(1)

Council Regulation (EC) No 974/98 (1) provides for the substitution of the euro for the currencies of the Member States which fulfilled the necessary conditions for the adoption of the euro at the time when the Community entered the third stage of economic and monetary union.

(2)

In accordance with Article 4 of the 2003 Act of Accession, Lithuania is a Member State with a derogation as defined in Article 139(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (the ‘Treaty’).

(3)

Pursuant to Council Decision 2014/509/EU of 23 July 2014 on the adoption by Lithuania of the euro on 1 January 2015 (2), Lithuania fulfils the necessary conditions for the adoption of the euro and the derogation in favour of Lithuania is to be abrogated with effect from 1 January 2015.

(4)

The introduction of the euro in Lithuania requires the extension to Lithuania of the existing provisions on the introduction of the euro set out in Regulation (EC) No 974/98.

(5)

Lithuania's National Euro Changeover Plan specifies that euro banknotes and coins should become legal tender in Lithuania on the day of the introduction of the euro as its currency. Consequently, the euro adoption date and the cash changeover date should be 1 January 2015. No ‘phasing-out’ period should apply.

(6)

Regulation (EC) No 974/98 should therefore be amended accordingly,

(1)

People with coeliac disease suffer from a permanent intolerance to gluten. Wheat (i.e. all Triticum species, such as durum wheat, spelt, and khorasan wheat), rye and barley have been identified as grains that are scientifically reported to contain gluten. The gluten present in those grains can cause adverse health effects to people intolerant to gluten and therefore its consumption should be avoided by such people.

(2)

Information on the absence or reduced presence of gluten in food should help people intolerant to gluten to identify and choose a varied diet when eating inside or outside the home.

(3)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 41/2009 (2) sets out harmonised rules on the information provided to consumers on the absence (‘gluten-free’) or reduced presence of gluten (‘very low gluten’) in food. The rules of that Regulation are based on scientific data and guarantee that consumers are not misled or confused by information provided on a divergent basis on the absence or reduced presence of gluten in food.

(4)

In the context of the revision of the legislation on foodstuffs intended for particular nutritional uses Regulation (EU) No 609/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) repeals Regulation (EC) No 41/2009 from 20 July 2016. It should be ensured that, after that date, the provision of information on the absence or reduced presence of gluten in food continues to be based on the relevant scientific data and is not provided on a divergent basis which could mislead or confuse the consumers, in accordance with the requirements laid down in Article 36(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011. It is therefore necessary that uniform conditions for the application of these requirements to food information provided by food business operators on the absence or reduced presence of gluten in food are maintained in the Union and these conditions should be based on Regulation (EC) No 41/2009.

(5)

Certain foods have been specially produced, prepared and/or processed to reduce the gluten content of one or more gluten-containing ingredients or to substitute the gluten-containing ingredients with other ingredients naturally free of gluten. Other foods are made exclusively from ingredients that are naturally free of gluten.

(6)

The removal of gluten from gluten-containing grains presents considerable technical difficulties and economic constraints and therefore the manufacture of totally gluten-free food when using such grains is difficult. Consequently, many foods especially processed to reduce the gluten content of one or more gluten-containing ingredients on the market may contain low residual amounts of gluten.

(7)

Most people with intolerance to gluten can include oats in their diet without adverse effect on their health. This is an issue of ongoing study and investigation by the scientific community. However, a major concern is the contamination of oats with wheat, rye or barley that can occur during grain harvesting, transport, storage and processing. Therefore, the risk of gluten contamination in products containing oats should be taken into consideration with regard to the relevant information provided on those food products by food business operators.

(8)

Different people with intolerance to gluten may tolerate variable small amounts of gluten within a restricted range. In order to enable individuals to find on the market a variety of foodstuffs appropriate for their needs and for their level of sensitivity, a choice of products should be possible with different low levels of gluten within such a restricted range. It is important, however, that the different products are properly labelled in order to ensure their correct use by people intolerant to gluten with the support of information campaigns fostered in the Member States.

(9)

It should be possible for a food which is specially produced, prepared and/or processed to reduce the gluten content of one or more gluten-containing ingredients or to substitute the gluten-containing ingredients with other ingredients naturally free of gluten to bear terms indicating either the absence (‘gluten-free’) or reduced presence (‘very low gluten’) of gluten in accordance with the provisions laid down in this Regulation. It should also be possible for this food to bear a statement informing consumers that it is specifically formulated for people intolerant to gluten.

(10)

It should also be possible for a food containing ingredients naturally free of gluten to bear terms indicating the absence of gluten, in accordance with the provisions laid down in this Regulation and provided that the general conditions on fair information practices set out in Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 are complied with. In particular, food information should not be misleading by suggesting that the food possesses special characteristics when in fact all similar foods possess such characteristics.

