(1)

On 2 October 2019, the World Trade Organization (WTO) issued the arbitration decision in European Communities and Certain Member States – Measures Affecting Trade in Large Civil Aircraft, WT/DS316/ARB. The arbitration decision entitled the United States of America (USA) to request an authorisation to impose countermeasures at a level not exceeding USD 7,5 billion annually in response to Union subsidies to Airbus. On 18 October 2019, the USA imposed a 25 % ad valorem import duty on, among others, still wines exported to the USA by Germany, Spain, France and the United Kingdom. This exceptional, inequitable and unpredictable situation is having a severe and detrimental impact on the global trade of all Union wines. The USA have further threatened to apply 100 % ad valorem import duties on French sparkling wines in response to the French Digital Services Tax (GAFA tax).

(2)

The import duties imposed by the USA are having a direct and severe impact on the Union wine trade on the USA market, which is the Union’s largest export market for agricultural products, and for wine in particular, both in terms of value and volume of exports. In 2018, Union wine exports to the USA totalled 6,5 million hectolitres, accounting for EUR 4 billion. Union wine exports to the USA typically represent between 30 % and 40 % of the global Union wine export value.

(3)

The increased import duties imposed by the USA are having a damaging effect on all Union wine, not only on still wines originating from the four Member States that are subject to the increased import duties. The reputation and trade of all Union wine present in the USA market is adversely impacted as a result. The reputation of a wine is determined not only by its quality but also by its price and the perceived price-quality ratio. This is particularly the case for the lower to middle range priced wines, which, in absolute terms, are more impacted by a 25 % import duty than more expensive wines that are purchased by connoisseurs for whom a price increase does not operate as a deterrent. Union wines compete in the USA market with wines from other origins such as South America, Australia or South Africa. In the light of such fierce and intense competition, perception of overall price levels plays a significant role. Where the consumer is aware that the price of wine from certain origins within the Union is subject to an increased import duty, this will have a negative impact on the overall perception of the price level of Union wines as such and thus divert consumer demand to products of other origins. In the light of the identified resulting market conditions and decrease in overall returns to producers, immediate measures to address the effects of the import duties are warranted covering all wines originating in all Member States and not only in those directly targeted by the import duties.

(4)

From a market stability perspective, the import duty regime imposed by the USA does not represent an isolated national measure with effects limited to the trade with the USA. The world wine market is a global market on which single measures taken by important economic players such as the USA have far-reaching repercussions affecting the international trade in wine as a whole. Any negative change in the conditions in a major destination market for Union wines, such as the USA, inevitably affects other markets since the products that cannot be sold in the USA, having become too expensive, need to be diverted elsewhere. Consequently, consumers in those other markets, being well aware of the market conditions, will exert additional pressure on prices and competition will also be much fiercer than normal. The current import duties imposed by the USA are therefore likely to cause stagnation in Union wine exports worldwide. Reports from the wine sector have shown that significant orders of French wines on the USA market have already been cancelled.

(5)

The Union wine market has been subject to aggravating conditions throughout 2019 and wine stocks are at their highest level since 2009. This development is due primarily to a combination of the record harvest in 2018 and decreasing wine consumption in the Union. If the wines affected by the import duties imposed by the USA are not sold in the export markets outside the Union, this will only serve to amplify the urgency and seriousness of the situation in the Union market. Furthermore, the urgency of the situation is aggravated by the timing of the application of the import duty tariffs. The tariffs are applicable from 18 October 2019, which falls right in the middle of the 2019 wine harvest and production campaign and just before the end of year festive season; two of the most important sale periods of the year for the Union wine sector. Against this background, it is therefore necessary to take immediate measures to address the situation.

(6)

Among the support measures in the wine sector set out in Article 43 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, only the promotion measure under Article 45(1)(b) of that Regulation is directly targeted on promoting Union wines in third countries in order to improve their competitiveness. Over the years, the promotion measure has proved remarkably effective to conquer and consolidate markets in third countries. It proved to be the most effective tool to support Union wines on third country markets by enhancing their reputation and raising awareness on their quality. The international wine market is a global market and any promotion operation for Union wine on third country markets is beneficial to all Union wines. It opens opportunities for those who will subsequently enter the market in question with other Union wines. The individual promotions have a ‘multiplier’ effect on sales as they cover whole ranges of wines or entire wine-making regions and not just one individual brand or type of wine. It is therefore essential to continue, launch and intensify promotion activities in all markets in order to find outlets for the wines that will not be sold on the USA market and to preserve the reputation of Union wines in those other markets as well as to counter pressure on prices.

(7)

Therefore, to help operators respond to the current exceptional circumstances in export markets all over the world following the import duty regime imposed by the USA and address this unpredictable and precarious situation, it is appropriate to allow further flexibility in implementing the promotion measure under Article 45(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 by derogating from certain provisions set out in Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/1149 (2).

