(1)

Regulation (EU) No 531/2012 introduces the concept of separate sale of regulated retail roaming services. Firstly, Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) No 531/2012 imposes an obligation on domestic providers to enable their customers to access regulated voice, SMS and data roaming services, provided as a bundle, by any alternative roaming provider. Furthermore, the provisions on separate sale of regulated retail roaming services as laid down in Article 4(1) include the requirement for domestic providers and roaming providers not to prevent roaming customers from accessing regulated data roaming services provided directly on a visited network by an alternative roaming provider.

(2)

In order to ensure consistent and simultaneous implementation across the Union of the separate sale of regulated retail roaming services, Regulation (EU) No 531/2012 requires the Commission to adopt, by means of implementing acts, detailed rules on the information obligations about the possibility for roaming customers to opt for an alternative roaming provider and on a technical solution for the implementation of the separate sale of regulated retail roaming services.

(3)

In accordance with Article 5(4) of Regulation (EU) No 531/2012, the technical solution to implement the separate sale of regulated retail roaming services may combine one or more technical modalities for the purposes of meeting all the criteria set out in Article 5(3) of Regulation (EU) No 531/2012. Several technical modalities should therefore need to be implemented, if not all of these criteria can be met by only one technical modality. This Regulation should lay down detailed rules on this technical solution comprising the requirements for domestic providers to deploy network elements and to provide related services concerning each technical modality, in order to ensure access to these facilities necessary to allow alternative roaming providers to offer separate roaming services and to provide for the switching process between donor and recipient roaming providers.

(4)

At the same time, the technical solution should make it possible to give effect to the obligations referred to in Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) No 531/2012. Therefore the technical solution should ensure both the possibility for customers to access regulated voice, SMS and data roaming services, provided as a bundle by any alternative roaming provider and that domestic providers and roaming providers comply with the obligation not to prevent customers from accessing regulated data roaming services provided directly on a visited network by an alternative roaming provider.

(5)

Currently all retail roaming services are provided together with domestic mobile communication services by the domestic provider. Regulation (EU) No 531/2012 enables the roaming customer to select an alternative roaming provider for regulated roaming services provided as a bundle and to acquire those roaming services separately from the domestic mobile services. In this regard, the roaming customer concludes a contract with an alternative roaming provider for the provision of those services.

(6)

There are several technical modalities to implement the separate sale of roaming services as a bundle, including dual International Mobile Subscriber Identity (dual-IMSI) (two separate IMSI on the same SIM card) and single IMSI (the sharing of one IMSI between the domestic and roaming providers). The dual IMSI technical modality is based on a second profile on the roaming customer’s SIM card that can be used by the alternative roaming provider for the sale of regulated roaming services, while the first profile is still used by the domestic provider for the sale of domestic services and possibly non-regulated roaming services. Under the single IMSI technical modality the separate roaming services are technically still provided by the domestic provider, which serves as the host mobile network operator to the alternative roaming provider. The separate roaming services are provided on a wholesale basis to the alternative roaming provider, which resells the services to the roaming customer at retail level. The most basic version is a pure resale option. Furthermore, there are a number of potential enhancements to the pure resale technical modality that enable the alternative roaming provider to control which visited networks are to be used preferably and to recover discounts on the wholesale roaming services purchased from the host mobile network operator (MNO) based on wholesale agreements with visited network operators or wholesale aggregators.

(7)

In accordance with Article 5(1) of Regulation (EU) No 531/2012, access to the network elements and services necessary for the separate sale of regulated retail roaming services should be provided free of charge. Consequently, pricing of any additional services which go beyond what is necessary for the separate sale of regulated retail roaming services is not covered by Article 5(1). Access to facilities and support services for the separate sale of regulated retail roaming services includes the facilities and services needed in the process of switching a customer.

(8)

The Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (‘BEREC’) has carried out its expert assessment on the solutions to implement separate roaming services (2). BEREC considers that the implementation of dual-IMSI requires significant development and standardisation activity and estimates that the implementation costs would impose a significant overhead on retail prices. Given that this technical modality would also require upgrading of the currently used SIM cards to include dual-IMSI functionality, the dual-IMSI technical modality fails to provide a cost-effective and consumer-friendly option for the separate sale of regulated retail roaming services.

(9)

In contrast, the single IMSI technical modality appears more appropriate in the light of the criteria set out in Article 5(3) of Regulation (EU) No 531/2012. Firstly, in relation to criteria (h), (i), (j), (k) of Article 5(3) all identified technical modalities including the single IMSI technical modality can be implemented in a way that meets these criteria. Secondly, the single IMSI is consumer and user-friendly given that the roaming service is technically provided in the same way as it has been so far and therefore the same seamless user experience can be expected. Thirdly, the implementation costs of single IMSI are lower than for dual IMSI and no major standardisation activities are needed to enable it. BEREC also considers that there are no implementation bottlenecks for implementing single IMSI.

