(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,

(1)

According to Article 12(d) of Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 the isoglucose produced in excess of the quota referred to in Article 7 of that Regulation can be exported only within the quantitative limit to be fixed.

(2)

For some of the Community producers of isoglucose exports from the Community represent an important part of their economic activities and they have established traditional markets outside the Community as well. Exports of isoglucose to these markets could be economically viable also without granting export refunds. To that end it is necessary to fix a quantitative limit for out-of-quota isoglucose exports so that the Community producers concerned may continue to supply their traditional markets.

(3)

For the period from 1 August to 30 September 2007 it is estimated that fixing the quantitative limit at 20 000 tonnes, dry matter, for out-of-quota isoglucose exports would correspond to the market demand.

(4)

A preventive withdrawal of certain quantities of sugar, isoglucose and inulin syrup was provided for in respect of the 2006/2007 marketing year by Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 493/2006 of 27 March 2006 laying down transitional measures within the framework of the reform of the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector, and amending Regulations (EC) No 1265/2001 and (EC) No 314/2002 (2). The undertakings concerned could request that the quantities of their production affected by that measure be considered fully or partially to be produced in excess of their respective quotas, thus opening for those undertakings the possibilities provided for in Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards out-of-quota production. Such requests had to be submitted before 31 January 2007. In order to enable the undertakings concerned to submit such requests in respect of isoglucose to be exported within the quantitative limit for out-of-quota isoglucose exports, a further deadline for the submission of those requests should therefore be fixed.

(5)

With a view to ensuring orderly management, preventing speculation and providing for effective controls, detailed rules should be laid down for submitting licence applications.

(6)

In order to minimise the risk of fraud and to prevent any abuse associated with the eventual re-import or re-introduction into the Community of the isoglucose syrups concerned, certain countries of the Western Balkans should be excluded from the eligible destinations for out-of-quota isoglucose exports. However, those countries of the region whose authorities have to issue an export certificate for the confirmation of the origin of the sugar or isoglucose products to be exported to the Community should be exempted from this exclusion as the risks of fraud are more limited.

(7)

To assure coherence with the provisions relevant to exports in the sugar sector as laid down by Commission Regulation (EC) No 958/2006 of 28 June 2006 on a standing invitation to tender to determine refunds on exports of white sugar for the 2006/2007 marketing year (3) and Commission Regulation (EC) No 38/2007 of 17 January 2007 opening a standing invitation to tender for the resale for export of sugar held by the intervention agencies of Belgium, the Czech Republic, Spain, Ireland, Italy, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and Sweden (4) exports of out-of-quota isoglucose should not be permitted to certain close destinations as well.

(8)

In order to contravene the risk of re-importation and, more specifically, to ensure that the specific rules for returned goods referred to in Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (5) and in 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 (6) are being respected, Member States should be required to take all the necessary control measures.

(9)

In addition to the provisions of 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 (7) further implementing provisions should be established for the administration of the quantitative limit to be fixed by this Regulation, in particular regarding the conditions for applying for export licences.

(10)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sugar,

(1)

The second subparagraph of Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2201/96 establishes the criteria for setting the aid for the cultivation of grapes intended for the production of dried grapes of the sultana and Muscatel varieties and currants.

(2)

The third subparagraph of Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2201/96 states that the amount of aid may be differentiated according to grape variety. It also states that that amount may also be differentiated according to other factors which may affect yields. In the case of sultanas an additional differentiation should therefore be provided for, between areas affected by phylloxera and other areas.

(3)

For the 2006/2007 marketing year, verification of the areas used to grow the grapes referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2201/96 has revealed no overrun of the maximum guaranteed area laid down in Article 2(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1621/1999 of 22 July 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/96 as regards the aid for the cultivation of grapes to produce certain varieties of dried grapes (2).

(4)

The aid for the cultivation of those grapes should be determined for the 2007/2008 marketing year.

