(1)

Council Regulation (EU) No 40/2013 of 21 January 2013 fixing for 2013 the fishing opportunities available in EU waters and, to EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks which are subject to international negotiations or agreements (2), lays down quotas for 2013.

(2)

According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2013.

(3)

It is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,

(1)

By virtue of the first subparagraph of Article 53(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Commission has examined France’s application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the protected geographical indication ‘Riz de Camargue’ registered under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1187/2000 (2).

(2)

Since the amendments in question are not minor within the meaning of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Commission published the amendment application in the Official Journal of the European Union (3) as required by Article 50(2)(a) of that Regulation.

(3)

As no statement of objection under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the amendments to the specification should be approved,

(1)

By virtue of the first subparagraph of Article 53(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Commission has examined France’s application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the protected designation of origin ‘Huile essentielle de lavande de Haute-Provence’ / ‘Essence de lavande de Haute-Provence’ registered under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 (2) as amended by Regulation (EC) No 828/2003 (3).

(2)

Since the amendments in question are not minor within the meaning of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Commission published the amendment application in the Official Journal of the European Union (4) as required by Article 50(2)(a) of that Regulation.

(3)

As no statement of objection under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the amendments should be approved,

(1)

By virtue of the first subparagraph of Article 53(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Commission has examined France’s application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the protected designation of origin ‘Chaource’ registered under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 (2), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1326/2008 (3).

(2)

Since the amendments in question are not minor within the meaning of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Commission published the amendment application in the Official Journal of the European Union (4) as required by Article 50(2)(a) of that Regulation.

(3)

As no statement of objection under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the amendments should be approved,

(1)

Member States not participating in the joint action as provided in Article 26(1) and (2) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 1031/2010 of 12 November 2010 on the timing, administration and other aspects of auctioning of greenhouse gas emission allowances pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowances trading within the Community (2) may appoint own auction platforms for the auctioning of their share of the volume of allowances covered by Chapters II and III of Directive 2003/87/EC. Pursuant to the third paragraph of Article 30(5) of Regulation (EU) No 1031/2010, the appointment of such auction platforms is subject to listing of the auction platform concerned in Annex III to that Regulation.

(2)

In accordance with Article 30(4) of Regulation (EU) No 1031/2010, Germany informed the Commission of its decision not to participate in the joint action as provided in Article 26(1) and (2) of that Regulation, and to appoint its own auction platform.

(3)

On 15 March 2013, Germany notified the Commission of its intention to appoint European Energy Exchange AG (‘EEX’) as an auction platform referred to in Article 30(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1031/2010.

(4)

On 20 March 2013, Germany presented the notification to the Climate Change Committee established under Article 9 of Decision No 280/2004/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 concerning a mechanism for monitoring Community greenhouse gas emissions and for implementing the Kyoto Protocol (3).

(5)

In order to ensure that the proposed appointment of EEX as an auction platform referred to in Article 30(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1031/2010 is compatible with the requirements of that Regulation and is in conformity with the objectives set out in Article 10(4) of Directive 2003/87/EC, it is necessary to impose a number of conditions and obligations on EEX.

(6)

In accordance with Article 35(3)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1031/2010, an appointed auction platform is required to provide full, fair and equitable access to bid in the auctions for small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and access to bid in the auctions for small emitters. To ensure this, EEX should provide such SMEs and small emitters with transparent, comprehensive and up-to-date information, on access possibilities to auctions conducted by EEX for Germany including all necessary practical guidance on how to make the most of such possibilities. Such information should be publicly available on EEX’s webpage. In addition, EEX should report to the auction monitor to be appointed as provided for in Article 24(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1031/2010 on the coverage obtained, including on the level of geographic coverage obtained, and take the utmost account of the auction monitor’s recommendations in this regard so as to ensure fulfilment of its obligations under Article 35(3)(a) and (b) of that Regulation.