(10)

The efficiency of the single IMSI technical modality in terms of competition effects could be enhanced if the alternative roaming providers could steer the roaming traffic to a visited network of their preference. However, the implementation of traffic steering arrangements for an enhanced single IMSI technical modality would be justified only if the implementation costs were proportionate to the expected competition benefits. So far, there is no evidence that the necessary traffic steering arrangements for an enhanced single IMSI technical modality could be implemented at reasonable cost by 1 July 2014. Therefore, at this stage, the single-IMSI technical modality in the form of roaming resale is considered as being sufficient to meet all criteria provided in Article 5(3) except criteria (b) and (e), which are only partly met.

(11)

Neither the dual IMSI technical modality nor the single IMSI technical modality nor its enhancements meet all the criteria as provided of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EU) No 531/2012. In particular, none of them make it possible to give effect to the obligation imposed on domestic providers and roaming providers not to prevent customers from accessing regulated data roaming services provided directly on a visited network by an alternative roaming provider. However, at least one of the technical modalities of the technical solution needs to provide for the ability to give effect to this obligation as one of the obligations imposed in Article 4(1) of that Regulation.

(12)

In the current implementation and configuration of home networks such local data roaming services are prevented. A second technical modality is therefore needed to respond to the requirement of Regulation (EU) No 531/2012. In order to separate local data roaming services from the domestic bundle, visited network operators should not be prevented not only from technically processing the roaming customer’s data traffic, but also from providing the service at retail level.

(13)

On the other hand, the single IMSI technical modality does not make it possible to serve all categories of consumer demand on competitive terms, such as the intensive usage of data services. Since wholesale caps for data roaming services are not strictly cost-oriented and will not decrease after 2014 despite an expected decrease in wholesale cost, it seems unrealistic that alternative roaming providers that have to rely on wholesale data roaming services would be able to offer retail data roaming services for heavy data users at attractive prices compared to price levels for domestic mobile data services. However, a technical modality that gives effect to the obligation on domestic providers and roaming providers not to prevent customers from accessing regulated data roaming services provided directly on a visited network by an alternative roaming provider puts alternative data roaming providers in a position to provide local data roaming services, i.e. data roaming services without relying on a wholesale data roaming service.

(14)

Retail data roaming services are currently provided by domestic providers based on wholesale agreements with the visited network operators. Data roaming traffic is sent and received over the radio access network of the visited network operator, and routed between visited network and home network. The home network operator provides the connection to the internet service and charges the roaming customer for the data roaming service. The current GSM/GPRS, EDGE and UMTS standards already enable the visited network operator to technically handle data roaming traffic and to provide the connection to the internet service without the necessity of routing between home and visited network. However, according to the current industry practice, the home network operator still charges the customer for the data roaming service and the visited network operator provides the processing of the traffic as a wholesale service for the home operator.

(15)

There are several ways to implement the requirement not to prevent local data roaming services. Basic requirements are the implementation and activation of the processing of data roaming traffic in the visited network and the requirement not to prevent the manual or automatic selection of a visited network. Possible enhancements include the modification of traffic steering elements in order not to interrupt an ongoing local data roaming session and the implementation of specific facilities to assist roaming customers in selecting a visited network or to support automatic selection of visited networks. Such basic requirements should allow the development of different business models for providing local data roaming services, either on temporary or permanent basis.

(16)

In the case of temporary local data roaming services, the roaming customer can choose a local mobile network operator in that country for the provision of retail data roaming services directly if the service is offered in the visited country and if there is a roaming agreement between the visited network operator and the domestic network operator. The temporary nature of this service means that there is no permanent configuration of the network or the terminal equipment, therefore the original roaming behaviour is restored once local data roaming service is not used anymore. This kind of service would provide a similar customer experience to that of wireless local area networks such as WiFi currently used by many laptop, smart phone or tablet users abroad. Voice, SMS and other associated roaming services would be provided by the home network operator as usual, except where the roaming provider in the visited network offers these services as well.

(17)

In the case of permanent local data roaming services the roaming customer concludes a contract with a provider of local data roaming services instead of the roaming provider using a home network. In this case, an alternative roaming provider, e.g. a mobile network operator or reseller, would provide local data roaming services and the necessary technical support (in the form of specific applications or similar) in one or more countries to roaming customers on a permanent basis based on its own network footprint and/or the network footprints operated by MNOs to which it concluded resale agreements in each country.