(5)

The aid to be granted to producers replanting their vineyards in order to combat phylloxera under the conditions provided for in Article 7(4) of Regulation (EC) No 2201/96 should also be determined.

(6)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Products Processed from Fruit and Vegetables,

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1555/96 of 30 July 1996 on rules of application for additional import duties on fruit and vegetables (2) provides for surveillance of imports of the products listed in the Annex 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 2004, 2005 and 2006, the trigger levels for additional duties on apples.

(3)

As a result, Regulation (EC) No 1555/96 should be amended.

(4)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Fresh Fruit and Vegetables,

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 2273/2002 (2) lays down provisions on the recording of prices on the representative markets of the Member States for various categories of bovine animals. Detailed rules on the information to be provided for the price survey for each of these categories are provided in the Annexes to that Regulation.

(2)

On the request of France, Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 2273/2002 should be partly revised in light of how marketing of cattle in that Member State has developed, thereby ensuring that the price survey continues to be based on representative markets.

(3)

Regulation (EC) No 2273/2002 should therefore be amended accordingly.

(4)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Beef and Veal,

(1)

The Agreement between the European Community and the Government of Canada on the conclusion of GATT Article XXIV:6 Negotiations (2), approved by Council Decision 2007/444/EC (3), provides for the incorporation of a country allocated (Canada) import tariff rate quota of 4 624 tonnes of pigmeat.

(2)

The date of entry into force of the Agreement is 1 August 2007; the date of opening of the tariff rate quota for the first quota year and the respective quantity should be specified.

(3)

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 (4) and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (5) should apply, save as otherwise provided in this Regulation.

(4)

In order to ensure regular imports, the quantities of products covered by the import tariff quota should be spread out over four subperiods within the period from 1 July to 30 June. For the quota year 2007/2008, the tariff quota shall be spread over three subperiods. In any case, Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 limits the period of validity of licences to the last day of the import tariff quota period.

(5)

The administration of the tariff quota should be based on import licences. To that end, detailed rules should be laid down for the submission of import licence applications and the information which must appear in these applications and import licences.

(6)

In the interest of the operators it should be provided that the Commission determines the quantities not applied for that will be added to the next subperiod.

(7)

The release into free circulation of the products imported under the quota opened by this Regulation should be subject to the presentation of a certificate of origin issued by the Canadian authorities in accordance with 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 (6).

(8)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Pigmeat,

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001 of 14 December 2001 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 as regards the import arrangements for milk and milk products and opening tariff quotas (2) as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2020/2006 (3) provides for the management of the WTO tariff quota for New Zealand butter on the basis of import licences allocated twice a year following the licence application periods as provided for in Article 34a.

(2)

When import licences were allocated for the second half of 2007 for butter originating in New Zealand under quota number 09.4182 referred to in Annex III.A of Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001, applications for licences covered quantities less than those available for the products concerned. As a result, a quantity of 9 958,6 tonnes was not allocated.

(3)

Given that the quota has always been entirely used before new management rules were introduced on 1 January 2007, the underuse may be the result of importers not yet accommodated to the new provisions and procedures.

(4)

It is therefore appropriate to provide for an additional allocation period for the remaining quantity, and to reduce the security in order to facilitate access to traders.

(5)

In addition to the notifications provided for in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (4), the necessary communications between the Member States and the Commission should be specified, in particular for the purpose of monitoring the market in the case of New Zealand butter.

(6)

Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001 should therefore be amended accordingly.

(7)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Milk and Milk Products,

(1)

Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1489/2006 (2) fixes the interest rates to be used for calculating the costs of financing intervention measures comprising buying-in, storage and disposal for the 2007 EAGF accounting year.