(7)

In accordance with Article 35(3)(e) of Regulation (EU) No 1031/2010, when appointing an auction platform, Member States must take into account the extent to which a candidate auction platform is able to avoid distortions of competition in the internal market including the carbon market. In particular, an auction platform should not be able to use the contract appointing it to leverage the competitiveness of its other activities, notably the secondary market it organises. An auction platform should provide candidate bidders the option to be admitted to bid in the auctions without being required to become an exchange member or a participant in the secondary market organised by itself or of any other trading place operated by it or by any third party.

(8)

In accordance with Article 35(3)(h) of Regulation (EU) No 1031/2010, when appointing an auction platform, Member States have to take into account the extent to which adequate measures are provided to require an auction platform to hand over all tangible and intangible assets necessary for the conduct of the auctions by an auction platform’s successor. Such measures should be laid down in a clear and timely manner in an exit strategy that should be reviewed by the auction monitor. Not only EEX as appointed by Germany, but all auction platforms should develop such an exit strategy and take utmost account of the auction monitor’s opinion thereon.

(9)

In light of the experience gained, the provisions of Regulation (EU) No 1031/2010 concerning the procurement procedures for appointing auction platforms and the auction monitor, and the holding of auctions should be amended.

(10)

Since the allowances must be delivered within five days from the auction, and since these allowances themselves are tradable, the auctioned product does not need to be tradable.

(11)

On occasion, an auction platform is required to consult the auction monitor. Replying to such consultations entail a responsibility and liability for the auction monitor. In order to mitigate such responsibility and liability, in particular in urgency cases, the consulting auction platform should be allowed to proceed with the intended measure already before obtaining an opinion from the auction monitor. The obligation on the auction platform to take the utmost account of the auction monitor’s opinion, where delivered, should remain.

(12)

The determination of auction calendars should also be reviewed. First, it is neither practicable nor necessary to determine the auction calendars as early as February and March of the preceding year. Second, volumes to be auctioned in August should be half of the volumes auctioned in other months, which may be achieved by holding fewer auctions as well as by auctioning smaller volumes. Third, Article 3d of Directive 2003/87/EC determines the volumes and Member State’s share of the aviation allowances to be auctioned and the provision in Regulation (EU) No 1031/2010 on the annual volume of aviation allowances to be auctioned should take account of uncertainties of some of the underlying factors determining those volumes and shares. In addition, given the uncertainty on the outcome of international negotiations, some greater flexibility for spreading the volume of aviation allowances to be auctioned over a given calendar year is justified. Fourth, in case of consecutive cancellations, the allowances should be spread over a greater number than the next four scheduled auctions. Finally, provisions should be added as regards the auction calendar for auctions by the common auction platform for a Member State which has decided not to join the joint action, but which has to make use of the common auction platform pending the appointment of an own auction platform. These provisions should mirror the provision for the auction calendars to be determined by auction platforms appointed by such Member States.

(13)

Admission to the auctions shall not be dependent on becoming a member of or a participant in the secondary market organised by the auction platform or any other trading place operated by the auction platform or by any third party. This requirement should apply to any auction platform, and not only to the auction platforms appointed by Member States not participating in the joint action for procuring common auction platforms.

(14)

An auction platform may offer one or more alternative means of accessing its auctions, where the main means of access are inaccessible for whatever reason, provided that such alternative means of access are secure and reliable and their use does not lead to any discrimination between bidders. For the avoidance of doubt, it should be clarified that Member States may require an auction platform to offer such alternative means.

(15)

The implementation of a prohibition on Member States disclosing inside information to persons working for an auctioneer may be impracticable or negatively impact the efficiency of the work of the appointed auctioneer or persons working for the auctioneer. Auctioneers only have a limited role in the conduct of auctions and a range of measures exist to mitigate risks of insider dealing, including measures that address situations where the auctioneer or persons working for the auctioneer would have access to inside information. In this context, a complete prohibition is disproportionate. Nevertheless, Member States should be responsible to ensure that an appointed auctioneer has appropriate measures to prevent insider dealing in place before they disclose such inside information.

(16)

The notification by a Member State that does not participate in the joint action of procuring common auction platforms of the auction platform it intends to appoint cannot contain the full auction calendar, but should contain the relevant information for coordinating auction calendars at a later stage.

