24.1.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 19/1

(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,

24.1.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 19/3

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1345/2005 of 16 August 2005 laying down detailed rules for the application of the system of import licences for olive oil (2) repealed Regulation (EC) No 2543/95 of 30 October 1995 laying down special detailed rules for the application of the system of export licences for olive oil (3) with effect from 1 November 2005.

(2)

Some licences issued pursuant to Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 2543/95 whose validity extends beyond 1 November 2005 have not been used at all or in part. If the commitments imposed by these licences are not complied with, the security lodged is forfeit. As these commitments are now devoid of purpose, they should be lifted and the securities should be released.

(3)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Olive Oil and Table Olives,

—

their validity has not expired by 1 November 2005,

—

they have been used only partially or not at all by that date.

24.1.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 19/4

(1)

The representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2005/2006 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1011/2005 (3). These prices and duties were last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 105/2006 (4).

(2)

The data currently available to the Commission indicate that the said amounts should be changed in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1423/95,

24.1.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 19/6

(1)

The export refunds on white sugar and raw sugar exported in the natural state were fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 93/2006 (2).

(2)

Since the data currently available to the Commission are different to the data at the time Regulation (EC) No 93/2006 was adopted, those refunds should be adjusted,

24.1.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 19/8

(1)

The refunds on syrups and certain other sugar products were fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 94/2006 (2).

(2)

Since the information at present available to the Commission is different to that available to it at the time Regulation (EC) No 94/2006 was adopted, these refunds should be amended,

24.1.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 19/10

(1)

The rates of the refunds applicable from 20 January 2006 to the products listed in the Annex, exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty, were fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 90/2006 (2).

(2)

It follows from applying the rules and criteria contained in Regulation (EC) No 90/2006 to the information at present available to the Commission that the export refunds at present applicable should be altered as shown in the Annex hereto,

24.1.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 19/12

(1)

Preparations composed of more than one substance being classified in Annex I to Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (2) as carcinogenic, mutagenic and/or toxic for reproduction must currently be labelled with risk phrases (R-phrases) to indicate both category 1 or 2 and category 3 classification. However, providing both R-phrases sends a conflicting message. Preparations should therefore only be classified and labelled with the higher category.

(2)

For substances very toxic to the aquatic environment (classified as N) and assigned the R-phrases R50 or R50/53, specific concentration limits (SCLs) are currently applied to substances listed in Annex I to Directive 67/548/EEC in order to avoid an underestimation of the hazard. This measure creates distortions between preparations containing substances listed in Annex I to Directive 67/548/EEC, to which SCLs are applied, and those preparations containing substances not yet included in Annex I, but classified and labelled provisionally in accordance with Article 6 of Directive 67/548/EEC and to which no SCLs are applicable. It is therefore necessary to ensure that SCLs are applied in the same way to all preparations containing substances very toxic to the aquatic environment.

(3)

On 6 August 2001, the Commission adopted Directive 2001/59/EC (3) adapting to technical progress Directive 67/548/EEC. Directive 2001/59/EC revised the criteria in Annex VI to Directive 67/548/EEC for the classification and labelling of ozone depleting substances. The revised Annex III now only provides for the assignment of the symbol N in addition to R-phrase R59.

(4)

The terminology used to describe the packaging and the labelling requirements in Annex V to Directive 1999/45/EC has raised concerns due to the lack of consistency. It is therefore appropriate to modify the wording in Annex V to Directive 1999/45/EC to make it more accurate.

(5)

Annexes II, III and V to Directive 1999/45/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.

(6)

The measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for the adaptation to technical progress of the Directives on the removal of technical barriers to trade in dangerous substances and preparations established under Article 20 of Directive 1999/45/EC,

24.1.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 19/20

24.1.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 19/23

(1)

Directives 86/362/EEC and 90/642/EEC provide that the Commission should progressively work towards a system which would permit the estimation of dietary exposure to pesticides. To make realistic estimations possible, data on the monitoring of pesticide residues should be available in a number of food products which constitute major components of the European diet. It is generally recognised that major components of the European diet are constituted by some 20 to 30 food products. In view of the resources available at national level for pesticide residue monitoring, Member States are only able to analyse samples of eight products each year within a coordinated monitoring programme. Pesticide uses show changes within the timescale of three-year cycles. Each pesticide should thus generally be monitored in 20 to 30 food products over a series of three-year cycles.

(2)

Residues of the pesticides covered by this Recommendation should be monitored in 2006, as this will allow using these data for the estimation of actual dietary exposure to them.

(3)

A systematic statistical approach to numbers of samples to be taken in each coordinated monitoring exercise is necessary. Such an approach has been set out by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (3). On the basis of a binomial probability distribution, it can be calculated that examination of 613 samples allows with a certainty of more than 99 %, the detection of a sample containing pesticide residues above the limit of determination (LOD), provided that less than 1 % of products of plant origin contain residues above that limit. Collection of these samples should be apportioned between Member States on the basis of population and consumer numbers, with a minimum of 12 samples per product and per year.