(2)

Article 5 of Regulation (EEC) No 1883/78 was amended by Regulation (EC) No 734/2007 to take account of the fact that in some Member States these operations can be financed only at interest rates which are appreciably higher than the uniform interest rate. It was therefore laid down, by way of derogation for the 2007 and 2008 financial years, that, if the average interest rate borne by a Member State in the course of the third month following the reference period used by the Commission for determining the uniform interest rate is more than twice the uniform interest rate, the Commission may, in financing the interest costs incurred by that Member State, cover the amount which corresponds to the interest rate borne by this Member State minus the uniform rate of interest. It was also laid down that this measure applied to expenditure incurred by the Member States from 1 October 2006.

(3)

It would appear, in the light of Member States’ notifications to the Commission in respect of the third month following the reference period used for determining the uniform interest rate for the 2007 accounting year, that one Member State is concerned by this new measure. The specific interest rate should therefore be fixed for that Member State for the 2007 accounting year.

(4)

Regulation (EC) No 1489/2006 should therefore be amended accordingly.

(5)

Since Regulation (EC) No 734/2007 applies from 1 October 2006, this Regulation should also apply from that date.

(6)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on the Agricultural Funds,

‘(h)

4,8 % in the case of the specific interest rate applicable in Hungary.’

(1)

In accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) and pursuant to Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Spain’s application to register the name ‘Pimentón de la Vera’, the Czech Republic’s application to register the name ‘Karlovarský suchar’ and Italy’s application to register the name ‘Riso di Baraggia Biellese e Vercellese’ were published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

(2)

As no objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 was sent to the Commission, those names should be registered,

(1)

Member States have forwarded to the Commission their fisheries control programme for 2007 together with the applications for a Community financial contribution towards the expenditure to be incurred in carrying out the projects contained in such programme.

(2)

Applications concerning actions listed in Article 8(a) of Regulation (EC) No 861/2006 may qualify for Community funding.

(3)

Applications for Community funding must comply with Commission Regulation (EC) No 391/2007 of 11 April 2007 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 861/2006 as regards the expenditure incurred by Member States in implementing the monitoring and control systems applicable to the common fisheries policy (2).

(4)

It is appropriate to fix the maximum amounts and the rate of the Community financial contribution in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 861/2006 and to lay down the conditions under which such contribution may be granted.

(5)

In order to qualify for the Community contribution, automatic localisation devices should satisfy the requirements fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2244/2003 of 18 December 2003 laying down detailed provisions regarding satellite-based Vessel Monitoring Systems (3).

(6)

The amount of the financial contribution to be granted to each Member State for expenditure related to the purchase and modernisation of vessels and aircraft should be calculated on the basis of the ratio between the inspection and control activity carried out by such vessels and aircraft and their total yearly activity, as declared by the Member States.

(7)

Pursuant to Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 391/2007, the projects listed in the fisheries control programme are to be implemented in accordance with the schedule laid down in that programme.

(8)

Claims for reimbursement of expenditure relating to those projects are to be submitted to the Commission in accordance with Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 391/2007.

(9)

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

(1)

With a view to helping to eradicate Newcastle disease as rapidly as possible, the Community may contribute financially to eligible expenditure borne by the Member State, as provided for in Article 4(2) of Decision 90/424/EEC.

(2)

Payment of Community financial support towards emergency measures to combat Newcastle disease is subject to the rules laid down in Commission Regulation (EC) No 349/2005 of 28 February 2005 laying down rules on the Community financing of emergency measures and of the campaign to combat certain animal diseases under Council Decision 90/424/EEC (2).

(3)

Outbreaks of Newcastle disease occurred in the United Kingdom in 2006. The emergence of this disease represents a serious risk to the Community's livestock population.

(4)

On 11 April 2007, the United Kingdom submitted a final rough estimate of the costs incurred in taking measures to eradicate the disease.

(5)

The British authorities have fully complied with their technical and administrative obligations as set out in Article 3 of Decision 90/424/EEC and Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005.

(6)

The payment of the Community financial contribution must be subject to the condition that the planned activities were actually implemented and that the authorities provide all the necessary information within the set deadlines.