(18)

Whereas the most simplistic commercial offers may not best meet the requirement for user-friendliness by requiring, e.g. the roaming customer to change terminal settings or to send a code by SMS to allow for the service and to select the visited network, it can be expected that depending on the popularity of the service, local data roaming services providers, terminals and applications suppliers or other actors will develop market-based solutions for enhanced user-friendliness. Consumer-friendliness of local data roaming services is considered good due to the flexibility to opt for and disconnect from local data roaming services providers instantaneously. Local data roaming services allow alternative roaming providers to exploit own infrastructure assets and commercial agreements for data roaming, e.g. through resale arrangements or permanent multi-country local data roaming services. According to BEREC, local data roaming services can be implemented rather quickly and are cost-effective as most of the costs are incurred by the alternative providers in proportion to the actual roll-out of local data roaming services. There is a high degree of interoperability as standards for the implementation of traffic processing in the visited network already exist. Therefore, the technical modality allowing for access to local data roaming services meets all the criteria provided in Article 5(3) of Regulation (EU) No 531/2012, except criteria (b) and (e), which are only partly met.

(19)

The technical modality allowing for access to local data roaming services only ensures access to data roaming services. Therefore, it does not fully meet criterion (e) of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EU) No 531/2012. Furthermore, this technical modality does not fully meet criterion (b), because only data users are expected to be attracted by access to local data roaming services.

(20)

The technical solution combining the two technical modalities, namely the single IMSI technical modality, implemented as a roaming resale service, and the technical modality allowing access to local data roaming services on a visited network, meets all the criteria of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EU) No 531/2012. Whereas neither the single IMSI technical modality nor the technical modality allowing access to local data roaming services alone fully meet criteria (b) and (e), they are complementary and meet criteria (b) and (e) only in combination.

(21)

In accordance with Article 4(2) of Regulation (EU) No 531/2012, the switch between roaming providers is to be carried out without undue delay, and in any case within the shortest possible period of time depending on the technical solution chosen for the implementation of the separate sale of regulated retail roaming services. In the case of the single IMSI technical modality, like the change of provider for domestic services, no further interaction with the user is necessary after the conclusion of the contract with the alternative roaming provider. This technical modality allow for the switching to be implemented within a similar period of time as the one for switching for domestic services, which is of one working day. Therefore, in the case of the single IMSI technical modality, any switching time period to and from an alternative roaming provider that exceeds the time period established for switching in case of domestic services should be considered as an undue delay as there are no underlying technical reasons to delay such switch any further than for a comparable switch between domestic services. In the case of the technical modality allowing for access to local data roaming services, the roaming customers are expected to select the alternative roaming provider for local data roaming services just before their intention to use the local data roaming service. The technical modality allows for the switch to or between providers of local data roaming services to be carried out instantaneously after the conclusion of the contract with the recipient roaming provider.

(22)

Cooperation and coordination among market players, BEREC and the Commission are necessary to enable a coordinated technical implementation of separate roaming services. In particular, a coordinated approach should be developed in order to identify relevant technical interfaces and to ensure sound implementation of those interfaces, to allow consistent and simultaneous implementation across the Union of the separate sale of regulated retail roaming services. An industry platform, open to all market participants, should provide a useful forum for such coordination.

(23)

In order to allow timely implementation of the separate sale of regulated retail roaming services, undertakings should not refuse testing of technical interfaces before the commercial roll-out of retail roaming services provided by alternative roaming providers prior to 1 July 2014.

(24)

In accordance with recital 38 of Regulation (EU) No 531/2012 BEREC, in collaboration with the relevant stakeholders, should develop guidance on technical elements necessary to enable the separate sale of roaming services.

(25)

Article 4(4) of Regulation (EU) No 531/2012 includes general provisions as to how and when customers are to be informed about the possibility to choose an alternative roaming provider. The content of the information and the possible ways of communicating it to a consumer need further specification in order to make it easier for the consumer to make an informed choice. Improving consumer awareness of the roaming market requires a combination of all available means to help consumers benefit from open markets.

(26)

In order to ensure that all customers could benefit from alternative offers, domestic providers should ensure that contracts concluded or renewed after 1 July 2014, allow the customer to switch the roaming provider at any time and free of any charges applied by the donor roaming provider.

(27)

Roaming providers, including alternative roaming providers offering local data roaming services, should implement transparency and safeguard mechanisms for the data services provided by them, in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 531/2012. In order to ensure transparency, roaming providers should also provide to their roaming customers information on the services that may not be available when using local data roaming services, such as proprietary services supported by the domestic network.

(28)

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

(a)

‘resale of retail roaming services’ means a provision of regulated roaming services, provided as a bundle, and associated services, such as voice mailbox services, that are usually available to roaming customers, without the need for roaming customers to change their SIM card or mobile device, in accordance with a wholesale agreement concluded between an alternative roaming provider and a domestic provider;

(b)

‘local data roaming service’ means a regulated data roaming service provided, temporarily or permanently, to roaming customers directly on a visited network, by an alternative roaming provider without the need for roaming customers to change their SIM card or mobile device;

(c)

‘EU-Internet access point name (APN)’ means a common identifier set, manually or automatically, in the roaming customer’s mobile device and recognised by the home network and visited network to indicate the roaming customer’s choice to use local data roaming services;

(d)

