1.12.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 314/1

(1)

Council Directive 83/417/EEC (3) provides for the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to certain lactoproteins (caseins and caseinates) intended for human consumption. Since the entry into force of that Directive, several changes have taken place, in particular the development of a comprehensive legal framework in the area of food law and the adoption of an international standard for edible casein products by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (‘Codex standard for edible casein products’), which need to be taken into account.

(2)

Directive 83/417/EEC confers powers on the Commission in order to implement some of its provisions. As a consequence of the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, those powers need to be aligned to Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’).

(3)

For the sake of clarity, Directive 83/417/EEC should therefore be repealed and replaced with a new Directive.

(4)

Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council (4) contains general, horizontal and uniform Union rules concerning the adoption of emergency measures for food and feed. The related provisions of Directive 83/417/EEC are therefore no longer necessary.

(5)

Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (5) contains general, horizontal and uniform Union rules concerning the methods of sampling and analysis of foodstuffs. The related provisions of Directive 83/417/EEC are therefore no longer necessary.

(6)

Under Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council (6), sufficient information is to be provided in business to business relations in order to ensure the presence and accuracy of food information for the final consumer. Since the products covered by this Directive are meant to be sold from business to business, for the preparation of food products, it is appropriate to maintain and adapt the specific rules already included in Directive 83/417/EEC to the current legal framework and simplify them. Such specific rules should provide for the information to be provided for the products covered by this Directive, in business to business relations, in order, on the one hand, to make available to food business operators the information they need for the labelling of the final products, for example when it comes to allergens, and, on the other hand, to avoid those products being confused with similar products not meant or not suitable for human consumption.

(7)

Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council (7) lays down a definition of food additives and processing aids referred to as technological adjuvants in Directive 83/417/EEC. Consequently, this Directive should use the terms ‘food additives’ and ‘processing aids’ instead of ‘technological adjuvants’. Such use of terminology would also be in line with the Codex standard for edible casein products.

(8)

Other terms and references used in the Annexes to Directive 83/417/EEC should be adapted to take into account those used in Regulation (EC) No 1332/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council (8) and Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008.

(9)

Annex I to Directive 83/417/EEC fixes the maximum moisture content for edible caseins at 10 % and the maximum milk fat content for edible acid casein at 2,25 %. Taking into consideration that the Codex standard for edible casein products fixes those parameters at 12 % and 2 % respectively, the corresponding parameters should be set in line with that standard so as to avoid trade distortions.

(10)

In order to promptly adapt or update the technical elements contained in the Annexes to this Directive so as to take account of developments in relevant international standards or technical progress, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 TFEU should be delegated to the Commission in respect of the standards applicable to edible caseins and edible caseinates laid down in Annexes I and II. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level. The Commission, when preparing and drawing up delegated acts, should ensure a simultaneous, timely and appropriate transmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and to the Council.

(11)

Since the objectives of this Directive, namely to facilitate, through approximation of the laws of the Member States, the free movement of caseins and caseinates intended for human consumption while providing a high level of protection of health, and to bring existing provisions into line with general Union legislation on food and with international standards, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States but can rather, by reason of their scale and effects, be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives,

(a)

‘edible acid casein’ means a milk product obtained by separating, washing and drying the acid-precipitated coagulum of skimmed milk and/or of other products obtained from milk;

(b)

‘edible rennet casein’ means a milk product obtained by separating, washing and drying the coagulum of skimmed milk and/or of other products obtained from milk; the coagulum is obtained through the reaction of rennet or other coagulating enzymes;

(c)

‘edible caseinate’ means a milk product obtained by action of edible casein or edible casein curd coagulum with neutralizing agents, followed by drying.

(a)

the milk products defined in Article 2 are marketed, under the names specified therein, only if they comply with the rules laid down in this Directive and the standards set out in Annexes I and II; and

(b)

caseins and caseinates which do not comply with the standards set out in points (b) and (c) of Section I of Annex I, points (b) and (c) of Section II of Annex I or points (b) and (c) of Annex II, are not used for the preparation of food, and, where lawfully marketed for other purposes, are named and labelled in such a way that the purchaser is not misled as to their nature, quality or intended use.

(a)

the name of the milk product as laid down in points (a), (b) and (c) of Article 2 with, in the case of edible caseinates, an indication of the cation or cations as listed in point (d) of Annex II;

(b)

in the case of products marketed as mixtures:

(c)

the net quantity of the products, expressed in kilograms or grams;

(d)

the name or business name and the address of the food business operator under whose name or business name the product is marketed or, if that food business operator is not established in the Union, the importer into the Union market;

(e)

in the case of products imported from third countries, the name of the country of origin;

(f)

the lot identification of the products or the date of production.

1.12.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 314/10

(1)

On 23 March 2012, the Council adopted Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran.

(2)

By its judgment of 18 September 2015 in Case T-121/13, the General Court of the European Union annulled the Council's decision to include Oil Industry Pension Fund Investment Company (OPIC) on the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures set out in Annex IX to Regulation (EU) No 267/2012.

(3)

OPIC should be included again on the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures, on the basis of a new statement of reasons.

(4)

Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 should therefore be amended accordingly,

1.12.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 314/13

(1)

The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) has been notified of the classes of interest rate over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives that certain central counterparties (CCPs) have been authorised to clear. For each of those classes ESMA has assessed the criteria that are essential for subjecting them to the clearing obligation, including the level of standardisation, the volume and liquidity, and the availability of pricing information. With the overarching objective of reducing systemic risk, ESMA has determined the classes of interest rate OTC derivatives that should be subject to the clearing obligation in accordance with the procedure set out in Regulation (EU) No 648/2012.

(2)

Interest rate OTC derivative contracts can have a constant notional amount, a variable notional amount or a conditional notional amount. Contracts with a constant notional amount have a notional amount which does not vary over the life of the contract. Contracts with a variable notional amount have a notional amount that varies over the life of the contract in a predictable way. Contracts with a conditional notional amount have a notional amount which varies over the life of the contract in an unpredictable way. Conditional notional amounts add complexity to the pricing and risk management associated with interest rate OTC derivative contracts and thus to the ability of CCPs to clear them. This feature should be taken into account when defining the classes of interest rate OTC derivatives to be subject to the clearing obligation.

(3)

In determining which classes of OTC derivative contracts should be subject to the clearing obligation, the specific nature of OTC derivative contracts which are concluded with covered bond issuers or with cover pools for covered bonds should be taken into account. In this respect, the classes of interest rate OTC derivatives subject to the clearing obligation under this Regulation should not encompass contracts concluded with covered bond issuers or cover pools for covered bonds, provided they meet certain conditions.

(4)

Different counterparties need different periods of time for putting in place the necessary arrangements to clear the interest rate OTC derivatives subject to the clearing obligation. In order to ensure an orderly and timely implementation of that obligation, counterparties should be classified into categories in which sufficiently similar counterparties become subject to the clearing obligation from the same date.

(5)

A first category should include both financial and non-financial counterparties which, on the date of entry into force of this Regulation, are clearing members of at least one of the relevant CCPs and for at least one of the classes of interest rate OTC derivatives subject to the clearing obligation, as those counterparties already have experience with voluntary clearing and have already established the connections with those CCPs to clear at least one of those classes. Non-financial counterparties that are clearing members should also be included in this first category as their experience and preparation towards central clearing is comparable with that of financial counterparties included in it.

