
The company further claimed, in its post-disclosure comments, that the benefit under sub-scheme (iv) was, in fact, the price difference between regular domestic purchases of inputs and purchases of inputs against invalidation of ALS and produced some calculations to that effect without supporting evidence. However, the benefit is calculated on the basis of the duty foregone in the licence, since the sale/purchase price of the material is a purely commercial decision and does not alter the amount of duty unpaid. In any event, this claim was made post-disclosure for the first time and, as there was no opportunity for the Commission to verify it, it was rejected.
(36)
In accordance with Article 7(1)(a) of the basic Regulation, fees necessarily incurred to obtain the subsidy were deducted from the subsidy amounts where justified claims were made. The entire amount of import duties foregone is taken as the numerator and not the excess remission/exemption, as the company requested, because the ALS does not fulfil the conditions laid down in Annex II to the basic Regulation. In accordance with Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation, the denominator is the export turnover during the review IP. The company claimed that deemed exports should be included in the total export turnover of the company during the review IP. However, as these transactions are not, in fact, exports but rather sales to the domestic market, they cannot be properly classified as exports and were thus not included in the total export turnover amount.
(37)
The subsidy rate established for the ALS amounts to 14,68 %.
2. Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme (DEPBS)
(a) Legal Basis
(38)
A description of the DEPBS is contained in paragraph 4.3 of the FTP 2004 to 2009.
(b) Eligibility
(39)
Jindal was not found to be using the DEPBS during the review IP, therefore no further analysis of the countervailability of this scheme is necessary.
3. Export Oriented Units Scheme (EOUS)/Special Economic Zones Scheme (SEZS)
(a) Legal basis
(40)
The details of these schemes are contained in Chapter 6 of the FTP 2004 to 2009, the HOP I 2004 to 2009 (EOUS), the SEZ Act 2005 and the rules framed thereunder (SEZS).
(b) Eligibility
(41)
With the exception of pure trading companies, all enterprises which undertake to export a certain amount of their production of goods or services may be set up under the EOUS or SEZS. Jindal was found to benefit from the EOUS but not the SEZS during the review IP. Consequently, the analysis focuses on the EOUS only.
(c) Practical implementation
(42)
An EOU can be established anywhere in India. This scheme is complementary to the SEZS.
(43)
An application for EOU status must include details of, inter alia, planned production quantities, projected value of exports, import requirements and indigenous requirements for a period of five years. If the authorities accept the company’s application, the terms and conditions attached to the acceptance will be communicated to the company. The agreement to be recognised as a company under the EOUS is valid for a five-year period and can be renewed further.
(44)
A crucial obligation of an EOU, as set out in the FTP 2004 to 2009, is to achieve net foreign exchange (NFE) earnings, i.e. in a reference period (five years), the total value of exports has to be higher than the total value of imported goods.
(45)
An EOU is entitled to the following concessions:
(i)
exemption from import duties on all types of goods (including capital goods, raw materials and consumables) required for the manufacture, production or processing or in connection therewith;
(ii)
exemption from excise duty on goods procured from indigenous sources;
(iii)
reimbursement of central sales tax paid on goods procured locally;
(iv)
facility to sell up to 50 % of the fob value of exports on the domestic market’s so called domestic tariff area (DTA) on payment of concessional duties;
(v)
exemption from income tax normally due on profits realised on export sales in accordance with Section 10B of the Income Tax Act, for a period of 10 years after the beginning of its operations, but only up to 2010;
(vi)
possibility of 100 % foreign equity ownership.
(46)
Units operating under these schemes are bonded under the surveillance of customs officials in accordance with Section 65 of the Customs Act. EOUs are legally obliged to maintain, in a specified format, a proper account of all imports, of the consumption and utilisation of all imported materials and of the exports made. These documents are required to be submitted periodically to the competent authorities (quarterly and annual progress reports). However, ‘at no point in time shall [an EOU] be required to correlate every import consignment with its exports, transfers to other units, sales in the DTA and balance in stock’, as per paragraph 6.11.2 of the FTP 2004 to 2009.
(47)
Domestic sales are dispatched and recorded on a self-certification basis. The dispatch process of export consignments of an EOU is supervised by a customs/excise official, who is permanently posted in the EOU.
(48)
Jindal utilised the EOU to import capital goods free of import duties and to obtain a reimbursement of the central sales tax paid on goods procured locally. It did not make use of the exemption from import duties on raw materials, since the EOU facility, in order to produce PET film, uses PET chips as raw materials. These PET chips are produced in another unit of the company from raw materials purchased under the ALS.