‘traffic steering’ means a control function used by the home network operator aimed at the selection of visited networks for its roaming customers based on a priority list of preferred visited networks;

(e)

‘network barring’ means a control function used by the home network operator aimed at avoiding the selection of certain visited networks for its roaming customers;

(f)

‘durable medium’ means any instrument which enables the customer to store information addressed personally to him in a way which ensures accessibility for future use for an appropriate period of time, taking into account the purposes in which that information can be used and which allows the unchanged reproduction of the information stored;

(g)

‘recipient roaming provider’ means a roaming provider, that will provide roaming services instead of roaming services currently provided by the donor roaming provider after the change of roaming provider;

(h)

‘donor roaming provider’ means the roaming provider, that is currently providing roaming services to a customer.

(1)

Pursuant to Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, and having regard to Article 17(2) thereof, Italy’s application for approval of amendments to the specification for the name ‘Castelmagno’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

(2)

A statement of objection substantiated under Article 7(3)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 was notified to the Commission by Luxembourg.

(3)

By letter of 23 September 2010, the Commission invited the interested parties to hold appropriate consultations. No agreement was reached between the parties within six months of that date. However, Luxembourg withdrew its objection by letter of 2 August 2012,

(1)

Company performance is one of the generic parameters determining the risk profile of a ship.

(2)

In order to assess company performance, the deficiency and detention rates of all ships in a company’s fleet, which have been subject to an inspection within the Union and within the region covered by the Paris Memorandum of Understanding on port State control (Paris MoU), should be taken into account.

(3)

The implementing rules to calculate the company performance criteria for the ship risk profile as well as the methodology for drawing up the lists for publication are set out in Commission Regulation (EU) No 802/2010 of 13 September 2010 implementing Article 10(3) and Article 27 of Directive 2009/16/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards company performance (2).

(4)

Simulations of the publication of the lists based on the information recorded in the inspection database demonstrate that the methodology for publication set out in Regulation (EU) No 802/2010 should be more targeted.

(5)

Therefore in order to make the lists of companies with a low or very low performance relevant it is necessary to amend the criteria used for drawing these lists to focus publication on the poorest performing companies. This should not change the computation of the company performance calculation for the ship risk profile.

(6)

To be listed on the lists of low and very low performing companies the company should have demonstrated a level of poor performance for a continuous period of 36 months directly preceding the publication. A consistently poor performance for such an extended period demonstrates an unwillingness or inability on the part of the company to improve performance. As publication on the lists is based on the processing of the data corresponding to the performance of the companies for 36 months, sufficient time should be provided before the first publication in order to gather in the THETIS database sufficient data reported by the Member States in accordance with Directive 2009/16/EC.

(7)

The companies to be listed are exclusively determined on the basis of the information transferred and validated by the Member States in the inspection database, in conformity with Article 24(3) of Directive 2009/16/EC. This information includes inspections of the ships, deficiencies identified during the inspections and detentions. It also includes the ship information (name, IMO identification number, call sign and flag) as well as the name of the owner or person such as the manager or bareboat charterer, who has assumed the responsibility for the operation of the ship as well as the duties and responsibilities imposed by the International Safety Management (ISM) Code. In this way the performance of a company and of the vessels for which it is responsible can be automatically monitored in the inspection database and the lists can be updated on a daily basis.

(8)

The Commission should be able to retrieve from the inspection database, using its automatic functionalities, the relevant data in order to determine the companies to be included on the list of companies with a low and very low performance.

(9)

The methodology for determining the company performance matrix is based on the processing of the detention index and the deficiency index of the company as provided for in the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 802/2010.

(10)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on Safe Seas and the Prevention of Pollution from Ships,

(1)

Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition and for the grounds and procedures for granting such authorisation. Article 10 of that Regulation provides for the re-evaluation of additives authorised pursuant to Council Directive 70/524/EEC (2).

(2)

A preparation of endo-1,4-beta-xylanase (EC 3.2.1.8) produced by Aspergillus oryzae (DSM 10287) was authorised without a time limit in accordance with Directive 70/524/EEC as a feed additive for use on chickens for fattening, turkeys for fattening and piglets by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1332/2004 (3) and authorised for four years for pigs for fattening and ducks by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2036/2005 (4). That preparation was subsequently entered in the Register of feed additives as an existing product, in accordance with Article 10(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.

(3)

In accordance with Article 10(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 in conjunction with Article 7 of that Regulation, an application was submitted for the re-evaluation of that preparation of endo-1,4-beta-xylanase (EC 3.2.1.8) produced by Aspergillus oryzae (DSM 10287), as a feed additive for chickens and turkeys for fattening, weaned piglets, pigs for fattening and ducks and, in accordance with Article 7 of that Regulation, for a new use for all poultry species for fattening, requesting that additive to be classified in the additive category ‘zootechnical additives’. That application was accompanied by the particulars and documents required under Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.