(6)

A second and third category should comprise financial counterparties not included in the first category, grouped according to their levels of legal and operational capacity regarding OTC derivatives. The level of activity in OTC derivatives should serve as a basis to differentiate the degree of legal and operational capacity of financial counterparties, and a quantitative threshold should therefore be defined for division between the second and third categories on the basis of the aggregate month-end average notional amount of non-centrally cleared derivatives. That threshold should be set out at an appropriate level to differentiate smaller market participants, while still capturing a significant level of risk under the second category. The threshold should also be aligned with the threshold agreed at international level related to margin requirements for non-centrally cleared derivatives in order to enhance regulatory convergence and limit the compliance costs for counterparties. As in those international standards, whereas the threshold applies generally at group level given the potential shared risks within the group, for investment funds the threshold should be applied separately to each fund since the liabilities of a fund are not usually affected by the liabilities of other funds or their investment manager. Thus, the threshold should be applied separately to each fund as long as, in the event of fund insolvency or bankruptcy, each investment fund constitutes a completely segregated and ring-fenced pool of assets that is not collateralised, guaranteed or supported by other investment funds or the investment manager itself.

(7)

Certain alternative investment funds (‘AIFs’) are not captured by the definition of financial counterparties under Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 although they have a degree of operational capacity regarding OTC derivative contracts similar to that of AIFs captured by that definition. Therefore AIFs classified as non-financial counterparties should be included in the same categories of counterparties as AIFs classified as financial counterparties.

(8)

A fourth category should include non-financial counterparties not included in the other categories, given their more limited experience and operational capacity with OTC derivatives and central clearing than the other categories of counterparties.

(9)

The date on which the clearing obligation takes effect for counterparties in the first category should take into account the fact that they may not have the necessary pre-existing connections with CCPs for all the classes subject to the clearing obligation. In addition, counterparties in this category constitute the access point to clearing for counterparties that are not clearing members, client clearing and indirect client clearing being expected to increase substantially as a consequence of the entry into force of the clearing obligation. Finally, this first category of counterparties account for a significant portion of the volume of interest rate OTC derivatives already cleared, and the volume of transactions to be cleared will significantly increase after the date on which the clearing obligation set out in this Regulation will take effect. Therefore, a reasonable timeframe for counterparties in the first category to prepare for clearing additional classes, to deal with the increase of client clearing and indirect client clearing and to adapt to increasing volumes of transactions to be cleared should be set at six months.

(10)

The date on which the clearing obligation takes effect for counterparties in the second and third categories should take into account the fact that most of them will get access to a CCP by becoming a client or an indirect client of a clearing member. This process may require between 12 and 18 months depending on the legal and operational capacity of counterparties and their level of preparation regarding the establishment of the arrangements with clearing members that are necessary for clearing the contracts.

(11)

The date on which the clearing obligation takes effect for counterparties in the fourth category should take into account their legal and operational capacity, and their more limited experience with OTC derivatives and central clearing than other categories of counterparties.

(12)

For OTC derivative contracts concluded between a counterparty established in a third country and another counterparty established in the Union belonging to the same group and which are included in the same consolidation on a full basis and are subject to an appropriate centralised risk evaluation, measurement and control procedures, a deferred date of application of the clearing obligation should be provided. The deferred application should ensure that those contracts are not subject to the clearing obligation for a limited period of time in the absence of implementing acts pursuant to Article 13(2) of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 covering the OTC derivative contracts set out in the Annex to this Regulation and regarding the jurisdiction where the non-Union counterparty is established. Competent authorities should be able to verify in advance that the counterparties concluding those contracts belong to the same group and fulfil the other conditions of intragroup transactions pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 648/2012.

(13)

Unlike OTC derivatives whose counterparties are non-financial counterparties, where counterparties to OTC derivative contracts are financial counterparties, Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 requires the application of the clearing obligation to contracts concluded after the notification to ESMA that follows the authorisation of a CCP to clear a certain class of OTC derivatives, but before the date on which the clearing obligation takes effect, provided the remaining maturity of such contracts at the date on which the obligation takes effect justifies it. The application of the clearing obligation to those contracts should pursue the objective of ensuring the uniform and coherent application of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012. It should serve to seek financial stability and the reduction of systemic risk, as well as ensuring a level playing field for market participants when a class of OTC derivative contracts is declared subject to the clearing obligation. The minimum remaining maturity should therefore be set at a level that ensures the achievement of those objectives.

(14)

Before regulatory technical standards adopted pursuant to Article 5(2) of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 enter into force, counterparties cannot foresee whether the OTC derivative contracts they conclude would be subject to the clearing obligation on the date that obligation takes effect. This uncertainty has a significant impact on the capacity of market participants to accurately price the OTC derivative contracts they enter into since centrally cleared contracts are subject to a different collateral regime than non-centrally cleared contracts. Imposing forward-clearing to OTC derivative contracts concluded before the entry into force of this Regulation, irrespective of their remaining maturity on the date on which the clearing obligation takes effect, could limit counterparties' ability to hedge their market risks adequately and either impact the functioning of the market and financial stability, or prevent them from exercising their usual activities by hedging them by other appropriate means.

(15)

Moreover, OTC derivative contracts concluded after this Regulation enters into force and before the clearing obligation takes effect should not be subject to the clearing obligation until counterparties to those contracts can determine the category they are comprised in, whether they are subject to the clearing obligation for a particular contract, including their intragroup transactions, and before they can implement the necessary arrangements to conclude those contracts taking into account the clearing obligation. Therefore, in order to preserve the orderly functioning and the stability of the market, as well as a level playing field between counterparties, it is appropriate to consider that those contracts should not be subject to the clearing obligation, irrespective of their remaining maturities.

(16)

OTC derivative contracts concluded after the notification to ESMA that follows the authorisation of a CCP to clear a certain class of OTC derivatives, but before the date on which the clearing obligation takes effect should not be subject to the clearing obligation when they are not significantly relevant for systemic risk, or when subjecting those contracts to the clearing obligation could otherwise jeopardise the uniform and coherent application of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012. Counterparty credit risk associated to interest rate OTC derivative contracts with longer maturities remains in the market for a longer period than that associated to interest rate OTC derivatives with low remaining maturities. Imposing the clearing obligation on contracts with short remaining maturities would imply a burden on counterparties disproportionate to the level of risk mitigated. In addition, interest rate OTC derivatives with low remaining maturities represent a relatively small portion of the total market and thus a relatively small portion of the total systemic risk associated to this market. The minimum remaining maturities should therefore be set at a level ensuring that contracts with remaining maturities of no more than a few months are not subject to the clearing obligation.

(17)

Counterparties in the third category bear a relatively limited share of overall systemic risk and have a lower degree of legal and operational capacity regarding OTC derivatives than counterparties in the first and second categories. Essential elements of the OTC derivative contracts, including the pricing of interest rate OTC derivatives subject to the clearing obligation and concluded before that obligation takes effect, will have to be adapted within short timeframes in order to incorporate the clearing that will only take place several months after the contract is concluded. This process of forward-clearing involves important adaptations to the pricing model and amendments to the documentation of those OTC derivatives contracts. Counterparties in the third category have a very limited ability to incorporate forward-clearing in their OTC derivative contracts. Thus, imposing the clearing of OTC derivative contracts concluded before the clearing obligation takes effect for those counterparties could limit their ability to hedge their risks adequately and either impact the functioning and the stability of the market or prevent them from exercising their usual activities if they cannot continue to hedge. Therefore, OTC derivative contracts concluded by counterparties in the third category before the date on which the clearing obligation takes effect should not be subject to the clearing obligation.