(d) Conclusions on the EOU
(49)
The exemption of an EOU from two types of import duties (basic customs duty and special additional customs duty) and the reimbursement of the central sales tax are financial contributions by the GOI within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a)(ii) of the basic Regulation. Government revenue which would be due in the absence of this scheme is foregone, thus conferring a benefit upon the EOU within the meaning of Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation by improving its liquidity.
(50)
Thus, the exemption from basic customs duty and special additional customs duty and the sales tax reimbursement constitute subsidies within the meaning of Article 2 of the basic Regulation. They are contingent in law upon export performance and, therefore, deemed to be specific and countervailable under Article 3(4)(a) of the basic Regulation. The export objective of an EOU as set out in paragraph 6.1 of the FTP 2004 to 2009 is a necessary condition to obtain the incentives.
(51)
In addition, it was confirmed that the GOI has no effective verification system or procedure in place to confirm whether and in what amounts duty and/or sales-tax-free procured inputs were consumed in the production of the exported product (Annex II(II)(4) to the basic Regulation and, in the case of substitution drawback schemes, Annex III(II)(2) of the basic Regulation). In any event, the exemption from duties on capital goods is not a permissible duty drawback scheme because capital goods are not consumed in the production process.
(52)
The GOI did not carry out a further examination based on actual inputs involved, although this would normally need to be done in the absence of an effective verification system (Annex II(II)(5) and Annex III(II)(3) of the basic Regulation), nor did it prove that no excess remission had taken place.
(e) Calculation of the subsidy amount
(53)
Accordingly, the countervailable benefit is the exemption from total duties (basic customs duty and special additional customs duty) normally due upon importation, as well as the sales tax reimbursement, both during the review IP.
(i) Reimbursement of central sales tax on domestically procured goods
(54)
The numerator was established as follows: the subsidy amount was calculated on the basis of the sales tax reimbursable on the purchases made for the production sector, e.g. parts and packing materials, during the review IP. Fees necessarily incurred to obtain the subsidy were deducted in accordance with Article 7(1)(a) of the basic Regulation.
(55)
In accordance with Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation, this subsidy amount was allocated over the export turnover generated by all export sales of the product concerned during the review IP (the denominator), because the subsidy is contingent upon export performance and it was not granted by reference to the quantities manufactured, produced, exported or transported. The subsidy margin thus obtained was 0,04 %.
(ii) Exemption from import duties (basic customs duty and special additional customs duty) and reimbursement of central sales tax on capital goods
(56)
In accordance with Article 7(3) of the basic Regulation, the benefit was calculated on the basis of the amount of unpaid customs duty on imported capital goods and of the amount of sales tax reimbursed on purchases of capital goods, both spread across a period which reflected the normal depreciation period of such capital goods in the industry of the product concerned. The company claimed that this should have been the depreciation rate actually used by the company in its financial statements; however, the requirement in Article 7(3) is interpreted to refer to the depreciation rate specified in the legislation applicable to the company, in this case the rate specified in the Companies Act 1956. The amount so calculated which is then attributable to the review IP was adjusted by adding interest during this period in order to reflect the value of the benefit over time and thereby establishing the full benefit of this scheme to the recipient. Fees necessarily incurred to obtain the subsidy were deducted in accordance with Article 7(1)(a) of the basic Regulation from this sum to arrive at the subsidy amount as the numerator. In accordance with Article 7(2) and 7(3) of the basic Regulation this subsidy amount was allocated over the export turnover of sales of the product concerned during the review IP as the appropriate denominator, because the subsidy is contingent upon export performance and was not granted by reference to the quantities manufactured, produced, exported or transported. The company claimed that deemed exports should be included in the total export turnover, but this claim was rejected for the reasons set out in recital 36 above. The subsidy margin thus obtained was 1,26 %.
(57)
Thus, the total subsidy margin under the EOU scheme for Jindal amounts to 1,3 %.
4. Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme (EPCGS)
(a) Legal Basis
(58)
A detailed description of the EPCGS can be found in Chapter 5 of the FTP 2004 to 2009 and in Chapter 5 of the HOP I 2004 to 2009.
(b) Eligibility
(59)
Any manufacturer-exporter and merchant-exporter ‘tied to’ a supporting manufacturer or service provider is eligible for this scheme. Jindal was found to benefit from this scheme during the review IP.