(17)

The review of Regulation (EU) No 1031/2010 should benefit from the auction monitor’s report on the auction conducted in 2014, which can be expected to be delivered in the beginning of the subsequent year.

(18)

Regulation (EU) No 1031/2010 provides that an auction platform must be a regulated market. In order to benefit from relevant experience and expertise, and mitigate the risks in the execution of the auctions, it is appropriate to clarify that this should be a regulated market, whose operator organises a market in allowances or allowances derivatives.

(19)

As the auction monitor may be paid from the auction revenues, it may be desirable for an auction platform to act as a payment agent for the costs of the auction monitor.

(20)

A restricted procurement procedure for the appointment of the auction monitor has not resulted in a contract as no candidates submitted a request to participate in this joint procurement. A new procedure will have to address complex issues, e.g. concerning the choice of the tender procedure, the form of the contract and the precise description of the tasks, which take time to resolve. The absence of an auction monitor does not, however, entail a risk for the conduct of the auctions to the extent that they should be stopped pending the appointment of the monitor.

(21)

An auction platform may allow the submission of an electronic application for admission to bid but it should also be allowed to require such submission by means of paper documents.

(22)

In case the auction platform appointed by a Member State not participating in the joint action for the procurement of common auction platforms is not able to hold the auctions, the Member State concerned should turn to the common auction platform for the auctioning of its share in the volume of allowances to be auctioned. It should be clarified that the arrangements between the common auction platform and auctioneers appointed by those Member States need to be in place before any such auctioning on a common auction platform, but not earlier.

(23)

All auction platforms should determine an exit strategy and consult the auction monitor thereon. This obligation should not apply exclusively to auction platforms appointed by Member States not participating in the joint action to appoint common auction platforms.

(24)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Climate Change Committee.

(25)

The contract between Germany and EEX in its capacity of the transitional opt-out auction platform expires in December 2013. In order to ensure predictable and timely continuation of the auctions by EEX, this Regulation should enter into force as a matter of urgency.

(26)

Regulation (EU) No 1031/2010 should therefore be amended accordingly,

(1)

in Article 4, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:

(2)

in Article 7, paragraphs 7 and 8 are replaced by the following:

(3)

Article 8 is amended as follows:

(4)

Article 9 is replaced by the following:

(5)

Article 11 is amended as follows:

(6)

Article 12 is replaced by the following:

(7)

Article 13 is amended as follows:

(8)

Article 16 is amended as follows:

(9)

in Article 18(1), point (a) is replaced by the following:

(10)

in Article 20, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:

(11)

Article 22 is amended as follows:

(12)

in Article 24(1), the third subparagraph is replaced by the following:

‘Where reasons of force majeure prevent the auction monitor from performing its tasks in respect of a given auction, in full or in part, the auction platform concerned may decide to conduct that auction provided that it takes appropriate measures to ensure adequate monitoring of the auction itself. The foregoing shall also apply until the moment that the first auction monitor appointed pursuant to paragraph 2 starts monitoring the auctions concerned as more particularly specified in the contract appointing it.’;

(13)

in Article 25, paragraph 6 is replaced by the following.

(14)

in Article 27, the following paragraph 3 is added:

(15)

in Article 30(6), point (c) is replaced by the following:

(16)

in Article 31, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:

(17)

in Article 32(4), the first subparagraph is replaced by the following:

(18)

in Article 33, the first subparagraph is replaced by the following:

‘Upon delivery by the auction monitor of the annual consolidated report concerning the auctions conducted in 2014, the Commission shall review the arrangements provided for in this Regulation including the operation of all auction processes.’;

(19)

in Article 35, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:

(20)

in Article 44, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:

(21)

Annex III is amended in accordance with the text set out in the Annex to this Regulation.

(1)

Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 repealed and replaced Council Regulation (EC) No 509/2006 of 20 March 2006 on agricultural products and foodstuffs as traditional specialities guaranteed (2).

(2)

Pursuant to Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 509/2006, Hungary’s application to register the name ‘Tepertős pogácsa’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (3).

(3)

Germany and Austria notified statements of objection to the Commission in accordance with Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 509/2006. In accordance with paragraph 3 of that Article, the Commission examined the statements of objection and found them to be admissible.