(11)

Commission Directive 2006/141/EC (4) prohibits the use of ingredients containing gluten in the manufacture of infant formulae and follow-on formulae. Therefore, the use of the statements ‘very low gluten’ or ‘gluten-free’ when providing information on such products should be prohibited given that pursuant to the present Regulation, these statements are used for indicating respectively a content of gluten not exceeding 100 mg/kg and 20 mg/kg.

(12)

The Codex Standard for Foods for Special Dietary Use for Persons Intolerant to Gluten (5) should be taken appropriately into consideration for the purposes of this Regulation.

(13)

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

(a)

‘gluten’ means a protein fraction from wheat, rye, barley, oats or their crossbred varieties and derivatives thereof, to which some persons are intolerant and which is insoluble in water and 0,5 M sodium chloride solution;

(b)

‘wheat’ means any Triticum species.

(1)

Annex III to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008 (2) sets out the list of third countries whose systems of production and control measures for organic production of agricultural products are recognised as equivalent to those laid down in Regulation (EC) No 834/2007.

(2)

The recognition of Switzerland pursuant to Article 33(2) of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 currently applies to processed agricultural products for use as food, except for yeast. Switzerland has submitted a request to the Commission to recognise its equivalence for organic yeast as well. Examination of the information submitted with that request and subsequent clarifications provided by Switzerland have led to the conclusion that in that country the rules governing production and controls of organic yeast are equivalent to those laid down in Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 (3). Consequently, recognition of the equivalence of Switzerland's systems of production and control measures, as regards processed agricultural products for use as food, should also apply to organic yeast.

(3)

The recognition of New Zealand pursuant to Article 33(2) of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 currently applies to processed agricultural products for use as food, except for wine and yeast. The New Zealand authorities have submitted a request to the Commission to recognise its equivalence for organic wine as well. Examination of the information submitted with that request and subsequent clarifications provided by New Zealand have led to the conclusion that in that country the rules governing production and controls of organic wine are equivalent to those laid down in Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 and Regulation (EC) No 889/2008. Consequently, recognition of the equivalence of New Zealand's systems of production and control measures, as regards processed products for use as food, should also apply to organic wine.

(4)

According to the information provided by New Zealand, the competent authority, one of the control bodies and the certificate-issuing body have changed. This should be reflected in Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008.

(5)

Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008 sets out the list of control bodies and control authorities competent to carry out controls and issue certificates in third countries for the purpose of equivalence.

(6)

The Commission has examined requests for inclusion in the list set out in Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008, received by 31 October 2013. Following the examination of all information received, the control bodies and control authorities that have been found to comply with the relevant requirements should be included in that list.

(7)

‘LibanCert’ is listed in Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008. However, it did not notify the Commission of relevant information relative to the accreditation body referred to in the third and fourth subparagraphs of Article 33(3) of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 nor of any changes to its technical dossier in accordance with Article 12(2)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008. Furthermore, the annual report sent by ‘LibanCert’ in 2013 indicated that it did not meet the specifications set out in Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008. ‘LibanCert’ was invited by the Commission to clarify these issues but it did not reply within the deadline set. According to information available to the Commission, ‘LibanCert’ has ceased operations. It should therefore be withdrawn from the list in Annex IV.

(8)

Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008 as amended by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 355/2014 (4) contains an error in relation to the code number for a third country for the control body ‘Abcert AG’ and erroneously refers to ‘IMO Swiss AG’ instead of ‘IMOswiss AG’.

(9)

Annexes III and IV to Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008 should therefore be amended and corrected accordingly.

(10)

For reasons of legal certainty, the corrected provisions relating to Abcert AG and IMOswiss AG should apply from the date of entry into force of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 355/2014.

(11)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the regulatory Committee on organic production,

(a)

paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:

(*1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 830/2014 of 30 July 2014 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1890/2005, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2/2012 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 205/2013 as regards the product scope of the current anti-dumping measures concerning stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof, and as regards newcomer review requests, and providing for the possibility of repayment or remission of duties in certain cases (OJ L 226, 31.7.2014, p. 16).’;"

(b)

the following paragraph 4 is added:

(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)

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 416/2014 (2) has opened import tariff quotas for certain cereals originating in Ukraine.

(2)

Notifications made in accordance with Article 4(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 416/2014 show that the applications for import licences submitted to the competent authorities from 18 July 2014 at 13:00 until 25 July 2014, 13:00 Brussels time, pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 2(1) of that Regulation, for the quota with order number 09.4308, cover quantities greater than those available. The extent to which import licences may be issued should therefore be determined by fixing the allocation coefficient to be applied to the quantities requested under the quota concerned.