(4)

Guidelines concerning ‘Quality Control Procedures for Pesticide Residue Analysis’ are published on the Commission website (4). It is agreed that these guidelines should be applied as far as possible by the analytical laboratories of the Member States and should be reviewed continuously in the light of experience gained in the monitoring programmes.

(5)

Commission Directive 2002/63/EC establishes Community methods of sampling for the official control of pesticide residues in and on products of plant and animal origin and repealing Directive 79/700/EEC (5). The sampling methods and procedures laid down in this Directive incorporate those recommended by the Codex Alimentarius Commission.

(6)

Directives 86/362/EEC and 90/642/EEC require Member States to specify the criteria applied in drawing up their national inspection programmes. Such information should include the criteria applied in determining the numbers of samples to be taken and analyses to be carried out and the reporting levels applied, the criteria by which the reporting levels have been fixed and details of accreditation under the Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004, animal health and animal welfare rules on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law (6). The number and type of infringements and the action taken should also be indicated.

(7)

Maximum residue levels for baby food have been established in accordance with Article 6 of Commission Directive 91/321/EEC of 14 May 1991 on infant formulae and follow-on formulae (7) and Article 6 of Commission Directive 96/5/EC, Euratom of 16 February 1996 on processed cereal-based foods and baby foods for infants and young children (8).

(8)

Information on the results of monitoring programmes is particularly appropriate for treatment, storage and transmission by electronic/informatics methods. Formats have been developed for supply of data by e-mail from the Member States. Member States should therefore be able to send their reports to the Commission in the standard format. The further development of such a standard format is most effectively undertaken by the development of guidelines by the Commission.

(9)

The measures provided for in this recommendation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,

1.

Member States are invited, during the year 2006, to take and analyse samples for the product/pesticide residue combinations set out in Annex I, on the basis of the number of samples of each product allocated to them in Annex II, reflecting as appropriate, national, Community and third country share of the Member State's market.

The sampling procedure, including the number of units, should be in line with Commission Directive 2002/63/EC.

2.

For pesticides posing an acute risk i.e. where an ARfD is set (e.g. OP-esters, endosulfan and N-methylcarbamates) sampling should be done in such a way to allow the selection of two laboratory samples. If the first laboratory sample contains a detectable residue of a targeted pesticide, the units of the second sample should be analysed individually. This applies to the following products:

Of these products a reasonable number of samples should also be subjected to individual analysis of the individual units within the second laboratory sample in case such pesticides are detected in the first sample and particularly if it is the produce of a single producer.

3.

Of the total amount of samples as given according to Annex I and II, each Member State should take and analyse:

4.

Member States are invited to report the results of the analysis of samples tested for the product/pesticide residue combinations set out in Annex I by 31 August 2007 at the latest, indicating:

5.

The report should be produced in a format — including the electronic format — conforming to the guidance to the Member States with regard to implementation of Commission recommendations concerning coordinated Community monitoring programmes provided by the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health.

The result on samples of baby food and on samples taken from produce originating from organic farming should be reported in separate datasheets.

6.

Member States are invited to send to the Commission and to the other Member States, by 31 August 2006 at the latest, the information required under Article 7(3) of Directive 86/362/EEC and Article 4(3) of Directive 90/642/EEC concerning the 2005 monitoring exercise to ensure, at least by check sampling, compliance with maximum pesticide residue levels including:

7.

Member States are invited to send to the Commission, by 30 September 2006 at the latest, their intended national programme for monitoring maximum pesticide residue levels fixed by Directives 90/642/EEC and 86/362/EEC for the year 2007, including information on:

24.1.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 19/30

(1)

In accordance with Directive 97/78/EC and Regulation (EC) No 178/2002, the necessary measures must be adopted as regards imports of products from third countries that are likely to cause any serious hazard for animal or human health or where such a hazard is spreading.

(2)

Council Directive 96/22/EC of 29 April 1996 concerning the prohibition on the use in stockfarming of certain substances having a hormonal or thyrostatic action and of beta-agonists, and repealing Directives 81/602/EEC, 88/146/EEC and 88/299/EEC (3) prohibits imports from third countries of animals and of meat and meat products obtained from animals to which such substances have been administered, except in the case of administration for therapeutic purposes or zootechnical treatment.

(3)

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 (4) provides for a list of substances that cannot be used for meat production and a list of substances for which maximum residue limits have been fixed. It also provides for a list of certain veterinary medicinal products for which provisional maximum residue limits have been fixed. Those products could be present in meat from equidae.

(4)

The latest Community inspection visit to Mexico has revealed serious shortcomings in the capacity of the Mexican authorities to carry out reliable checks of meat of equidae, in particular to detect substances prohibited by Directive 96/22/EC.

(5)

That inspection also revealed serious shortcomings as regards controls of the market in veterinary medicines, including non-authorised products. Those shortcomings enable prohibited substances to be used easily in horse-meat production. Those substances could therefore be present in the meat and meat products of equidae intended for human consumption. The presence of those substances in food presents a potential serious risk for human health.