(4)

Hungary has indicated that agreement has been reached with Germany and Austria.

(5)

As regards Germany, that agreement has resulted in the registration application being amended by deleting the references to the required flour quality parameters (BL55 and BL80).

(6)

For its part, Austria has accepted Hungary’s confirmation that the purpose of the registration application is to protect only the Hungarian name ‘Tepertős pogácsa’ as a traditional speciality guaranteed and that the application to register the Hungarian name ‘Tepertős pogácsa’ has no detrimental effect on products bearing the name ‘Grammelpogatsche’ and will not compromise the manufacture of the product marketed under the name ‘Grammelpogatsche’.

(7)

In the light of this information, the name ‘Tepertős pogácsa’ should be entered in the register of traditional specialities guaranteed and the specification should therefore be updated and published,

(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)

Directive 2003/99/EC provides that Member States are to ensure that monitoring provides comparable data on the occurrence of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in zoonotic agents and, in so far they present a threat to public health, other agents.

(2)

Directive 2003/99/EC also provides that Member States are to assess the trends and sources of AMR in their territory and transmit to the Commission every year a report covering data collected in accordance with that Directive.

(3)

In the Communication of 15 November 2011 from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council — Action Plan against the rising threats from Antimicrobial Resistance (2), the Commission proposes to put in place a five-year action plan to fight against AMR based on 12 key actions, including strengthened surveillance systems on AMR.

(4)

In the Council Conclusions of 22 June 2012 on the impact of antimicrobial resistance in the human health sector and in the veterinary sector — a One Health Perspective (3), that Institution calls upon the Commission to follow up on its Communication of 15 November 2011 through concrete initiatives to implement the 12 actions set out in that Communication, and to collaborate closely with the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in strengthening the assessment and evaluation of the occurrence of AMR in humans, in animals and in food in the Union.

(5)

During its plenary sitting of 11 December 2012, the Parliament adopted a Report on the Microbial Challenge — Rising threats from Antimicrobial Resistance (4). In that Report, the Parliament welcomes the Commission’s five-year action plan on tackling AMR and considers that the measures recommended in it need to be implemented as soon as possible. The Parliament, in particular, calls on the Commission and the Member States to seek greater cooperation and coordination on the early detection, alert and coordinated response procedures regarding pathogenic antimicrobial resistant bacteria in humans, animals, fish and foodstuffs in order to continuously monitor the extent and growth of AMR.

(6)

Under its Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme, the Codex Alimentarius Commission adopted, during its 34th session in Geneva, the Guidelines for the Risk Analysis of Foodborne Antimicrobial Resistance (5) which highlight AMR as a major global public health concern and a food safety issue. The use of antimicrobial agents in food-producing animals and crops is a potentially important risk factor for the selection and dissemination of AMR microorganisms and determinants from animals and food crops to humans via the consumption of food.

(7)

Those Codex Guidelines conclude, inter alia, that surveillance programmes on the prevalence of foodborne AMR provide information that is useful for all parts of the AMR risk analysis process. The methodology of surveillance programmes should be internationally harmonised as far as possible. The use of standardised and validated antimicrobial susceptibility testing methods and harmonised interpretive criteria are essential to ensure that data are comparable.

(8)

The Terrestrial Animal Health Code of the World Animal Health Organisation (OIE) (6) in its Chapter 6.7 on ‘Harmonisation of National AMR Surveillance and Monitoring programmes’, underlines the need for the surveillance and monitoring of AMR in order to assess and determine the trends and sources of AMR in bacteria, to detect the emergence of new AMR mechanisms, to provide the data necessary for conducting risk analyses that are relevant to animal and human health, to provide a basis for policy recommendations for animal and human health and to provide information for evaluating antimicrobial prescribing practices and for prudent use recommendations.