(3)

Import licences should no longer be issued for the tariff quota with order number 09.4308.

(4)

In order to ensure sound management of the procedure of issuing import licences, the present Regulation should enter into force immediately after its publication,

(1)

The third stage of economic and monetary union (‘EMU’) started on 1 January 1999. The Council, meeting in Brussels on 3 May 1998 in the composition of Heads of State or Government, decided that Belgium, Germany, Spain, France, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Austria, Portugal and Finland fulfilled the necessary conditions for adopting the euro on 1 January 1999 (1).

(2)

By Decision 2000/427/EC (2) the Council decided that Greece fulfilled the necessary conditions for adopting the euro on 1 January 2001. By Decision 2006/495/EC (3) the Council decided that Slovenia fulfilled the necessary conditions for adopting the euro on 1 January 2007. By Decisions 2007/503/EC (4) and 2007/504/EC (5) the Council decided that Cyprus and Malta fulfilled the necessary conditions for adopting the euro on 1 January 2008. By Decision 2008/608/EC (6) the Council decided that Slovakia fulfilled the necessary conditions for adopting the euro. By Decision 2010/416/EU (7) the Council decided that Estonia fulfilled the necessary conditions for adopting the euro. By Decision 2013/387/EU (8) the Council decided that Latvia fulfilled the necessary conditions for adopting the euro.

(3)

In accordance with paragraph 1 of the Protocol on certain provisions relating to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland annexed to the Treaty establishing the European Community (‘EC Treaty’), the United Kingdom notified the Council that it did not intend to move to the third stage of EMU on 1 January 1999. That notification has not been changed. In accordance with paragraph 1 of the Protocol on certain provisions relating to Denmark annexed to the EC Treaty and the Decision taken by the Heads of State or Government in Edinburgh in December 1992, Denmark has notified the Council that it will not participate in the third stage of EMU. Denmark has not requested that the procedure referred to in Article 140(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) be initiated.

(4)

By virtue of Decision 98/317/EC Sweden has a derogation as defined in Article 139(1) TFEU. In accordance with Article 4 of the 2003 Act of Accession (9), the Czech Republic, Lithuania, Hungary and Poland have derogations as defined in Article 139(1) TFEU. In accordance with Article 5 of the 2005 Act of Accession (10), Bulgaria and Romania have derogations as defined in Article 139(1) TFEU. In accordance with Article 5 of the 2012 Act of Accession (11), Croatia has a derogation as defined in Article 139(1) TFEU.

(5)

The European Central Bank (‘ECB’) was established on 1 July 1998. The European Monetary System has been replaced by an exchange rate mechanism, the setting-up of which was agreed by a resolution of the European Council on the establishment of an exchange-rate mechanism in the third stage of economic and monetary union of 16 June 1997 (12). The procedures for an exchange-rate mechanism in stage three of economic and monetary union (ERM II) were laid down in the Agreement of 16 March 2006 between the European Central Bank and the national central banks of the Member States outside the euro area laying down the operating procedures for an exchange rate mechanism in stage three of economic and monetary union. (13)

(6)

Article 140(2) TFEU lays down the procedures for abrogation of the derogation of the Member States concerned. At least once every two years, or at the request of a Member State with a derogation, the Commission and the ECB shall report to the Council in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 140(1) TFEU.

(7)

National legislation in the Member States, including the statutes of national central banks, is to be adapted as necessary with a view to ensuring compatibility with Articles 130 and 131 TFEU and with the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank (‘Statute of the ESCB and of the ECB’). The reports of the Commission and the ECB provide a detailed assessment of the compatibility of the legislation of Lithuania with Articles 130 and 131 TFEU and with the Statute of the ESCB and of the ECB.

(8)

In accordance with Article 1 of Protocol No 13 on the convergence criteria referred to in Article 140 TFEU, the criterion on price stability referred to in the first indent of Article 140(1) TFEU means that a Member State has a price performance that is sustainable and an average rate of inflation, observed over a period of one year before the examination, that does not exceed by more than one and a half percentage points that of, at most, the three best performing Member States in terms of price stability. For the purpose of the criterion on price stability, inflation is measured by the harmonised indices of consumer prices (HICPs) defined in Council Regulation (EC) No 2494/95 (14). In order to assess the price stability criterion, a Member State's inflation is measured by the percentage change in the arithmetic average of 12 monthly indices relative to the arithmetic average of 12 monthly indices of the previous period. A reference value calculated as the simple arithmetic average of the inflation rates of the three best-performing Member States in terms of price stability plus 1,5 percentage points was considered in the reports of the Commission and the ECB. In the one-year period ending in April 2014, the inflation reference value was calculated to be 1,7 percent, with Latvia, Portugal and Ireland as the three best-performing Member States in terms of price stability, with inflation rates of, respectively 0,1 percent, 0,3 percent and 0,3 percent. It is warranted to exclude from the best performers Member States whose inflation rates could not be seen as a meaningful benchmark for other Member States. Such outliers were in the past identified in the 2004, 2010 and 2013 Convergence Reports. At the current juncture, it is warranted to exclude Greece, Bulgaria and Cyprus from the best performers (15). They are replaced by Latvia, Portugal and Ireland, the Member States with the next-lowest average inflation rates, for the calculation of the reference value.