(4)

The European Food Safety Authority (‘the Authority’) concluded in its opinion of 12 June 2012 (5) that, under the proposed conditions of use, the preparation of endo-1,4-beta-xylanase (EC 3.2.1.8) produced by Aspergillus oryzae (DSM 10287), does not have an adverse effect on animal health, human health or the environment, and that it has a potential to favourably affect animal performance in chickens for fattening, turkeys for fattening and ducks for fattening. This conclusion can be extrapolated to all minor poultry species for fattening. It is also concluded that the additive has the potential to favourably affect animal performance in piglets and pigs for fattening. The Authority does not consider that there is a need for specific requirements of post-market monitoring. It also verified the report on the method of analysis of the feed additive in feed submitted by the Reference Laboratory set up by Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.

(5)

The assessment of the preparation of endo-1,4-beta-xylanase (EC 3.2.1.8) produced by Aspergillus oryzae (DSM 10287) shows that the conditions for authorisation, as provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, are satisfied. Accordingly, the use of that preparation should be authorised as specified in the Annex to this Regulation.

(6)

As a consequence of the granting of a new authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, Regulations (EC) No 1332/2004 and (EC) No 2036/2005 should therefore be amended accordingly.

(7)

Since safety reasons do not require the immediate application of the modifications to the conditions of authorisation, it is appropriate to allow a transitional period for interested parties to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements resulting from the authorisation.

(8)

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

(1)

Article 1 is replaced by the following:

(2)

Annex I is deleted.

(1)

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

(2)

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

(1)

Article 136(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 states that the import duty on products covered by CN codes 1001 19 00, 1001 11 00, ex 1001 91 20 (common wheat seed), ex 1001 99 00 (high quality common wheat other than for sowing), 1002 10 00, 1002 90 00, 1005 10 90, 1005 90 00, 1007 10 90 and 1007 90 00 is to be equal to the intervention price valid for such products on importation and increased by 55 %, minus the cif import price applicable to the consignment in question. However, that duty may not exceed the rate of duty in the Common Customs Tariff.

(2)

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

(3)

Under Article 2(2) of Regulation (EU) No 642/2010, the price to be used for the calculation of the import duty on products covered by CN codes 1001 19 00, 1001 11 00, ex 1001 91 20 (common wheat seed), ex 1001 99 00 (high quality common wheat other than for sowing), 1002 10 00, 1002 90 00, 1005 10 90, 1005 90 00, 1007 10 90 and 1007 90 00 is the daily cif representative import price determined as specified in Article 5 of that Regulation.

(4)

Import duties should be fixed for the period from 16 December 2012 and should apply until new import duties are fixed and enter into force.

(5)

Given the need to ensure that this measure applies as soon as possible after the updated data have been made available, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication,

(1)

The release for free circulation in the Union of imported controlled substances is subject to quantitative limits.

(2)

The Commission is required to determine those limits and allocate quotas to undertakings.

(3)

Furthermore, the Commission is required to determine the quantities of controlled substances other than hydrochlorofluorocarbons that may be used for essential laboratory and analytical uses, and the companies that may use them.

(4)

The determination of the allocated quotas for essential laboratory and analytical uses has to ensure that the quantitative limits set out in Article 10(6) are respected, applying Commission Regulation (EU) No 537/2011 of 1 June 2011 on the mechanism for the allocation of quantities of controlled substances allowed for laboratory and analytical uses in the Union under Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on substances that deplete the ozone layer (2). As those quantitative limits include quantities of hydrochlorofluorocarbons licensed for laboratory and analytical uses, the production and import of hydrochlorofluorocarbons for those uses should also be covered by that allocation.

(5)

The Commission has published a notice to undertakings intending to import or export controlled substances that deplete the ozone layer to or from the European Union in 2013 and to undertakings intending to request for 2013 a quota for these substances intended for laboratory and analytical uses (2012/C 53/09) (3), and has thereby received declarations on intended imports in 2013.

(6)

The quantitative limits and quotas should be determined for the period 1 January to 31 December 2013, in line with the annual reporting cycle under the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.

(7)

The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 25(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009,

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

(1)

According to Directive 2008/106/EC Member States may decide to endorse seafarers’ appropriate certificates issued by third countries, provided that the third country concerned is recognised by the Commission. Those third countries have to meet all the requirements of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978 (STCW Convention), as revised in 1995.

(2)

The request for the recognition of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan was submitted by the Hellenic Republic by letter of 21 July 2008. Following this request, the Commission assessed the training and certification system in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in order to verify whether the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan meets all the requirements of the STCW Convention and whether the appropriate measures have been taken to prevent fraud involving certificates. That assessment was based on the results of an inspection carried out by experts of the European Maritime Safety Agency in November 2009. During that inspection certain deficiencies in the training and certification systems were identified.

(3)

The Commission provided the Member States with a report on the results of the assessment.