(9)

On 9 July 2008, the EFSA adopted a Scientific Opinion on Foodborne antimicrobial resistance as a biological hazard (7). On 28 October 2009, the ECDC, the EFSA, the EMA and the Commission’s Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) published a joint scientific opinion on antimicrobial resistance focused on infections transmitted to humans from animals and food (zoonoses) (8). On 5 March 2009, the EFSA adopted a scientific opinion on the assessment of the public health significance of meticillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) (9). On 7 July 2011, the EFSA adopted a scientific opinion on the public health risks of bacterial strains producing extended-spectrum β-lactamases (ESBL) and/or AmpC β-lactamases (AmpC) in food and food-producing animals (10). On 3 October 2011, the EFSA adopted a technical report on EFSA approaches to risk assessment in the area of antimicrobial resistance, with an emphasis on commensal microorganisms (11). The main conclusion of all those opinions and reports is that, in view of the increasing public health concern regarding AMR, the use of harmonised methods and epidemiological cut-off values is necessary to ensure the comparability of data over time at Member State level, and also to facilitate the comparison of the occurrence of AMR between Member States.

(10)

On 14 June 2012, the EFSA published a scientific report on technical specifications on the harmonised monitoring and reporting of antimicrobial resistance in Salmonella, Campylobacter and indicator commensal Escherichia coli and Enterococcus spp. bacteria transmitted through food (12). On 5 October 2012, the EFSA published a scientific report on technical specifications on the harmonised monitoring and reporting of antimicrobial resistance in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in food-producing animals and food (13). Those scientific reports recommend detailed rules for harmonised monitoring and reporting on the prevalence of resistant microorganisms in food-producing animals and food, in particular as regards the microorganisms to be included, the origin of the isolates of the microorganisms, the number of isolates to be tested, the antimicrobial susceptibility tests to be used, the specific monitoring of MRSA and ESBL- or AmpC-producing bacteria and the collection and reporting of the data. The involvement of the ECDC in this work will ensure the comparison between the data of the food-producing animals and food sector and the data of the human sector.

(11)

In accordance with the findings of those reports and opinions, when defining the combinations of bacterial species, food-producing animal species and food products to be included in the harmonised monitoring and reporting of AMR, it is important to prioritise the most relevant from a public health perspective. In order to minimise the burden, the monitoring should be derived as much as possible from biological samples or isolates collected in the framework of national control programmes that have already been established.

(12)

Regulation (EC) No 2160/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (14) provides that Member States are to establish national control programmes which are to include sampling for the testing of Salmonella spp. at different stages of the food chain. Commission Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 (15) lays down the microbiological criteria for certain microorganisms and the rules to be complied with by food business operators. In particular the competent authority is to ensure that food businesses operators comply with the rules and criteria laid down in that Regulation in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (16). The monitoring of AMR in Salmonella spp. should be focused on isolates obtained from the national control programmes and from the testing and verification of compliance set up by the competent authority in accordance with Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005.

(13)

Commission Decision 2007/407/EC (17) lays down detailed rules for monitoring AMR to be carried out by Member States, covering Salmonella spp. in fowl, turkeys and slaughter pigs for the period from 2007 to 2012. Such harmonised monitoring should be continued to follow the evolution of trends and be extended to AMR in other pathogens and commensals in line with the increasing public health concern on the role of these microorganisms in the overall risk of AMR referred to in scientific opinions. Monitoring and reporting in accordance to Article 7 and 9 of Directive 2003/99/EC should therefore be in compliance with provisions and technical requirements on the harmonised monitoring and reporting of AMR which takes into account the recommendations set out in the EFSA reports.

(14)

For the sake of clarity of Union legislation, Decision 2007/407/EC should be repealed.

(15)

In order to allow Member States to organise themselves and to facilitate the planning of the monitoring and reporting provided for in this Decision, it should apply from 1 January 2014.

(16)

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

(a)

the national control programme provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 2160/2003;

(b)

the process hygiene criteria set out in points 2.1.3, 2.1.4 and 2.1.5 of Chapter 2 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005.

(1)

Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 lays down, among others, procedures governing the financial support from the Union to conduct measures necessary to ensure the application of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004.

(2)

Directive 2003/99/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) provides that Member States shall ensure that monitoring provides comparable data on the occurrence of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in zoonotic agents and, in so far as they present a threat to public health, other agents.