(18)

In addition, OTC derivative contracts concluded between counterparties belonging to the same group can be exempted from clearing, provided certain conditions are met, in order to avoid limiting the efficiency of intragroup-risk management processes and therefore, undermine the achievement of the overarching goal of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012. Therefore, intragroup transactions which fulfil certain conditions and which are concluded before the date on which the clearing obligation takes effect for those transactions should not be subject to the clearing obligation.

(19)

This Regulation is based on draft regulatory technical standards submitted by ESMA to the Commission.

(20)

The Commission informed ESMA of its intention to endorse with amendments the draft regulatory technical standards proposed by ESMA, in accordance with the procedure set out in the fifth and sixth subparagraphs of Article 10(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2). ESMA adopted a formal opinion as to those amendments which it submitted to the Commission.

(21)

ESMA has conducted open public consultations on the draft regulatory technical standards on which this Regulation is based, analysed the potential related costs and benefits, requested the opinion of the Security and Markets Stakeholder Group established by Article 37 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010, and consulted the European Systemic Risk Board,

(a)

they are used only to hedge the interest rate or currency mismatches of the cover pool in relation with the covered bond;

(b)

they are registered or recorded in the cover pool of the covered bond in accordance with national covered bond legislation;

(c)

they are not terminated in case of resolution or insolvency of the covered bond issuer or the cover pool;

(d)

the counterparty to the OTC derivative concluded with covered bond issuers or with cover pools for covered bonds ranks at least pari passu with the covered bond holders except where the counterparty to the OTC derivative concluded with covered bond issuers or with cover pools for covered bonds is the defaulting or the affected party, or waives the pari passu rank;

(e)

the covered bond meets the requirements of Article 129 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) and is subject to a regulatory collateralisation requirement of at least 102 %.

(a)

Category 1, comprising counterparties which, on the date of entry into force of this Regulation, are clearing members, within the meaning of Article 2(14) of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012, for at least one of the classes of OTC derivatives set out in the Annex to this Regulation, of at least one of the CCPs authorised or recognised before that date to clear at least one of those classes;

(b)

Category 2, comprising counterparties not belonging to Category 1 which belong to a group whose aggregate month-end average of outstanding gross notional amount of non-centrally cleared derivatives for January, February and March 2016 is above EUR 8 billion and which are any of the following:

(c)

Category 3, comprising counterparties not belonging to Category 1 or Category 2 which are any of the following:

(d)

Category 4, comprising non-financial counterparties that do not belong to Category 1, Category 2 or Category 3.

(a)

21 June 2016 for counterparties in Category 1;

(b)

21 December 2016 for counterparties in Category 2;

(c)

21 June 2017 for counterparties in Category 3;

(d)

21 December 2018 for counterparties in Category 4.

(a)

21 December 2018 in case no equivalence decision has been adopted pursuant to Article 13(2) of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 for the purposes of Article 4 of that Regulation covering the OTC derivative contracts referred to the Annex to this Regulation in respect of the relevant third country; or

(b)

the later of the following dates in case an equivalence decision has been adopted pursuant to Article 13(2) of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 for the purposes of Article 4 of that Regulation covering the OTC derivative contracts referred to in the Annex to this Regulation in respect of the relevant third country:

(a)

the counterparty established in a third country is either a financial counterparty or a non-financial counterparty;

(b)

the counterparty established in the Union is:

(c)

both counterparties are included in the same consolidation on a full basis in accordance to Article 3(3) of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012;

(d)

both counterparties are subject to appropriate centralised risk evaluation, measurement and control procedures;

(e)

the counterparty established in the Union has notified its competent authority in writing that the conditions laid down in points (a), (b), (c) and (d) are met and, within 30 calendar days after receipt of the notification, the competent authority has confirmed that those conditions are met.

(a)

50 years for contracts entered into or novated before 21 February 2016 that belong to the classes in Table 1 or Table 2 set out in the Annex;

(b)

3 years for contracts entered into or novated before 21 February 2016 that belong to the classes of Table 3 or Table 4 of the Annex;

(c)

6 months for contracts entered into or novated on or after 21 February 2016 that belong to the classes of Table 1 to Table 4 of the Annex.

(a)

50 years for contracts entered into or novated before 21 May 2016 that belong to the classes in Table 1 or Table 2 set out in the Annex;

(b)

3 years for contracts entered into or novated before 21 May 2016 that belong to the classes of Table 3 or Table 4 of the Annex;

(c)

6 months for contracts entered into or novated on or after 21 May 2016 that belong to the classes of Table 1 to Table 4 of the Annex.

(a)

50 years for contracts that belong to the classes of Table 1 or Table 2 of the Annex;

(b)

3 years for contracts that belong to the classes of Table 3 or Table 4 of the Annex.

1.12.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 314/22

(1)

Article 3(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1238/95 (2) provides that the President of the Community Plant Variety Office (the Office) may allow alternative forms of payment of fees and surcharges, including by the delivery or remittance of certified cheques. However, it is considered too burdensome to holders to require certified cheques as a means of payment. Moreover, it is necessary to ensure payments via electronic means.

(2)

Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1238/95 requires a person making a payment of fees or surcharges to indicate his name and the purpose of such payment. Taking into account that a payment may arrive to the Office for which it may be impossible to establish the identity of the person making the payment and to refund to this person, it would be appropriate that this money is retained by the Office as other revenue.

(3)

Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1238/95 sets out provisions concerning the level of the application fee payable to the Office for the processing of applications for grant of a Community plant variety right. In order to provide an effective, efficient and expeditious examination of applications, it is important to encourage the filing of applications by electronic means via web form. For this reason, it would be appropriate to reduce the fee paid for processing of the application in case of filing and submission of an application by electronic means.

(4)

The wording in Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1238/95 with regard to designation and entrustments of sub-offices and national agencies needs to be aligned with the Basic Regulation.

(5)

Article 7(7) of Regulation (EC) No 1238/95 regulates the refund of application fees for the applications which are not valid under Article 50 of the Basic Regulation. Based on the experience gained by the Office concerning the cost linked with the processing of applications for grant of Community plant variety rights which are not valid, it is appropriate to reduce the amount of the application fee retained by the Office.

(6)

Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1238/95 concerns fees for the technical examination of a variety. In case of an examination report on the result of a technical examination which has already been carried out by an entrusted Examination Office prior to the date of application for Community Plant Variety Right referred to in Article 8(5), it is appropriate to specify that the fee should be determined by the President of the Office after consultation of the Administrative Council of the Office.

(7)

Article 12(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1238/95 provides that the President of the Office is to fix the fees in respect of the Official Gazette of the Office. The periodical publication of the Official Gazette of the Office is only published in electronic version and no longer in print and it reflects the content of the databases of the Office. Such a publication does not require any additional particular and thus a specific fee should be abolished.

(8)

Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 1238/95 concerns surcharges. Experience has shown that additional work of the Office, referred to in Article 13(1) and (2)(b), on variety denominations, due to their initial non-compliance to requirements laid down or on amendments in the event of prior conflicting right of a third party, is habitual and does not require increased resources. Therefore, any surcharges for that additional work are not justified.

(9)

Article 13(2)(a) provides that the Office may levy a surcharge to the annual fee if the holder has failed to pay the annual fee. In such cases the Office may initiate a procedure for cancellation of the protection. Experience has shown that the Office does not levy a surcharge for the failure to pay the annual fee and therefore this provision should be deleted.