(4)

By letters of 21 September 2010 and 13 February 2012 the Commission informed Jordanian authorities that deficiencies had been detected and requested the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan to provide evidence demonstrating that the deficiencies identified had been corrected.

(5)

The main deficiencies related to the implementation in the Jordanian legislation of certain STCW provisions on officers’ certification, namely the absence of a requirement for an assessment of competence in certain cases and the duration of seagoing service. Moreover, the Quality Standards System did not cover all the relevant activities of the Administration, and the procedures did not always ensure the achievement of the prescribed standards of competence. Finally, certain training facilities were missing in the training institution.

(6)

By letters of 21 November 2010, 18 April 2011 and 12 March 2012, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan informed the Commission that actions had been undertaken to address the mentioned shortcomings. In particular, the Jordanian authorities indicated that the national provisions on certification requirements had been brought in line with the Convention. They also provided evidence of the full implementation of the Quality Standards System by the Administration and of the new procedures for course approval. Finally, evidence that the missing training facilities had been procured and put in place was also forwarded to the Commission.

(7)

The final outcome of the assessment demonstrates that the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan complies with the requirements of the STCW Convention, while this country has taken appropriate measures to prevent fraud involving certificates.

(8)

The measure provided for in this Decision is in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on Safe Seas and the Prevention of Pollution from Ships,

(1)

By letter of 27 June 2012 and pursuant to Article 114(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) Austria notified the Commission that Austria intends to maintain its national provisions on certain industrial greenhouse gases which are more stringent than Regulation (EC) No 842/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on certain fluorinated greenhouse gases (1) beyond 31 December 2012, the end date of the authorisation by Commission Decision 2008/80/EC of 21 December 2007 concerning national provisions notified by the Republic of Austria on certain fluorinated greenhouse gases (2), adopted in accordance with Article 95(6) of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC) (now Article 114(6) TFEU).

(2)

Regulation (EC) No 842/2006 on certain fluorinated greenhouse gases (F-gases) aims at preventing and containing the emissions of certain F-gases (HFCs, PFCs and SF6) covered by the Kyoto Protocol. It also contains a limited number of use bans and placing on the market prohibitions when alternatives were considered available and cost effective at Community level and where improvement of containment and recovery were regarded as not feasible.

(3)

The Regulation has a double legal base, Article 175(1) TEC (now Article 192(1) TFEU) with respect to all provisions but Articles 7, 8 and 9, which are based on Article 95 TEC (now Article 114 TFEU) due to their implications in terms of free circulation of goods within the Union’s single market.

(4)

Austria has had national provisions on certain fluorinated greenhouse gases since 2002. On 29 June 2007, the Republic of Austria informed the Commission, pursuant to Article 9(3)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 842/2006 on certain fluorinated greenhouse gases, about these national measures (BGBl. II No 447/2002 — Ordinance of the Federal Minister for Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management on bans and restrictions for partly fluorinated and fully fluorinated hydrocarbons and sulphur hexafluoride, published in the Federal Law Gazette on 10 December 2002) as subsequently amended by Ordinance BGBl. II No 139/2007, 21.6.2007 (hereinafter ‘the Ordinance’).

(5)

The Ordinance concerns greenhouse gases classified under the Kyoto Protocol, most of which have high global warming potentials: hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and sulphur hexafluoride (SF6), with a view of meeting Austria’s emission reduction targets. On 21 December 2007 the Commission decided with reference to Article 95(6) TEC (now Article 114(6) TFEU) to authorise Austria to maintain the provisions until 31 December 2012.

(6)

Since the adoption of Decision 2008/80/EC the circumstances justifying maintaining more stringent provisions, as laid out in that decision, persist. The national rules remain part of a broader strategy put in place by Austria in order to meet its emission reduction target under the Kyoto Protocol and the subsequent burden sharing agreement adopted at Union level. Under this arrangement, Austria has undertaken to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 13 % over the 2008-12 period compared to the base years, 1990 and 1985.

(7)

In the decisions adopted jointly by the European Parliament and the Council on the effort of Member States to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to meet the Community’s greenhouse gas emission reduction commitments up to 2020 (3), Austria has undertaken to further reduce emissions by 16 % in 2020 compared to 2005 levels.

(8)

The notified measures are reported to have significantly contributed to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in Austria and avoided that an expected raise of those emissions have not materialised. The derogations provided for in the Ordinance, as well as the possibility to grant individual exemptions from the general ban, ensure the proportionality of the measure. Furthermore, it concerns only new equipment and allows the use of fluorinated greenhouse gases for the servicing and maintenance of existing equipment so that unnecessary abandonment of equipment is avoided.