(c) Practical Implementation
(60)
Under the condition of an export obligation, a company is allowed to import capital goods (new and - since April 2003 - second-hand capital goods up to 10 years old) at a reduced rate of duty. To this end, the GOI issues, upon application and the payment of a fee, an EPCG licence. Since April 2000, the scheme provides for a reduced import duty rate of 5 %, applicable to all capital goods imported under the scheme. In order to meet the export obligation, the imported capital goods must be used to produce a certain amount of export goods during a certain period.
(d) Conclusion on the EPCGS
(61)
The EPCGS provides subsidies within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a)(ii) and Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation, as the GOI foregoes revenue otherwise due. In addition, the duty reduction confers a benefit upon the exporter because the non-payment of duties saved upon importation improves its liquidity.
(62)
Further, the EPCGS is contingent in law upon export performance, since such licences cannot be obtained without a commitment to export. Therefore, it is deemed to be specific and countervailable under Article 3(4)(a) of the basic Regulation.
(63)
The scheme cannot be considered a permissible duty drawback system or substitution drawback system within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a)(ii) to the basic Regulation. Capital goods are not covered by the scope of such permissible systems, as set out in Annex I, item (i) to the basic Regulation, because they are not consumed in the production of the exported products.
(e) Calculation of the subsidy amount
(64)
The numerator was established as follows: the subsidy amount was calculated, in accordance with Article 7(3) of the basic Regulation, on the basis of unpaid customs duty on imported capital goods spread over a period which reflects the normal depreciation period of such capital goods in the PET film industry, which, for the reasons set out in recital 56 above, was deemed to be the rate specified in the Companies Act 1956 and not the one actually used by the company. Interest was added to this amount in order to reflect the full value of the benefit over time. Fees necessarily incurred to obtain the subsidy were deducted, in accordance with Article 7(1)(a) of the basic Regulation.
(65)
The company claimed that capital goods imported duty-free under the ECPG scheme for use in the Khanvel unit were no longer in use and that the benefit relating to such goods should not be included in the numerator. However, as there is no evidence that the company no longer possesses such goods or that it will not use them again, the Commission must reject this claim.
(66)
In accordance with Article 7(2) and 7(3) of the basic Regulation, this subsidy amount was allocated over the export turnover of the product concerned generated during the review IP (the denominator), as the subsidy is contingent upon export performance. The company claimed that deemed exports should be included in the total export turnover, but this claim was rejected for the reasons set out in recital 36 above. The subsidy obtained by Jindal is 1,11 %.
5. Export Income Tax Exemption Scheme (EITES)
(a) Legal basis
(67)
The legal basis for this scheme is contained in the Income Tax Act 1961, amended yearly by the Finance Act. The latter sets out, every year, the basis for the collection of taxes, as well as various exemptions and deductions which can be claimed. Export Oriented Units e.g. may claim income tax exemptions under section 10B of the Income Tax Act 1961.
(b) Practical implementation
(68)
As Jindal was not found to have availed itself of any benefits under the EITES no further analysis of the countervailability of this scheme is necessary.
6. Export Credit Scheme (ECS)
(a) Legal basis
(69)
The details of the scheme are set out in Master Circular IECD No 5/04.02.01/2002-03 (Export Credit in Foreign Currency) and Master Circular IECD No 10/04.02.01/2003-04 (Rupee Export Credit) of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), which is addressed to all commercial banks in India.
(b) Eligibility
(70)
Manufacturing exporters and merchant exporters are eligible for this scheme. Jindal was found to benefit from this scheme during the review IP.
(c) Practical implementation
(71)
Under this scheme, the RBI sets mandatory ceilings on interest rates applicable to export credits, both in Indian rupees and in foreign exchange, which commercial banks can charge an exporter ‘with a view to making credit available to exporters at internationally competitive rates’. The ECS consists of two sub-schemes, the Pre-Shipment Export Credit Scheme (packing credit), which covers credits provided to an exporter for financing the purchase, processing, manufacturing, packing and/or shipping of goods prior to export, and the Post-Shipment Export Credit Scheme, which provides for working capital loans for financing export receivables. The RBI also directs the banks to provide a certain amount of their net bank credit towards export finance.
(72)
As a result of these RBI Master Circulars, exporters can obtain export credit at preferential interest rates compared to the interest rates on ordinary commercial credit (cash credits), which are set under market conditions.