(10)

Articles 93(3) and 94 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1239/95 (3) have not been taken over by Commission Regulation (EC) No 874/2009 (4). Therefore, paragraphs (3) and (4) of Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 1238/95 which refer to those provisions should be deleted.

(11)

Regulation (EC) No 1238/95 should therefore be amended accordingly.

(12)

It would be appropriate that the proposed amendments apply as from 1 January 2016, to align with the beginning of the new financial year for the budget of the Office.

(13)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Community Plant Variety Rights,

(a)

In Article 3, paragraph 2 is amended as follows:

(b)

In Article 5, the following paragraph 3 is added:

‘3.   If after enquiry with the bank concerned, the identity of the person making the payment cannot be confirmed and the amount cannot be refunded to any particular person, the amount shall be considered as other revenues within the deadlines outlined in the internal financial provisions of the Office referred to in Article 112 of the Basic Regulation and adopted by the Administrative Council of the Office.’.

(c)

Article 7 is amended as follows:

(d)

In Article 8(5), the following sentence is added:

‘The amount of that fee shall be determined by the President of the Office after consultation of the Administrative Council and shall be published in the Official Gazette of the Office.’.

(e)

In Article 12(1), point (c) is deleted.

(f)

Article 13 is deleted.

(g)

In Article 14, paragraphs 3 and 4 are deleted.

1.12.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 314/25

(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,

1.12.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 314/27

—

having regard to the final annual accounts of the ARTEMIS Joint Undertaking for the financial year 2013,

—

having regard to the Court of Auditors' report on the annual accounts of the ARTEMIS Joint Undertaking for the financial year 2013, together with the Joint Undertaking's replies (1),

—

having regard to the statement of assurance (2) as to the reliability of the accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions provided by the Court of Auditors for the financial year 2013, pursuant to Article 287 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

—

having regard to the Council's recommendation of 17 February 2015 on discharge to be given to the Joint Undertaking in respect of the implementation of the budget for the financial year 2013 (05306/2015 — C8-0049/2015),

—

having regard to its decision of 29 April 2015 (3) postponing the discharge decision for the financial year 2013, and the replies from the Executive Director of the ECSEL Joint Undertaking (formerly the ARTEMIS Joint Undertaking),

—

having regard to Article 319 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

—

having regard to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (4),

—

having regard to Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (5), and in particular Article 209 thereof,

—

having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 74/2008 of 20 December 2007 on the establishment of the ‘ARTEMIS Joint Undertaking’ to implement a Joint Technology Initiative in Embedded Computing Systems (6),

—

having regard to Council Regulation (EU) No 561/2014 of 6 May 2014 establishing the ECSEL Joint Undertaking (7), and in particular Article 1(2) and Article 12 thereof,

—

having regard to Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002 of 19 November 2002 on the framework Financial Regulation for the bodies referred to in Article 185 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (8),

—

having regard to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 110/2014 of 30 September 2013 on the model financial regulation for public-private partnership bodies referred to in Article 209 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council (9),

—

having regard to Rule 94 of and Annex V to its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the second report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A8-0283/2015),

1.

Grants the Executive Director of the ECSEL Joint Undertaking discharge in respect of the implementation of the ARTEMIS Joint Undertaking's budget for the financial year 2013;

2.

Sets out its observations in the resolution below;

3.

Instructs its President to forward this decision and the resolution forming an integral part of it to the Executive Director of the ECSEL Joint Undertaking, the Council, the Commission and the Court of Auditors, and to arrange for their publication in the Official Journal of the European Union (L series).

1.12.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 314/29

—

having regard to its decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the ARTEMIS Joint Undertaking for the financial year 2013,

—

having regard to Rule 94 of and Annex V to its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the second report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A8-0283/2015),

A.

whereas the ARTEMIS Joint Undertaking (‘the Joint Undertaking’) was set up in December 2007 for a period of 10 years to define and implement a ‘Research Agenda’ for the development of key technologies for embedded computing systems across different application areas in order to strengthen Union competitiveness and sustainability and to allow for the emergence of new markets and societal applications;

B.

whereas the Joint Undertaking started to work autonomously in October 2009;

C.

whereas financial contributions from ARTEMIS Member States should amount in total to 1,8 times the Union's financial contribution and the in-kind contribution of research and development organisations participating in projects over the duration of the Joint Undertaking shall be equal to or greater than the contribution of public authorities;

D.

whereas the Joint Undertaking and the ENIAC Joint Undertaking were merged to create the Electronic Components and Systems for European leadership Joint Technology Initiative (ECSEL JTI) which has started its activity in June 2014 and will run for 10 years;

1.

Recalls that the Court of Auditors (‘the Court’) stated that the 2013 annual accounts of the Joint Undertaking present fairly, in all material respects, its financial position as of 31 December 2013 and the results of its operations and its cash flows for the year-end, in accordance with the provisions of its Financial Rules;

2.

Acknowledges from the Joint Undertaking that the practical arrangements for ex post audits concerning the administrative agreements signed with the national funding authorities (‘NFAs’) have been put in place; takes note that the practical arrangements include the introduction of a specific reporting form, reinforced by the assessment of the national assurance systems by the Joint Undertaking and visits to the NFAs by the Court;

3.

Recalls that the ex post strategy adopted by the Joint Undertaking states that it must assess at least once a year whether the information sent by the NFAs provide sufficient assurance as to the regularity and legality of the executed transactions;

4.

Acknowledges from the Joint Undertaking that the 23 NFAs that shared information on their audit strategies represent 95 % of the total grants awarded; welcomes the fact that in order to complement the information obtained by the Joint Undertaking, the Court acquires additional information directly from the NFAs in order to express an opinion on the legality and regularity of the transactions underlying the accounts;

5.

Acknowledges from the Joint Undertaking that it made progress in implementing the action plan aimed at remedying the deficiencies identified by the Court in its qualified opinion; notes that the assurances provided by the national systems were positively assessed for countries representing 54 % of the total grants, while the assessments for further countries are in an advanced phase of execution which will bring the assessed grant coverage to 84 %; calls on the Joint Undertaking to continue the assessment in order to reach 100 % coverage of the total grants;

6.

Takes note that a workshop on assurance was organised, bringing together the representatives of the Court, the Commission and the Commission's Internal Audit Service, as well as representatives of NFAs active in the Joint Undertaking; notes that this workshop highlighted requirements of European programmes and enabled the exchange of information and best practices with the NFAs;

7.

Notes that the Joint Undertaking developed a new methodology for residual error rate estimation, similar to the one used by the Commission services in charge of co-managed funding; acknowledges that the first evaluation of the residual error rate based on the 157 audited transactions was 0,73 %, while a recent update based on 331 transactions resulted in an error rate of 0,66 %, below the materiality threshold of 2 %;

8.

Recalls that the utilisation rate of payment appropriations after the end of year budget amendment was 69 %; acknowledges from the Joint Undertaking that the delay in issuing payment certificates by the NFAs is one of the main reasons for the low utilisation rate as the payments are executed without delay as soon as the national certificates are received; acknowledges moreover that the slower payment pace did not affect the technical execution of the projects;

9.

Ascertains from the Joint Undertaking that the contributions committed by Member States were at the level of 1,8 times the Union commitments; acknowledges that the commitments by Member States had to be reduced below the 1,8 threshold when awarding the grants in order to comply with the limitations imposed by the State aid rules; takes note that the resulting contributions to the Joint Undertaking by the Union were EUR 181 454 844, whereas the Member States contributions were EUR 341 842 261, resulting in a level of 1,88;

10.