(9)

In accordance with Article 2 of Protocol No 13, the criterion on the government budgetary position referred to in the second indent of Article 140(1) TFEU requires that, at the time of the examination, the Member State not be the subject of a Council decision under Article 126(6) TFEU that an excessive deficit exists.

(10)

In accordance with Article 3 of Protocol No 13, the criterion on participation in the exchange-rate mechanism of the European Monetary System referred to in the third indent of Article 140(1) TFEU requires that a Member State have complied with the normal fluctuation margins provided for by the exchange-rate mechanism (ERM) of the European Monetary System without severe tensions for at least the last two years before the examination. In particular, the Member State must not have devalued its currency's bilateral central rate against the euro on its own initiative for the same period. Since 1 January 1999, the ERM II provides the framework for assessing the fulfillment of the exchange rate criterion. In assessing the fulfillment of this criterion in their reports, the Commission and the ECB examined the two-year period ending on 15 May 2014.

(11)

In accordance with Article 4 of Protocol No 13, the criterion on the convergence of interest rates referred to in the fourth indent of Article 140(1) TFEU requires that, observed over a period of one year before the examination, a Member State have had an average nominal long-term interest rate that does not exceed by more than two percentage points that of, at most, the three best performing Member States in terms of price stability. For the purpose of the criterion on the convergence of interest rates, comparable interest rates on ten-year benchmark government bonds were used. In order to assess the fulfillment of the interest-rate criterion a reference value calculated as the simple arithmetic average of the nominal long-term interest rates of the three best performing Member States in terms of price stability plus two percentage points was considered in the reports of the Commission and the ECB. The reference value is based on the long-term interest rates in Latvia (3,3 percent), Ireland (3,5 percent) and Portugal (5,9 percent) and in the one year period ending in April 2014 was 6,2 percent.

(12)

In accordance with Article 5 of Protocol No 13, the data used in the assessment of the fulfillment of the convergence criteria is to be provided by the Commission. The Commission provided that data. Budgetary data were provided by the Commission after reporting by the Member States by 1 April 2014 in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2009 (16).

(13)

On the basis of reports presented by the Commission and the ECB on the progress made in the fulfillment by Lithuania of its obligations regarding the achievement of economic and monetary union, it is concluded that:

(1)

Commission Implementing Decision 2014/88/EU (2) was adopted following a high number of notifications issued to the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF) due to the presence of a wide range of salmonella strains, including salmonella typhimurium, found in foodstuffs. That strain is the second most reported serotype in human cases and high prevalences have been found in foodstuffs containing or consisting of betel leaves (‘Piper betle’, commonly known as ‘Paan leaf’ or ‘Betel quid’) from Bangladesh. Since 2011, the United Kingdom has reported several outbreaks of salmonella poisoning from betel leaves. In addition, it is likely that the number of cases are underreported in the Union.

(2)

Accordingly, Implementing Decision 2014/88/EU prohibits the importation into the Union of foodstuffs containing or consisting of betel leaves from Bangladesh until 31 July 2014.

(3)

In February 2014, Bangladesh submitted an up-date concerning the implementation of its action plan to address the shortcomings identified during an audit by the European Commission's Food and Veterinary Office in 2013. It indicated that the implementation is still in progress and has not yet been completed.

(4)

Thus, a number of outstanding issues remain to be addressed. In particular, the export programme proposed by the industry for the export of betel leaves has not yet been put in place. The self-imposed export ban on betel leaves introduced by Bangladesh in May 2013 remains in place. However, it has not proved to be fully effective and since its adoption, nine cases of attempted imports of betel leaves into the Union have been reported in the RASFF. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that the guarantees provided by Bangladesh are sufficient to address the serious risks to human health. The emergency measures established by Implementing Decision 2014/88/EU should therefore remain in place.

(5)

The period of application of Implementing Decision 2014/88/EU should therefore be extended until 30 June 2015.

(6)

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