(9)

While noting that the Ordinance has implications on the free circulation of goods within the Union, the provisions are general and apply to national and imported products alike. There is no evidence that the notified national provisions have been or will be used as a means of arbitrary discrimination between economic operators in the Union. In view of the risks for the environment resulting from the use of fluorinated greenhouse gases, the Commission confirms its assessment that the notified national provisions do not constitute a disproportionate obstacle to the functioning of the internal market in relation to the pursued objectives, in particular considering the conclusions of the recent assessment of the application, effects and adequacy of Regulation (EC) No 842/2006 (4) that further measures for the reduction of fluorinated greenhouse gas emissions are necessary to reach the agreed Union wide greenhouse gas emission targets.

(10)

The Commission is of the opinion that the request by Austria, submitted on 27 June 2012, for maintaining its national legislation more stringent than Regulation (EC) No 842/2006 with respect to the placing on the market of products and equipment containing or relying on fluorinated greenhouse gases and to the use of such substances is admissible.

(11)

Moreover, the Commission confirms its Decision 2008/80/EC that the national provisions in the Ordinance:

The Commission therefore considers that they can be approved.

(12)

The Commission may at any moment reassess whether the conditions for the approval continue to be fulfilled. This may, in particular, become relevant in the case of substantial changes to Regulation (EC) No 842/2006 or to Decision No 406/2009/EC. Considering this possibility and the long-term commitments of the EU and its Member States to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, a limitation of the duration of the approval to a specific date is not deemed necessary,

(1)

Decision 2009/470/EC lays down the procedures governing the financial contribution by the Union for programmes for the eradication, control and monitoring of animal diseases and zoonoses.

(2)

Commission Decision 2008/341/EC of 25 April 2008 laying down Community criteria for national programmes for the eradication, control and monitoring of certain animal diseases and zoonoses (2) provides that in order to be approved under the measures provided for in Article 27(1) of Decision 2009/470/EC, programmes submitted by the Member States to the Commission for the eradication, control and monitoring of the animal diseases and zoonoses listed in Annex I to that Decision must meet at least the criteria set out in the Annex to Decision 2008/341/EC.

(3)

Commission Implementing Decision 2011/807/EU of 30 November 2011 approving annual and multiannual programmes and the financial contribution from the Union for the eradication, control and monitoring of certain animal diseases and zoonoses presented by the Member States for 2012 and following years (3) approves certain national programmes and sets out the rate and maximum amount of the financial contribution by the Union for each programme submitted by the Member States.

(4)

An important recrudescence of African swine fever in Italy (Sardinia) has occurred in 2012: several outbreaks have occurred in seven out of the eight Sardinian provinces, not only in backyard farms but also in large commercial farms. African swine fever is a highly contagious viral disease that affects domestic pigs and wild-boar. If the disease is not properly tackled in Sardinia, the whole EU can be affected with important consequence on the health and economic situation of all Member States.

(5)

As a consequence, a revised 2012 control and monitoring African swine fever programme has been submitted by Italy in order to properly tackle the disease. Italy has informed the Commission that, due the exceptional epidemiological situation and the high risk of spread of the disease out of Sardinia, additional support for contractual staff is required to ensure the implementation of the planned measures.

(6)

Portugal has submitted an amended programme for the eradication of bovine brucellosis, bovine tuberculosis and bluetongue. The United Kingdom submitted an amended programme for the eradication of bovine tuberculosis. Spain has submitted an amended programme for the eradication of ovine and caprine brucellosis and bluetongue. Slovenia has submitted an amended programme for the control and monitoring of classical swine fever. Italy and Greece have submitted amended programmes for transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, bovine spongiform encephalopathy and scrapie, and Bulgaria submitted an amended programme for the eradication of rabies.

(7)

The Commission has assessed those amended programmes from both the veterinary and the financial point of view. They were found to comply with relevant Union veterinary legislation and in particular with the criteria set out in the Annex to Decision 2008/341/EC. The amended programmes should therefore be approved.

(8)

Furthermore, the Commission has assessed the intermediate reports submitted by the Member States, according to Article 27(7) of Decision 2009/470/EC on the expenditures they incurred for those programmes. The results of that assessment show that certain Member States will not utilise their full allocation for the year 2012 while others will spend in excess of the allocated amount.

(9)

The financial contribution by the Union for a number of national programmes therefore needs to be adjusted. In order to optimise the use of the earmarked credit it is appropriate to reallocate funding from national programmes which will not use their full allocation to those that are expected to exceed it due to unforeseen animal health situations in those Member States. The reallocation should be based on the most recent information on expenditure actually incurred by the Member States concerned.

(10)

Implementing Decision 2011/807/EU should therefore be amended accordingly.