Takes note that the Commission will carry out an evaluation to assess the ARTEMIS activity up to the date of the ECSEL JTI creation, as provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 74/2008 setting up the ARTEMIS Joint Undertaking, to be considered for the discharge for the financial year 2014;

11.

Takes note from the Joint Undertaking that further to the requirements of Article 6(2) of its establishing Regulation, the Internal Audit Capability (IAC) established in the ENIAC Joint Undertaking (ENIAC JU) is now established as the Joint Undertaking's IAC due to the merger of the two Joint Undertakings;

12.

Acknowledges from the Joint Undertaking that its Disaster Recovery Plan for the Joint Undertaking's common IT infrastructure is approved;

13.

Notes that due to the merger with the ENIAC JU, the Comprehensive policy for the prevention and management of conflicts of interests of the ENIAC JU is also applicable to the Joint Undertaking; notes, furthermore, that the procedures for managing situations of conflicts of interests, as well as the mechanism proceedings in the event of a violation of the rules, are part of the adopted policy;

14.

Acknowledges from the Joint Undertaking that the CVs and the declarations of interests of its Executive Director and managers as required by the Staff Regulations and the implementing rules were collected and posted on the Joint Undertaking's web site; notes that a comprehensive database including all identified information related to conflicts of interests as well as the measures taken, has been established and is regularly maintained;

15.

Recalls that the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) Decision (1) establishes a monitoring and reporting system related to the protection, dissemination and transfer of research results; acknowledges from the Joint Undertaking that 211,5 publications and 16,6 patents per EUR 10 000 000 of Union grants shows a high productivity of its research results and that it is compliant with all requests expressed so far by the FP7 coordinators.

1.12.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 314/32

—

having regard to the final annual accounts of the ECSEL Joint Undertaking (formerly the ARTEMIS Joint Undertaking) for the financial year 2013,

—

having regard to the Court of Auditors' report on the annual accounts of the ARTEMIS Joint Undertaking for the financial year 2013, together with the Joint Undertaking's replies (1),

—

having regard to the statement of assurance (2) as to the reliability of the accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions provided by the Court of Auditors for the financial year 2013, pursuant to Article 287 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

—

having regard to the Council's recommendation of 17 February 2015 on discharge to be given to the Joint Undertaking in respect of the implementation of the budget for the financial year 2013 (05306/2015 — C8-0049/2015),

—

having regard to its decision of 29 April 2015 (3) postponing the discharge decision for the financial year 2013, and the replies from the Executive Director of the ECSEL Joint Undertaking (formerly the ARTEMIS Joint Undertaking),

—

having regard to Article 319 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

—

having regard to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (4),

—

having regard to Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (5), and in particular Article 209 thereof,

—

having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 74/2008 of 20 December 2007 on the establishment of the ‘ARTEMIS Joint Undertaking’ to implement a Joint Technology Initiative in Embedded Computing Systems (6),

—

having regard to Council Regulation (EU) No 561/2014 of 6 May 2014 establishing the ECSEL Joint Undertaking (7), and in particular Article 1(2) and Article 12 thereof,

—

having regard to Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002 of 19 November 2002 on the framework Financial Regulation for the bodies referred to in Article 185 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (8),

—

having regard to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 110/2014 of 30 September 2013 on the model financial regulation for public-private partnership bodies referred to in Article 209 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council (9),

—

having regard to Rule 94 of and Annex V to its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the second report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A8-0283/2015),

1.

Approves the closure of the accounts of the ARTEMIS Joint Undertaking for the financial year 2013;

2.

Instructs its President to forward this Decision to the Executive Director of the ECSEL Joint Undertaking, the Council, the Commission and the Court of Auditors, and to arrange for its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union (L series).

1.12.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 314/34

—

having regard to the final annual accounts of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology for the financial year 2013,

—

having regard to the Court of Auditors' report on the annual accounts of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology for the financial year 2013, together with the Institute's replies (1),

—

having regard to the statement of assurance (2) as to the reliability of the accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions provided by the Court of Auditors for the financial year 2013, pursuant to Article 287 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

—

having regard to the Council's recommendation of 17 February 2015 on discharge to be given to the European Institute of Innovation and Technology in respect of the implementation of the budget for the financial year 2013 (05304/2015 — C8-0054/2015),

—

having regard to its decision of 29 April 2015 (3) postponing the discharge decision for the financial year 2013, and the replies from the Director of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology,

—

having regard to Article 319 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

—

having regard to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (4),

—

having regard to Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (5), and in particular Article 208 thereof,

—

having regard to Regulation (EC) No 294/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2008 establishing the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (6), and in particular Article 21 thereof,

—

having regard to Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002 of 19 November 2002 on the framework Financial Regulation for the bodies referred to in Article 185 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (7),

—

having regard to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1271/2013 of 30 September 2013 on the framework financial regulation for the bodies referred to in Article 208 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council (8), and in particular Article 108 thereof,

—

having regard to Rule 94 of and Annex V to its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the second report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A8-0282/2015),

1.

Grants the Director of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology discharge in respect of the implementation of the Institute's budget for the financial year 2013;

2.

Sets out its observations in the resolution below;

3.

Instructs its President to forward this Decision, and the resolution forming an integral part of it, to the Director of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology, the Council, the Commission and the Court of Auditors, and to arrange for their publication in the Official Journal of the European Union (L series).

1.12.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 314/36

—

having regard to its decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology for the financial year 2013,

—

having regard to Rule 94 of and Annex V to its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the second report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A8-0282/2015),

1.

Recalls that the Court of Auditors (‘the Court’), in its report on the annual accounts of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (‘the Institute’) for the financial year 2013, found for the second consecutive year no reasonable assurance on the legality and regularity of the grant transactions; notes that in the Court's view the quality of the certificates was compromised as they were issued by independent audit firms contracted by the grant beneficiaries, covering about 87 % of the grant expenditure; recalls furthermore that in order to address the shortcomings related to the quality of the audit certificates, the Institute improved the instructions provided to certifying auditors and communicated the updated instructions to the ‘Knowledge and Innovation Communities’ (KICs), the recipients of the Institute's grants, in June 2013;

2.

Notes from the Institute that the improved instructions resulted in an improvement of the quality of the audit certificates received in respect to 2013 grant transactions for which the final payments were made in 2014;

3.

Acknowledges that, starting with the 2014 grant agreements, the Institute uses the same audit certificate methodology as all other programmes under the Horizon 2020 framework programme; notes that the use of a more detailed and consistent certification methodology has further increased the assurance obtained in the course of ex ante verifications;

4.

Recalls that the Institute introduced complementary ex post verifications for grant transactions as a second layer of assurance on the legality and regularity of grant transactions; acknowledges that the Institute carried out ‘on the spot’ audits covering around 40 % of the grants paid under the 2013 Grant Agreements; notes that these audits resulted in the recovery of EUR 263 239, out of the total audited amount of EUR 29 163 272; acknowledges that the detected error rate in the audited sample is 0,90 % and the residual error rate is 0,69 %, which is below the materiality threshold of 2 %; notes that the Court has not raised any comments or findings in relation to ex ante or ex post verifications in its preliminary observations for the financial year 2014;

5.