(8)

In order to allow beneficiaries to strengthen their promotion actions and to consolidate their presence on the targeted markets, it should be possible for Member States to extend the duration of the support to already selected operations under the promotion measure referred to in Article 45(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 beyond the maximum duration of 5 years set out in Article 4 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/1149. Such a measure will provide more stability and continuity of the promotion operations for the operators already present on the USA market and directly affected by the import duties. Furthermore, it will also benefit those operators promoting wine on other third country markets which are not directly subject to the import duty regime imposed by the USA but who are struggling to keep their position in the newly created unstable wine world market situation of fierce competition.

(9)

However, the individual prolongation granted to projects should not extend beyond the current programming period which runs from 2019 to 2023 and thus should end on 15 October 2023.

(10)

Further flexibility should be allowed with regard to the possible changes to operations under the promotion measure referred to in Article 45(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 as laid down in Article 53(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/1149. In order to enable beneficiaries to react adequately and efficiently to exceptional circumstances and adapt their target markets as required, it is appropriate to authorise Member States to derogate from those rules by allowing changes to the destination market even if the change is not in line with the initial objective of the operation. Such a derogation would help beneficiaries currently carrying out promotion operations in the USA to target other markets and prevent further economic losses. It would also provide assistance to those beneficiaries carrying out operations in other third countries affected by the repercussions of the import duty regime imposed by the USA on that particular market and who wish to redirect their efforts elsewhere.

(11)

To avoid a scenario whereby beneficiaries using the flexibility and deciding to change the targeted market are penalised for not having implemented their overall operation as approved initially by the competent authority, it is also necessary to derogate from Article 54(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/1149. This would ensure that support is paid to the individual actions, as amended by this Regulation, as long as those actions are fully implemented and subjected to the applicable checks laid down in Section 1 of Chapter IV of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1150 (3).

(12)

The two measures introduced by this Regulation should be applicable to all operators already present on a given third country market to ensure that they are supported in the same way as newcomers to that market who will be entitled to benefit from a higher Union contribution rate of up to 60 % of the eligible expenditure pursuant to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/132 (4). These measures should also apply to all operations promoting wine under Article 45(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 in disregard of the specific wine category which is promoted given the fact that the import duty regime imposed by the USA affects the reputation of all Union wines as a whole. In addition, it would be very difficult to separate within one promotion operation the actions concerning still wines from the actions concerning other wines since the promotion operations are typically designed to promote a whole range of products and not just a specific category. Many promotion campaigns concern all wines of a region or a broad variety of wines sold by a given operator. To separate the actions concerning other wines from the actions concerning still wines within a promotion campaign would represent a heavy administrative burden and would undermine the positive effects of the promotion operation.

(13)

Therefore, it is necessary to derogate from Article 4, Article 53(1) and Article 54(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/1149,

(1)

The German language version of Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/919 (2) contains an error in paragraph 2 of section 7.4.2.3 of the Annex as regards the conditions for the application of a transition phase.

(2)

The German language version of Regulation (EU) 2016/919 should therefore be corrected accordingly. The other language versions are not affected.

(3)

Due to the error in paragraph 2 of section 7.4.2.3 of the Annex, economic operators undergo unnecessary restrictive requirements on the placing on the market of railway vehicles. From 16 June 2019 to 31 December 2020, it should be possible, under specific conditions, to issue authorisations for the placing on the market of vehicles in conformity to set of specifications #1 referred to in Table A 2 of Annex A to the Annex to Regulation (EU) 2016/919. The conditions to be met should be that the vehicles are authorised in conformity to a vehicle type that was authorised before 1 January 2019 in conformity to set of specifications #1 referred to in Table A 2 of Annex A to the Annex to Regulation (EU) 2016/919. Therefore, the German language version should be corrected with retroactivity.

(4)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established in accordance with Article 51(1) of Directive (EU) 2016/797,

(1)

Part A of the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 (2) sets out the active substances deemed to have been approved under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.

(2)

The approval periods of the active substances abamectin, Bacillus subtilis (Cohn 1872) strain QST 713, Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. Aizawai strains ABTS 1857 and GC-91, Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. Israeliensis (serotype H-14) strain AM65-52, Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. Kurstaki strains ABTS 351, PB 54, SA 11, SA12 and EG 2348, Beauveria bassiana strains ATCC 74040 and GHA, clodinafop, clopyralid, Cydia pomonella Granulovirus (CpGV), cyprodinil, dichlorprop-P, fenpyroximate, fosetyl, Lecanicillium muscarium (formerly ‘Verticillium lecani i’) strain Ve6, mepanipyrim, Metarhizium anisopliae (var. anisopliae) strain BIPESCO 5/F52, metconazole, metrafenone, Phlebiopsis gigantea strains FOC PG 410.3, VRA 1835 and VRA 1984, pirimicarb, Pseudomonas chlororaphis strain MA342, pyrimethanil, Pythium oligandrum M1, rimsulfuron, spinosad, Streptomyces K61 (formerly ‘S. griseoviridi s’), Trichoderma asperellum (formerly ‘T. harzianu m’) strains ICC012, T25 and TV1, Trichoderma atroviride (formerly ‘T. harzianu m’) strains IMI 206040 and T11, Trichoderma gamsii (formerly ‘T. virid e’) strain ICC080, Trichoderma harzianum strains T-22 and ITEM 908, triclopyr, trinexapac, triticonazole and ziram were extended until 30 April 2020 by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/168 (3).