(6)

Member States should carry out the appropriate controls on meat and meat products of equidae imported from Mexico on arrival at the Community border in order to prevent such meat and meat products of equidae that are unfit for human consumption from being placed on the market.

(7)

Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 sets up the rapid alert system, which should be used to implement the mutual information requirement provided for in Article 22(2) of Directive 97/78/EC. In addition, Member States will keep the Commission informed through periodical reports of all analytical results of official controls carried out in respect of consignments of meat and meat products of equidae from Mexico.

(8)

This Decision should be reviewed in the light of the guarantees offered by the competent Mexican authorities and on the basis of the results of the tests carried out by Member States.

(9)

The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,

24.1.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 19/32

(1)

Certain Member States have requested, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000, that the maximum period laid down for applying eartags to bovine animals be extended to six months where the animals are kept under specific management conditions and where the area's specific natural handicaps and the animals' highly aggressive behaviour make it difficult and even dangerous to apply eartags in the 20 days after the animals are born.

(2)

Extension of the maximum period for applying eartags should be allowed in those circumstances and subject to certain safeguards. In particular, it is necessary to ensure that the quality of information provided by the database for bovine animals is not adversely affected and that no bovine animals to which eartags have not been applied are moved.

(3)

This extension should apply only to holdings that have been individually authorised by the Member State concerned in accordance with clearly defined criteria.

(4)

Since the measures provided for in this Decision should apply to all Member States, Commission Decision 98/589/EC of 12 October 1998 concerning an extension of the maximum period laid down for the application of eartags to certain bovine animals belonging to the Spanish herd (2), which sets out specific provisions for Spain, should be repealed.

(5)

The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund,

(a)

the holding is a free-range farm where suckler cows are reared under extensive conditions;

(b)

the area where the animals are kept features significant natural handicaps that result in reduced physical contact with humans;

(c)

the animals are not accustomed to regular contact with humans and show highly aggressive behaviour;

(d)

when the eartags are applied, each calf can be clearly assigned to its mother.

—

reaches the age of six months,

—

is separated from its mother,

—

leaves the holding.

24.1.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 19/34

(1)

On 26 February 1996 the Council adopted Common Position 96/184/CFSP (1) concerning arms exports to the former Yugoslavia, which has been amended several times. Consequently, the arms embargo imposed in 1996 applies only to Bosnia and Herzegovina.

(2)

Developments in Bosnia and Herzegovina, including the fact that Bosnia and Herzegovina has now adopted, and is implementing, legislation on exports, imports and transit of arms which meets the appropriate EU standards, justify a lifting of the restrictive measures taken against that State pursuant to Common Position 96/184/CFSP.

(3)

Furthermore, on 21 November 2005, the Council authorised the Commission to open negotiations with Bosnia and Herzegovina on a Stabilisation and Association Agreement.

(4)

Common Position 96/184/CFSP should therefore be repealed, on the understanding that the Member States rigorously apply the EU Code of Conduct on arms exports adopted on 8 June 1998, and, as regards exports to the former Yugoslavia, take into account the objectives of the EU policy in the region, which is aimed fundamentally at pacification and stabilisation in the area, including the need for arms control, reduction of arms to the lowest possible level and confidence-building measures,

24.1.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 19/36

(1)

On 13 December 2004, the Council adopted Common Position 2004/852/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Côte d'Ivoire (1) in order to implement the measures imposed against Côte d'Ivoire by the United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1572(2004). In accordance with that Resolution, these measures applied until 15 December 2005.

(2)

In the light of the recent developments in Côte d'Ivoire, the UN Security Council on 15 December 2005 adopted Resolution 1643(2005) renewing the restrictive measures imposed by UNSCR 1572(2004) for a further period of 12 months.

(3)

The measures imposed by Common Position 2004/852/CFSP should therefore be renewed for a further period of 12 months with effect from 16 December 2005, in order to give effect to UNSCR 1643(2005).

(4)

In addition to these measures, paragraph 6 of UNSCR 1643(2005) requires that measures be taken to prevent the import of all rough diamonds from Côte d'Ivoire. The Community is already applying these measures by virtue of Council Regulation (EC) No 2368/2002 of 20 December 2002 implementing the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme for the international trade in rough diamonds (2),

24.1.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 19/38

(1)

On 10 February 2004, the Council adopted Common Position 2004/137/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Liberia (1) in order to implement the measures imposed against Liberia by the United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1521(2003).

(2)

On 22 December 2004, the Council adopted Common Position 2004/902/CFSP (2) extending Common Position 2004/137/CFSP for a 12-month period, in accordance with UNSCR 1579(2004).

(3)

In the light of the developments in Liberia, the UN Security Council on 20 December 2005 adopted Resolution 1647(2005) renewing the restrictive measures on arms and travel imposed by UNSCR 1521(2003) for a further period of 12 months and renewing the restrictive measures on diamonds and timber imposed by UNSCR 1521 (2003) for a further period of six months.

(4)

The measures imposed by Common Position 2004/137/CFSP should therefore be renewed with effect from 23 December 2005 in order to give effect to UNSCR 1647(2005),