(d) Conclusion on the ECS
(73)
Firstly, by lowering financing costs as compared with market interest rates, the above preferential interest rates confer a benefit within the meaning of Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation on such exporters. Despite the fact that the preferential credits under the ECS are granted by commercial banks, this benefit is a financial contribution by a government within the meaning of Article 2(1)(iv) of the basic Regulation. The RBI is a public body, falling, therefore, within the definition of a ‘government’ set out in Article 1(3) of the basic Regulation and it instructs commercial banks to grant preferential financing to exporting companies. This preferential financing amounts to a subsidy, which is deemed to be specific and countervailable, since the preferential interest rates are contingent upon export performance pursuant to Article 3(4)(a) of the basic Regulation.
(e) Calculation of the subsidy amount
(74)
The subsidy amount was calculated on the basis of the difference between the interest paid for export credits used during the review IP and the amount that would have been payable if market interest rates had been charged, as for ordinary commercial loans made by the company. The subsidy amount (numerator) was allocated over the total export turnover during the review investigation period (denominator) in accordance with Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation, as the subsidy is contingent upon export performance and is not granted by reference to quantities manufactured, produced, exported or transported. Jindal availed itself of benefits under the ECS and obtained a subsidy of 0,1 %.
7. Duty-Free Replenishment Certificate (DFRC)
(a) Legal basis
(75)
The legal basis for this scheme is contained in paragraph 4.2 of the FTP 2004 to 2009.
(b) Practical Implementation
(76)
As Jindal was not found to have availed itself of any benefits under the DFRC during the review IP, no further analysis of the countervailability of this scheme is necessary.
III. Regional Scheme
(a) Legal basis
(77)
In order to encourage the establishment of industries in less developed areas of the State, the GOM has been granting incentives to new expansion units set up in developing regions of the State, since 1964, under a scheme commonly known as the ‘Package Scheme of Incentives’. The scheme has been amended several times since its introduction and the ‘1993 scheme’ was eligible for application from 1 October 1993 to 31 March 2001, whereas the latest amendment, the PSI 2006, was introduced in the margins of the ‘Industrial, Investment & Infrastructure Policy of Maharashtra 2006’ in spring 2006 and is foreseen to be eligible for application up to 31 March 2011. The PSI of the GOM is composed of several sub-schemes, the main one being direct grants via a so-called industrial promotion subsidy, the exemption from local sales tax and electricity duty and the refund of octroi tax.
(78)
Jindal continues to avail itself of incentives under the PSI 1993 until May 2011 and not under successor schemes. Consequently, only the PSI 1993 was assessed in the context of the case at hand.
(b) Eligibility
(79)
In order to be eligible, companies must invest in less developed areas, either by setting up a new industrial establishment or by making a large-scale capital investment in expansion or diversification of an existing industrial establishment. These areas are classified, according to their economic development, into different categories (e.g. less developed area, lesser developed area and least developed area). The main criterion to establish the amount of incentives is the area in which the enterprise is or will be located and the size of the investment.
(c) Practical implementation
(80)
Remission of local sales tax on sales of finished goods: goods are normally subject to central sales tax (for inter-State sales) or, in the past, State sales tax (for intra-State sales) at varying levels, depending upon the State(s) in which transactions are made. In April 2005 the sales tax legislation for intra-State sales in Maharashtra was replaced by a value added tax (VAT) system. Under the exemption scheme, designated units are not required to collect any sales tax on their sales transactions. Similarly, designated units are exempted from payment of the local sales tax on their purchases of goods from a supplier itself eligible for the scheme. Jindal was found to have benefited from this exemption in relation to sales transactions during the review IP.
(81)
Reimbursement of electricity duty: eligible units are eligible for refund of electricity duty on the electricity consumed for production purposes for a period of seven years from the date of commercial production. In the case of Jindal this seven-year period lapsed on 31 March 2003. Consequently, Jindal was no longer eligible for the reimbursement of electricity duty.
(82)
Refund of the octroi tax: octroi is a tax levied by local Governments in India, including the GOM, on goods that enter the territorial limits of a town. Industrial enterprises are entitled to a refund of the octroi tax from the GOM if their facility is located in certain specified towns within the territory of the State. The total amount that may be refunded is restricted to 100 % of the fixed capital investment. Jindal’s plant is located outside city limits and is therefore per se exempt from octroi tax, with the result that this sub-scheme is not applicable in the present case.
(d) Conclusion on the PSI 1993 of the GOM
(83)
Jindal only accrued remission rights of sales tax on sales of finished goods during the review IP, which in the past has been found not to confer a benefit on the recipient (recital 114 of Regulation (EC) No 367/2006). Consequently, the PSI is not countervailable in the present case.