Acknowledges from the Institute that it improved its procurement procedures since 2013 and took a proactive approach after the detection of errors by the Court; notes in particular that the Institute cancelled the two framework contracts concluded in 2010 and 2012 where the use of the negotiated procedure was found as being irregular; notes furthermore that the Institute revised its internal procedures, circuits and templates in order to fully comply with the respective public procurement rules, with special attention given to the sound planning and estimation of needs; acknowledges that the Institute recruited an additional procurement officer in 2015 and that it carried out a series of trainings on procurement for its staff;

6.

Acknowledges that further to the consultancy assignment performed by the Institute's Internal Audit Capability (IAC), the Institute implemented the following actions:

7.

Notes from the Institute that no procurement errors were detected in respect of the year 2014; notes furthermore that as the residual error rate in grant expenditure is 0,69 %, the combined error rate for administrative and operational expenditure is around 0,5 % of the total payments made in 2014; looks forward to the Court's report on the Institute's annual accounts for the year 2014 in order to confirm these findings;

8.

Ascertains that the Institute obtained the audit certificates on the costs of KIC complementary activities incurred in the period 2010-2014; notes that the Institute carried out a review of the portfolio of KIC complementary activities to ensure that only the activities with a clear link to the KIC added value activities funded by the Institute are accepted;

9.

Acknowledges that the Institute's funding provided to the KICs in the period 2010-2014 has not exceeded the 25 % ceiling as set out in the Framework Partnership Agreements between the KICs and the Institute;

10.

Notes that the Institute improved the planning and monitoring procedures related to the budget implementation; takes note that these procedures now include a more rigorous assessment of all activities proposed with a budget impact over EUR 50 000, as well as the introduction of additional planning documents which ensure that the needs of human and financial resources are well identified and available to implement all planned activities; notes, furthermore, that the link between planned activities and resource allocation has been strengthened by linking the Annual Work Programme with the annual budget;

11.

Notes that the Institute has, together with the KICs, significantly improved the absorption capacity of the first-wave KICs for the 2010-2014 period, with an average annual growth rate of the Institute's absorbed grants at 85 %; notes furthermore that the Institute's Governing Board selected and designated two partnerships to become the second-wave KICs, which will further increase the absorption capacity from the year 2015 and increase the Institute's budget execution rate;

12.

Recalls that the low budget implementation rate for Title I (staff expenditure) is mainly related to the high turnover of staff and the outstanding adoption of the regulations on salary adjustments; takes note that the analysis of staff exit interviews identified the lack of a clear career perspective, a difficult work environment and an unattractive salary package related to the correction coefficient for Hungary as the main reasons for the high staff turnover;

13.

Acknowledges the actions taken by the Institute in order to mitigate the high staff turnover; notes in particular the improvements in vacancy management, the establishment of an appraisal and re-classification system, providing a better career perspective and strengthening the middle management level; welcomes the decrease in the staff turnover rate from 20-25 % in the period of 2012-2013 to 12 % in 2014; takes note that the four remaining vacant posts are to be gradually filled during 2015;

14.

Acknowledges that the Commission's Internal Audit Service (IAS) issued a follow-up audit report in June 2014 regarding the status of the implementation of the action plan resulting from the ‘Limited Review on Grant Management — Preparation of Annual Grant Agreements’; takes note that the IAS closed two recommendations out of the original six and that one further recommendation was downgraded from ‘Critical’ to ‘Very Important’;

15.

Acknowledges that the IAS carried out a fact-finding visit in the Institute in December 2014 in order to review the progress made in the implementation of open recommendations; acknowledges furthermore that the visit resulted in the IAS acknowledging further improvements made in the annual grant allocation process and that all detailed actions presented to the IAS during the visit, whether completed, ongoing or planned, are adequately addressing the risks highlighted in the IAS' limited review;

16.

Notes that out of the 25 actions resulting from the action plan, 18 have been implemented and that the implementation of the remaining seven actions is ongoing; notes, moreover, that three out of those seven actions are to be implemented before the end of 2015, after the amended Framework Partnership Agreement between the Institute and the KICs has been signed; takes note from the Institute that the implementation of the remaining actions is progressing as planned;

17.

Notes that the IAC carried out seven audit and consultancy engagements in 2014 and acknowledges the Institute's actions taken on the IAC's recommendations.

1.12.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 314/39

—

having regard to the final annual accounts of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology for the financial year 2013,

—

having regard to the Court of Auditors' report on the annual accounts of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology for the financial year 2013, together with the Institute's replies (1),

—

having regard to the statement of assurance (2) as to the reliability of the accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions provided by the Court of Auditors for the financial year 2013, pursuant to Article 287 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

—

having regard to the Council's recommendation of 17 February 2015 on discharge to be given to the European Institute of Innovation and Technology in respect of the implementation of the budget for the financial year 2013 (05304/2015 — C8-0054/2015),

—

having regard to its decision of 29 April 2015 (3) postponing the discharge decision for the financial year 2013, and the replies from the Director of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology,

—

having regard to Article 319 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

—

having regard to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (4),

—

having regard to Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (5), and in particular Article 208 thereof,

—

having regard to Regulation (EC) No 294/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2008 establishing the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (6), and in particular Article 21 thereof,

—

having regard to Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002 of 19 November 2002 on the framework Financial Regulation for the bodies referred to in Article 185 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (7),

—

having regard to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1271/2013 of 30 September 2013 on the framework financial regulation for the bodies referred to in Article 208 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council (8), and in particular Article 108 thereof,

—

having regard to Rule 94 of and Annex V to its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the second report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A8-0282/2015),

1.

Approves the closure of the accounts of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology for the financial year 2013;

2.

Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Director of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology, the Council, the Commission and the Court of Auditors, and to arrange for its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union (L series).

1.12.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 314/41

—

having regard to the final annual accounts of the ENIAC Joint Undertaking for the financial year 2013,

—

having regard to the Court of Auditors' report on the annual accounts of the ENIAC Joint Undertaking for the financial year 2013, together with the Joint Undertaking's replies (1),

—

having regard to the statement of assurance (2) as to the reliability of the accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions provided by the Court of Auditors for the financial year 2013, pursuant to Article 287 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

—

having regard to the Council's recommendation of 17 February 2015 on discharge to be given to the Joint Undertaking in respect of the implementation of the budget for the financial year 2013 (05306/2015 — C8-0049/2015),

—

having regard to its decision of 29 April 2015 (3) postponing the discharge decision for the financial year 2013, and the replies from the Executive Director of the ECSEL Joint Undertaking (formerly the ENIAC Joint Undertaking),

—

having regard to Article 319 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

—

having regard to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (4),

—

having regard to Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (5), and in particular Article 209 thereof,

—

having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 72/2008 of 20 December 2007 setting up the ENIAC Joint Undertaking (6),

—

having regard to Council Regulation (EU) No 561/2014 of 6 May 2014 establishing the ECSEL Joint Undertaking (7), and in particular Article 1(2) and Article 12 thereof,

—

having regard to Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002 of 19 November 2002 on the framework Financial Regulation for the bodies referred to in Article 185 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (8),

—

having regard to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 110/2014 of 30 September 2013 on the model financial regulation for public-private partnership bodies referred to in Article 209 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council (9),

—

having regard to Rule 94 of and Annex V to its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the second report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A8-0285/2015),

1.

Grants the Executive Director of the ECSEL Joint Undertaking discharge in respect of the implementation of the ENIAC Joint Undertaking's budget for the financial year 2013;

2.

Sets out its observations in the resolution below;

3.

Instructs its President to forward this decision and the resolution forming an integral part of it to the Executive Director of the ECSEL Joint Undertaking, the Council, the Commission and the Court of Auditors, and to arrange for their publication in the Official Journal of the European Union (L series).