(11)

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)

in Article 1(2), point (c) is replaced by the following:

(2)

in Article 2(2), point (a) is replaced by the following:

(3)

in Article 2(2), point (c) is replaced by the following:

(4)

in Article 3(2), point (c) is replaced by the following:

(5)

in Article 4(2), point (c) is replaced by the following:

(6)

in Article 5(3), point (c) is replaced by the following:

(7)

Article 6 is amended as follows:

(8)

in Article 8(2), point (c) is amended as follows:

(9)

in Article 9(2), point (c) is amended as follows:

(10)

in Article 10(2), point (c) is replaced by the following:

(11)

in Article 11(5), point (c) is replaced by the following:

(1)

Commission Decision 2010/221/EU of 15 April 2010 approving national measures for limiting the impact of certain diseases in aquaculture animals and wild aquatic animals in accordance with Article 43 of Council Directive 2006/88/EC (2) allows certain Member States to apply restrictions on consignments of those animals in order to prevent the introduction of certain diseases into their territory, provided that they have either demonstrated that their territory, or certain demarcated areas of their territory, are free of such diseases or that they have established an eradication or surveillance programme to obtain such freedom.

(2)

The continental parts of the territories of Finland are listed in Annex II to Decision 2010/221/EU as territories with an approved eradication programme as regards bacterial kidney disease (BKD).

(3)

Accordingly, Decision 2010/221/EU approves certain national measures by Finland on consignments of aquaculture animals of susceptible species into those areas.

(4)

Finland has reported to the Commission that, while progress has been made in several areas, some areas still remain infected with BKD. Finland has therefore requested that the water catchment area of Vesijärvi be excluded from the eradication programme. Annex II should be amended accordingly.

(5)

Annex III to Decision 2010/221/EU currently lists nine compartments in the territory of Ireland with an approved surveillance programme as regards ostreid herpesvirus 1 μνar (OsHV-1 μνar).

(6)

Ireland has notified to the Commission the detection of OsHV-1 μνar in Drumcliff within compartment 3, Shannon Estuary within compartment 6 and Oysterhaven Bay within compartment 9. Consequently, the geographical demarcation of those compartments in Annex III to Decision 2010/221/EU should be amended.

(7)

Annex III to Decision 2010/221/EU lists the territories of Great Britain, Northern Ireland and Guernsey with an approved surveillance programme as regards OsHV-1 μνar.

(8)

The United Kingdom has notified the Commission the detection of OsHV-1 μνar in England and Northern Ireland. Consequently, the geographical demarcation of those territories in Annex III to Decision 2010/221/EU should be amended.

(9)

Decision 2010/221/EU should therefore be amended accordingly.

(10)

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)

The Interim Agreement establishing a framework for an Economic Partnership Agreement between the Eastern and Southern Africa States, on the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, on the other part (1) (‘the interim EPA’) applies provisionally as from 14 May 2012 between the Union and the Republic of Madagascar, the Republic of Mauritius, the Republic of Seychelles and the Republic of Zimbabwe.

(2)

Protocol 1 to the interim EPA concerning the definition of the concept of ‘originating products’ and methods of administrative cooperation contains the rules of origin for the importation of products originating in the ESA States into the Union.

(3)

In accordance with Article 42(8) of Protocol 1 to the interim EPA, derogations from those rules of origin are granted automatically within an annual quota of 8 000 tonnes for canned tuna and of 2 000 tonnes for tuna loins.

(4)

In order to permit the effective and full utilisation of the quota available, Mauritius, Seychelles and Madagascar requested a derogation covering the annual quantities of 8 000 tonnes of canned tuna and of 2 000 tonnes of tuna loins imported into the Union from 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2022.

(5)

Since the requested quantities fall within the limits of the annual quota which is granted automatically upon request of the ESA States, the Customs Cooperation Committee should allocate the global quota to the ESA States. Therefore, a derogation should be granted to the ESA States in respect of canned tuna and of tuna loins for the quantities requested.

(6)

The reference in Article 42(8) of Protocol 1 to the interim EPA to ‘canned tuna’ is to be understood as to cover tuna preserved in vegetable oil or in other ways. For those types of tuna, Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (2) (‘the Combined Nomenclature’) refers to the term ‘preserved’. The term ‘preserved tuna’ comprises canned tuna, but also tuna vacuum-packed in plastic bags or other containers. It is therefore appropriate to use the term ‘preserved tuna’.

(7)

In the interest of clarity, it is appropriate to set out explicitly that the only non-originating materials to be used for the manufacture of preserved tuna and tuna loins of CN code 1604 14 16 should be tuna of HS Headings 0302 or 0303, in order for the preserved tuna and tuna loins to benefit from the derogation.

(8)

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) lays down rules relating to the management of tariff quotas. In order to ensure efficient management carried out in close cooperation between the authorities of the ESA States, the customs authorities of the Union and the Commission, those rules should apply mutatis mutandis to the quantities imported under the derogation granted by this Decision.

(9)

The derogation should be granted for a period of five years as foreseen in Article 42(10) point (a) of Protocol 1 to the interim EPA.

(10)

In order to allow efficient monitoring of the operation of the derogation, the authorities of the ESA States should communicate regularly to the Commission details of the EUR.1 movement certificates issued,