(7)

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

(1)

Decision 90/424/EEC lays down the procedures governing the Community’s financial contribution towards specific veterinary measures, including emergency measures. Article 3a of Decision 90/424/EEC, provides for a Community financial contribution to Member States to cover certain costs involved in taking measures to eradicate avian influenza.

(2)

Outbreaks of avian influenza occurred in the United Kingdom in 2007. The emergence of that disease represents a serious risk to the Community’s livestock population. The United Kingdom took measures, as referred to in Article 3a(2) of Decision 90/424/EEC, to combat those outbreaks.

(3)

The payment of a Community financial contribution must be made subject to the condition that the planned measures were actually implemented and that the competent authorities provided all the necessary information to the Commission within certain deadlines.

(4)

In accordance with Article 3a(3) of Decision 90/424/EEC, the Community financial contribution should be 50 % of the eligible costs incurred by the Member State.

(5)

The United Kingdom has fully complied with its technical and administrative obligations as set out in Articles 3(3) and 3a(2) of Decision 90/424/EEC. The United Kingdom has forwarded to the Commission information on the costs incurred and has continued to provide all necessary information on costs of compensation and operational expenditure.

(6)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 349/2005 of 28 February 2005 laying down rules on the Community financing of emergency measures and of the campaign to combat certain animal diseases under Council Decision 90/424/EEC (2), following the amendment of Decision 90/424/EEC by Decision 2006/53/EC (3), no longer covers avian influenza. It is therefore necessary to expressly provide in the present Decision that the granting of a financial contribution to the United Kingdom is subject to compliance with certain rules laid down in Regulation (EC) No 349/2005.

(7)

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

(1)

Pursuant to Directive 91/67/EEC, a Member State may submit to the Commission a programme designed to enable it subsequently to initiate the procedures for a zone, or a farm situated in a non-approved zone, to obtain the status of approved zone, or of approved farm situated in a non-approved zone, as regards one or more of the fish diseases viral haemorrhagic septicaemia (VHS) and infectious haematopoietic necrosis (IHN). Commission Decision 2003/634/EC (2) approves and lists programmes submitted by various Member States.

(2)

By letter dated 28 March 2007, the United Kingdom applied for approval of the programme to be applied in the river Ouse to regain the status of approved zone with regard to VHS. The Commission has scrutinised the programme submitted and found it to comply with Article 10 of Directive 91/67/EEC. Accordingly, that programme should be approved and included in the list in Annex I to Decision 2003/634/EC.

(3)

By letter dated 21 November 2006, Finland applied to extend the approved VHS free status to all its coastal zone excluding zones with special eradication measures. The documentation provided by Finland showed that the zone met the requirements of Article 5 of Directive 91/67/EEC. All coastal areas within its territory, excluding zones with special eradication measures, were regarded as disease-free and added to the list of approved zones with regard to VHS in Annex I to Commission Decision 2002/308/EC of 22 April 2002 establishing lists of approved zones and approved farms with regard to one or more of the fish diseases viral haemorrhagic septicaemia (VHS) and infectious haematopoietic necrosis (IHN) (3). Therefore, the programme for VHS-freedom applicable to all coastal areas of Finland, excluding the part of the programme covering zones with special eradication measures, has been finalised and should be deleted from Annex I to Decision 2003/634/EC.

(4)

By letter dated 11 January 2006, Italy applied for approval of the programme to be applied in a farm to obtain the status of approved farm in a non-approved zone with regard to VHS and IHN. The Commission has scrutinised the programme submitted and found it to comply with Article 10 of Directive 91/67/EEC. Accordingly, that programme should be approved and included in the list in Annex II to Decision 2003/634/EC.

(5)

The programmes applicable to the zone Val di Sole e Val di Non and to the zone Val Banale in the Autonomous Province of Trento and the programme applicable to the zone in Valle del Torrente Venina in the Lombardy region have been finalised. They should therefore be deleted from Annex I to Decision 2003/634/EC.

(6)

Decision 2003/634/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.

(7)

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