IV. Amount of countervailable subsidies
(84)
The amount of countervailable subsidies determined in accordance with the basic Regulation, expressed ad valorem, for the investigated exporting producer is 17,1 %. This amount of subsidisation exceeds the de minimis threshold mentioned under Article 14(5) of the basic Regulation.
SCHEME
ALS
EOUS
EPCGS
ECS
Total
%
%
%
%
%
Jindal
14,68
1,30
1,11
0,1
17,1
V. Lasting nature of changed circumstances with regard to subsidisation
(85)
In accordance with Article 19(2) of the basic Regulation, it was examined whether the continuation of the existing measure was insufficient to counteract the countervailable subsidy which is causing injury.
(86)
It was established that, during the review IP, Jindal continued to benefit from countervailable subsidisation by the Indian authorities. Further, the subsidy rate found during this review is considerably higher than that established during the original investigation. No evidence is available that the schemes will be discontinued or phased out in the near future.
(87)
Since it has been demonstrated that the company is in receipt of much higher subsidisation than before and that it is likely to continue to receive subsidies of an amount higher than determined in the original investigation, it is concluded that the continuation of the existing measure is not sufficient to counteract the countervailable subsidy causing injury and that the level of the measure should therefore be amended to reflect the new findings.
VI. Conclusion
(88)
In view of the conclusions reached with regard to the level of subsidisation of Jindal and the insufficiency of the existing measure to counteract the countervailable subsidies found, the countervailing duty with regard to Jindal should be amended in order to reflect the new subsidisation levels found.
(89)
The amended countervailing duty should be established at the new rate of subsidisation found during the present review, as the injury margin calculated in the original investigation remains higher.
(90)
Pursuant to Article 24(1) of the basic Regulation and Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96, no product shall be subject to both anti-dumping and countervailing duties for the purpose of dealing with one and the same situation arising from dumping or from export subsidisation. However, since Jindal is subject to an anti-dumping duty of 0 % with regard to the product concerned, these provisions do not apply in the present case.
(91)
Jindal, the GOI and the Community industry were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend the amendment of the measures in force and had the opportunity to comment. The GOI did not submit any comments, and Jindal’s comments have been discussed in the recitals relevant to each specific comment above.
(92)
The company, in its post-disclosure comments, requested the Commission to accept a price undertaking in order to offset the countervailable subsidies found herein. The Commission has examined the company’s proposal and considers that a price undertaking cannot be accepted. Price undertakings based on groups of products, as suggested by the company, permit a large degree of flexibility to change the technical characteristics of the products within the group. PET film comprises numerous and evolving differentiating features, which largely determine sales price. Consequently, changes in those features have a significant impact on prices. An attempt to subdivide the groupings to make them more homogeneous in terms of physical characteristics would lead to a multiplication of groupings which would render monitoring unworkable, in particular, by making it difficult for customs authorities to discern the difference between product types and the classification of products by grouping upon importation. For these reasons, the acceptance of the undertaking is considered impractical within the meaning of Article 13(3) of the basic Regulation. Jindal was informed and given the opportunity to comment. However, its comments have not altered the above conclusion.
(93)
As India Polyfilms Limited, a company previously related to Jindal, merged with Jindal on 1 April 1999 and no longer forms a separate entity, it was removed from the list set out in Article 1(2),
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Article 1(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 367/2006 shall be replaced by the following:
‘2. The rate of duty applicable to the net free-at-Community-frontier price, before duty for imports produced in India by the companies listed below, shall be as follows:
Company
Definitive duty (%)
TARIC Additional Code
Ester Industries Limited, 75-76, Amrit Nagar, Behind South Extension Part-1,
New Delhi 110 003, India
12,0
A026
Flex Industries Limited, A-1, Sector 60, Noida 201 301 (U.P.), India
12,5
A027
Garware Polyester Limited, Garware House, 50-A, Swami Nityanand Marg, Vile Parle (East),
Mumbai 400 057, India
14,9
A028
Jindal Poly Films Limited, 56 Hanuman Road, New Delhi 110 001, India
17,1
A030
MTZ Polyfilms Limited, New India Centre, 5th Floor, 17 Co-operage Road,
Mumbai 400 039, India
8,7
A031
Polyplex Corporation Limited, B-37, Sector-1, Noida 201 301, Dist. Gautam Budh Nagar,
Uttar Pradesh, India
19,1
A032
All other companies
19,1
A999’
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 28 September 2007. | [
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0
] | {0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'} | {'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20} |