(3)

Applications for the renewal of the approval of those substances were submitted in accordance with Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 844/2012 (4).

(4)

Furthermore, an extension of the approval period is prescribed for the active substances dichlorprop-P, mepanipyrim, spinosad, trinexapac and fosetyl, to allow the necessary time to carry out the assessment relating to endocrine disrupting properties in accordance with the procedure set out in Articles 13 and 14 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 844/2012.

(5)

Due to the fact that the assessment of all those substances has been delayed for reasons beyond the control of the applicants, the approvals of those active substances are likely to expire before a decision has been taken on their renewal. It is therefore necessary to extend their approval periods.

(6)

In view of the aim of the first paragraph of Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, as regards cases where the Commission is to adopt a Regulation providing that the approval of an active substance referred to in the Annex to this Regulation is not renewed because the approval criteria are not satisfied, the Commission is to set the expiry date at the same date as before this Regulation or at the date of the entry into force of the Regulation providing that the approval of the active substance is not renewed, whichever date is later. As regards cases where the Commission is to adopt a Regulation providing for the renewal of an active substance referred to in the Annex to this Regulation, the Commission will endeavour to set, as appropriate under the circumstances, the earliest possible application date.

(7)

Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 should therefore be amended accordingly.

(8)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed,

(1)

In accordance with Article 67(3) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2), the revenue of the European Medicines Agency consists of a contribution from the Union and fees paid by undertakings to that Agency. Regulation (EC) No 297/95 lays down the categories and levels of such fees.

(2)

Those fees should be updated by reference to the inflation rate of 2019. The inflation rate in the Union, as published by the Statistical Office of the European Union (3), was 1,6 % in 2019.

(3)

For the sake of simplicity, the adjusted levels of the fees should be rounded to the nearest EUR 100.

(4)

Regulation (EC) No 297/95 should therefore be amended accordingly.

(5)

For reasons of legal certainty, this Regulation should not apply to valid applications which are pending on 1 April 2020.

(6)

In accordance with Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 297/95, the update is to be made with effect from 1 April 2020. It is therefore appropriate that this Regulation enters into force as a matter of urgency and applies from that date,

(1)

Article 3 is amended as follows:

(2)

in the first paragraph of Article 4, ‘EUR 72 600’ is replaced by ‘EUR 73 800’;

(3)

Article 5 is amended as follows:

(4)

in the first paragraph of Article 6, ‘EUR 43 700’ is replaced by ‘EUR 44 400’;

(5)

Article 7 is amended as follows:

(6)

Article 8 is amended as follows:

(1)

Administrative arrangements with third countries on catch certificates for fisheries products are listed in Annex IX to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1010/2009 (2). These arrangements include specimens of the catch certificates validated by the competent authorities of the third countries concerned.

(2)

The United States have revised the United States catch certificate specimen in view particularly of the new IT tool, CATCH, developed by the Commission for the Union catch certification scheme.

(3)

Annex IX to Regulation (EC) No 1010/2009 should be amended accordingly.

(4)

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

(1)

Article 7(1) of the Directive (EU) 2016/797 provides that Member States may allow an applicant not to apply one or more technical specifications for interoperability (‘TSIs’) or part of them, in cases, which are listed exhaustively in points (a) to (e) of the Article.

(2)

Member States’ communication of their decision in cases referred to in point (a) of Article 7(1), or Member States’ request for non-application in the cases referred to in points (c), (d) and (e), should contain information justifying the non-application and specifying the alternative provisions to be applied instead of the TSIs.

(3)

The request should include the reference to the non-applied TSI provisions, describe the project concerned, its scope and timelines as well as provide any other relevant information to assist the Commission in assessing the compliance of the non-application with the requirements set out in Article 7(1).

(4)

Once transitional measures provided by a TSI expire, Member States should permit applicants not to apply the TSI or parts of them pursuant to Article 7(1)(a) of the Directive only in duly justified case. In that event, the communication to the Commission should include all necessary information and justifications.

(5)

In order to facilitate communication with the Commission, Member States should use a template when they submit their non-application decision for a project at an advanced stage of development pursuant to point (a) of Article 7(1). This template could also be used for the notification of a list of projects at an advanced stage of development pursuant to Article 7(2) of the Directive.

(6)

The request for non-application of one or more TSIs or parts of them should be sent to the Commission by electronic means in order to ensure a paperless administration. The date by which Member States are delivering a request or supplement information to the Commission’s mailbox should be the submission date for the purpose of Article 7(7) of the Directive.

(7)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Rail Interoperability and Safety Committee,