(3)

Article 7(3) of this Directive provides that the Commission shall set out detailed rules for the implementation of monitoring of antimicrobial resistance.

(4)

Several scientific opinions published by the European Food Safety Authority and reports published by the World Health Organization (WHO), the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the World Animal Health Organisation (OIE) call for a harmonised monitoring of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in zoonotic and commensal bacteria, present in animals or food. The Commission therefore laid down detailed rules for harmonised monitoring and reporting of AMR in accordance with Article 7(3) of Directive 2003/99/EC to be carried out by the Member States in Commission Implementing Decision 2013/652/EU (4).

(5)

This harmonised monitoring must be performed in accordance with Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 ensuring that official controls are carried out regularly, on a risk basis and with appropriate frequency, so as to achieve the objectives of that Regulation taking account of identified risks associated with animals, feed or food, feed or food businesses, the use of feed or food or any process, material, substance, activity or operation that may influence feed or food safety, animal health or animal welfare.

(6)

In order to facilitate smooth and fast application of this monitoring, the Union should financially support the Member States which carry out this monitoring at the most appropriate level as provided for in Article 66(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004.

(7)

In accordance with Article 84 of the Financial Regulation and Article 94 of the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 (5), the commitment of expenditure from the Union budget shall be preceded by a financing decision setting out the essential elements of the action involving expenditure and adopted by the institution or the authorities to which powers have been delegated by the institution.

(8)

The measures eligible for Union financial support are defined within the current Implementing Decision.

(9)

The financial contribution from the Union should be granted subject to the condition that the tests and analyses have been carried out in accordance with the present Implementing Decision and with Implementing Decision 2013/652/EU and that the competent authorities supply all the necessary information within the time limits laid down in the present Implementing Decision.

(10)

For reasons of administrative efficiency all expenditure submitted for a financial contribution by the Union should be expressed in euro and the conversion rate for expenditure in a currency other than the euro should be set,

(a)

shall be at a rate of 50 % of the costs incurred by each Member State to implement the monitoring referred to in Article 1 of Implementing Decision 2013/652/EU and performed by the competent authority;

(b)

shall not exceed the following:

(c)

only the costs indicated in Annex II shall be eligible for contribution.

(1)

Commission Decision 2008/294/EC (2) sets in its Annex technical and operational conditions necessary to allow the use of GSM on board aircraft.

(2)

The development of enhanced means of communications supported by technical progress would improve the capacity for all citizens to be connected everywhere and at all time. It would also contribute to fulfilling the objectives of the Digital Agenda for Europe (3) and of the Europe 2020 strategy.

(3)

In order to prepare for the use of the latest available technologies and frequencies for the provision of MCA services, the Commission gave a mandate on 5 October 2011 to the European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations (‘the CEPT’) pursuant to Article 4(2) of Decision No 676/2002/EC to assess technical compatibility between the operation of airborne UMTS systems and other feasible airborne technologies such as LTE or WiMax in frequency bands such as the 2 GHz and the 2,6 GHz band, and potentially affected radio services.

(4)

Pursuant to that mandate, the CEPT provided its report on 8 March 2013. The CEPT Report 48 concluded that it would be possible to introduce, subject to the relevant technical conditions, UMTS and LTE technologies in the 2 100 MHz and 1 800 MHz bands, respectively. Therefore, the Annex to Decision 2008/294/EC should be amended, based on the results of the CEPT Report 48, to include these technologies and allow their use on board aircraft.

(5)

This Decision should apply as soon as possible considering the increasing use of LTE and UMTS technologies in the Union.

(6)

An appropriate protection by limiting the transmission power of the MCA services should be provided to existing potentially affected radio services. However, since the use of the upgraded network control unit (NCU) for the 2,6 GHz band would be delayed until the technical constraints are agreed by the competent aeronautical certification authorities to allow the start of the production of the NCUs and until airworthiness certification has been completed for each type of aircraft, the application of the NCU parameters for the 2,6 GHz band could be postponed until 1 January 2017.

(7)

MCA technical specifications should continue to match technological progress.

(8)

Decision 2008/294/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.

(9)

The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Radio Spectrum Committee,