1.12.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 314/43

—

having regard to its decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the ENIAC Joint Undertaking for the financial year 2013,

—

having regard to Rule 94 of and Annex V to its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the second report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A8-0285/2015),

A.

whereas the ENIAC Joint Undertaking (‘the Joint Undertaking’) was set up on 20 December 2007 for a period of 10 years to define and implement a ‘research agenda’ for the development of key competences for nanoelectronics across different application areas;

B.

whereas the Joint Undertaking was granted its financial autonomy in July 2010;

C.

whereas the founding members of the Joint Undertaking are the Union, represented by the Commission, Belgium, Germany, Estonia, Ireland, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the Association for European Nanoelectronics Activities (AENEAS);

D.

whereas the maximum contribution for the period of 10 years from the Union to the Joint Undertaking is EUR 450 000 000, to be paid from the budget of the Seventh Research Framework Programme;

E.

whereas AENEAS is to make a maximum contribution of EUR 30 000 000 to the Joint Undertaking's running costs and the Member States are to make in-kind contributions to the running costs and to provide financial contributions of 1,8 times the Union contribution;

F.

whereas the Joint Undertaking and the ARTEMIS Joint Undertaking were merged to create the Electronic Components and Systems for European leadership Joint Technology Initiative (ECSEL JTI) which has started its activity in June 2014 and will run for 10 years;

1.

Recalls that the Court of Auditors (‘the Court’) stated that the 2013 annual accounts of the Joint Undertaking present fairly, in all material respects, its financial position as of 31 December 2013 and the results of its operations and its cash flows for the year-end, in accordance with the provisions of its Financial Rules and the accounting rules adopted by the Commission's Accounting Officer;

2.

Recalls that the Court issued a qualified opinion on the legality and regularity of the transactions underlying the annual accounts, on the grounds of not being able to conclude whether or not the ex post audit strategy, which relies heavily on the National Funding Authorities (NFAs) auditing project cost claims, provides sufficient assurance with respect to the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions;

3.

Acknowledges from the Joint Undertaking that the Court will take steps in order to obtain sufficient assurances on the audits carried out by the NFAs; acknowledges furthermore that the ECSEL JTI is making further assessments of the national assurance systems following the merger of the Joint Undertaking and ARTEMIS Joint Undertaking;

4.

Notes that the Joint Undertaking established the practical arrangements for ex post audits concerning the administrative agreements signed with the NFAs; takes note that the practical arrangements include the introduction of a specific reporting form, reinforced by the assessment of the national assurance systems by the Joint Undertaking and visits to the NFAs by the Court;

5.

Takes note that the limited review of cost claims undertaken by the Joint Undertaking in 2012 was one of the elements enhancing the assurance, which allowed the Joint Undertaking to monitor which transactions were submitted to audits prior to the introduction of a specific reporting form; notes that this sampling showed a small number of the first national audits starting in 2012 and reached a volume allowing for meaningful statistical evaluations in 2014;

6.

Acknowledges from the Joint Undertaking that 23 NFAs shared information on their audit strategies, which represents 95 % of the total grants awarded; welcomes the fact that in order to complement the information obtained by the Joint Undertaking, the Court acquires additional information directly from the NFAs in order to express an opinion on the legality and regularity of the transactions underlying the accounts;

7.

Acknowledges from the Joint Undertaking that it made progress in implementing the action plan aimed at remedying the deficiencies identified by the Court in its qualified opinion; notes that the assurances provided by the national systems were positively assessed for countries representing 54 % of the total grants, while the assessments for further countries are in an advanced phase of execution, which will bring the assessed grant coverage to 84 %; calls on the Joint Undertaking to continue the assessment in order to reach 100 % coverage of the total grants;

8.

Takes note that a workshop on assurance was organised, bringing together the representatives of the Court, the Commission and the Commission's Internal Audit Service, as well as representatives of NFAs active in the Joint Undertaking; notes that this workshop highlighted requirements of European programmes and enabled the exchange of information and best practices with the NFAs;

9.

Notes that the Joint Undertaking developed a new methodology for residual error rate estimation, similar to the one used by the Commission services in charge of co-managed funding; acknowledges that the first evaluation of the residual error rate based on the 157 audited transactions was 0,73 %, while a recent update based on 331 transactions resulted in an error rate of 0,66 %, below the materiality threshold of 2 %;

10.

Ascertains from the Joint Undertaking that the Member States' contributions were under the level of 1,8 times the Union contribution as requested by the Joint Undertaking's statute in order to comply with the limitations imposed by the State aid rules; notes in particular that for the industrial participants in large pilot line projects the total public funding cannot exceed 25 % while the Joint Undertaking's statute requires allocating the same reimbursement rate to each participant;

11.

Acknowledges that the lower contributions from the Members States were more than compensated by increased private sector contributions, carrying 65 % of the total costs and thus reaching a very high leverage of the Union funding;

12.

Takes note that the Commission will carry out an evaluation to assess the ENIAC activity up to the date of the ECSEL JTI creation, as provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 72/2008 setting up the ENIAC Joint Undertaking, to be considered for the discharge for the financial year 2014;

13.

Acknowledges from the Joint Undertaking that the CVs and the declarations of interests of its Executive Director and managers as required by the Staff Regulations and the implementing rules were collected and posted on the Joint Undertaking's web site; notes that a comprehensive database including all identified information related to conflicts of interests as well as the measures taken has been established and is regularly maintained;

14.

Recalls that the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) Decision (1) establishes a monitoring and reporting system related to the protection, dissemination and transfer of research results; acknowledges from the Joint Undertaking that 211,5 publications and 16,6 patents per EUR 10 000 000 of Union grants shows a high productivity of its research results and that it is compliant with all requests expressed so far by the FP7 coordinators.

1.12.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 314/46

—

having regard to the final annual accounts of the ENIAC Joint Undertaking for the financial year 2013,

—

having regard to the Court of Auditors' report on the annual accounts of the ENIAC Joint Undertaking for the financial year 2013, together with the Joint Undertaking's replies (1),

—

having regard to the statement of assurance (2) as to the reliability of the accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions provided by the Court of Auditors for the financial year 2013, pursuant to Article 287 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

—

having regard to the Council's recommendation of 17 February 2015 on discharge to be given to the Joint Undertaking in respect of the implementation of the budget for the financial year 2013 (05306/2015 — C8-0049/2015),

—

having regard to its decision of 29 April 2015 (3) postponing the discharge decision for the financial year 2013, and the replies from the Executive Director of the ECSEL Joint Undertaking (formerly the ENIAC Joint Undertaking),

—

having regard to Article 319 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

—

having regard to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (4),

—

having regard to Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (5), and in particular Article 209 thereof,

—

having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 72/2008 of 20 December 2007 setting up the ENIAC Joint Undertaking (6),

—

having regard to Council Regulation (EU) No 561/2014 of 6 May 2014 establishing the ECSEL Joint Undertaking (7), and in particular Article 1(2) and Article 12 thereof,

—

having regard to Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002 of 19 November 2002 on the framework Financial Regulation for the bodies referred to in Article 185 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (8),

—

having regard to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 110/2014 of 30 September 2013 on the model financial regulation for public-private partnership bodies referred to in Article 209 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council (9),

—

having regard to Rule 94 of and Annex V to its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the second report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A8-0285/2015),

1.

Approves the closure of the accounts of the ENIAC Joint Undertaking for the financial year 2013;

2.

Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Executive Director of the ECSEL Joint Undertaking, the Council, the Commission and the Court of Auditors, and to arrange for its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union (L series).

1.12.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 314/48

—

having regard to the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2013 (1),

—

having regard to the consolidated annual accounts of the European Union for the financial year 2013 (COM(2014) 510 — C8-0148/2014) (2),

—

having regard to the Court of Auditors' annual report on the implementation of the budget concerning the financial year 2013, together with the institutions' replies (3),

—

having regard to the statement of assurance (4) as to the reliability of the accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions provided by the Court of Auditors for the financial year 2013, pursuant to Article 287 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

—

having regard to its decision of 29 April 2015 (5) postponing the discharge decision for the financial year 2013, and the accompanying resolution,

—

having regard to Article 314(10) and Articles 317, 318 and 319 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

—

having regard to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (6),

—

having regard to Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (7), and in particular Articles 55, 99, 164, 165 and 166 thereof,

—

having regard to Rule 94 of and Annex V to its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the second report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A8-0269/2015),

1.

Refuses to grant the Secretary-General of the Council discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Council and of the Council for the financial year 2013;

2.

Sets out its observations in the resolution below;

3.

Instructs its President to forward this decision and the resolution forming an integral part of it to the European Council, the Council, the Commission, the Court of Justice of the European Union, the Court of Auditors, the European Ombudsman, the European Data Protection Supervisor and the European External Action Service, and to arrange for their publication in the Official Journal of the European Union (L series).

1.12.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 314/49

—

having regard to its decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2013, Section II — European Council and Council,

—

having regard to Rule 94 of and Annex V to its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the second report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A8-0269/2015),

A.

whereas all Union institutions ought to be transparent and fully accountable to the citizens of the Union for the funds entrusted to them as Union institutions;

B.

whereas the European Council and the Council, as Union institutions, should be subject to democratic accountability towards the citizens of the Union as far as they are beneficiaries of the general budget of the European Union;

C.

whereas Parliament is the sole directly elected body among the Union institutions and has responsibility to grant discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union;

1.

Emphasises Parliament's role specified in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) in respect of the budget discharge;

2.

Points out that under Article 335 TFEU, ‘[…] the Union shall be represented by each of the institutions, by virtue of their administrative autonomy, in matters relating to their respective operation’ and that, accordingly, taking into account Article 55 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 (the Financial Regulation), the institutions are individually responsible for the implementation of their budgets;

3.

Emphasises the role of Parliament and of other institutions within the discharge procedure as governed by the provisions of the Financial Regulation, in particular Articles 164, 165 and 166 thereof;

4.

Notes that under Rule 94 of its Rules of Procedure, ‘the provisions governing the procedure for granting discharge to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the budget shall likewise apply to the procedure for granting discharge to […] the persons responsible for the implementation of the budgets of other institutions and bodies of the European Union such as the Council (as regards its activity as executive) […]’;

5.

Regrets that the Council did not provide any explanation on the increasing underspending and carry-overs of commitments in their 2013 budget;

6.

Reminds the Council of Parliament's call for progress reports on building projects and a detailed breakdown of the costs incurred to date;

7.

Urges the Council to provide a thorough written explanation detailing the total amount of appropriations used in the purchase of the ‘Residence Palace’ building, the budget items from which those appropriations were drawn, the instalments that have been paid thus far and the instalments that remain to be paid;

8.

Reiterates its call on the Council to provide information on its process of administrative modernisation, in particular on the concrete implementing measures of that process and on the anticipated impact on the Council's budget;

9.

Regrets the difficulties repeatedly encountered in the discharge procedures to date, which were due to a lack of cooperation from the Council; points out that Parliament refused to grant discharge to the Secretary-General of the Council in relation to the financial years 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 for the reasons set out in its resolutions of 10 May 2011 (1), 25 October 2011 (2), 10 May 2012 (3), 23 October 2012 (4), 17 April 2013 (5), 9 October 2013 (6), 3 April 2014 (7) and 23 October 2014 (8) and postponed its decision on granting the Secretary-General of the Council discharge in relation to the financial year 2013 for the reasons set out in its resolution of 29 April 2015 (9);

10.

Insists that an effective budgetary control exercise requires cooperation between Parliament and the Council as set out in its resolution of 29 April 2015; confirms that Parliament is unable to make an informed decision on granting discharge;

11.

Reminds the Council of the Commission's view, expressed in its letter of 23 January 2014, that all institutions are fully part of the follow-up process after the observations made by Parliament in the discharge exercise and that all institutions should cooperate to ensure the smooth functioning of the discharge procedure;

12.

Notes that the Commission stated in the abovementioned letter that it will not oversee the implementation of the budget of the other institutions and that giving a response to questions addressed to another institution would infringe the autonomy of that institution to implement its own section of the budget;

13.

Regrets that the Council continues to fail to provide answers to Parliament's questions; recalls the conclusions of the Parliament workshop on Parliament's right to grant discharge to the Council held on 27 September 2012, at which the legal and academic experts largely agreed on the Parliament's right to information; in this respect refers to the third subparagraph of Article 15(3) TFEU which stipulates that each institution, body, office or agency shall ensure that its proceedings are transparent;

14.

Insists that the expenditure of the Council must be scrutinised in the same way as that of other institutions and that the fundamental elements of such scrutiny have been laid down in its discharge resolutions of the past years;

15.

Emphasises Parliament's prerogative to grant discharge pursuant to Articles 316, 317 and 319 TFEU, in line with current interpretation and practice, namely to grant discharge to each heading of the budget individually in order to maintain transparency and democratic accountability towards Union taxpayers;

16.

Takes the view that Council's failure to submit the requested documents to Parliament above all undermines the right of citizens of the Union to information and transparency and is becoming a cause for concern, reflecting as it does a certain democratic deficit within the Union institutions;

17.

Believes that it is necessary to consider different possibilities to update the rules on granting discharge laid down in the TFEU;

18.

Considers that satisfactory cooperation between Parliament, the European Council and the Council as a result of an open and formal dialogue procedure can be a positive sign to be sent to the citizens of the Union.

1.12.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 314/51

(1)

On 7 August 2015, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution (UNSCR) 2235 (2015), condemning any use of toxic chemicals, such as chlorine, as a chemical weapon in the Syrian Arab Republic and expressing its determination to identify those responsible for such acts. To this end, the UN Security Council established for a period of one year, with the possibility of future extension if it deems it necessary, a joint investigative mechanism (JIM) to identify, to the greatest extent feasible, individuals, entities, groups or governments who were perpetrators, organisers, sponsors or otherwise involved in the use of chemicals, including chlorine or any other toxic chemical, as weapons in the Syrian Arab Republic, in cases where the fact-finding mission (FFM) of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) determines or has determined that a specific incident in the Syrian Arab Republic involved or likely involved the use of chemicals, including chlorine or any other toxic chemical, as weapons.

(2)

On 10 September 2015, the UN Security Council authorised the recommendations, including elements of terms of reference regarding the OPCW-UN JIM established by UNSCR 2235 (2015), submitted by the UN Secretary-General in his letters to the President of the UN Security Council dated 27 August 2015 and 9 September 2015.

(3)

The EU Strategy against Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (‘the Strategy’) underlines the crucial role of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction (CWC) and of the OPCW in creating a world free of chemical weapons.

(4)

The Union is actively implementing the Strategy and is giving effect to the measures listed in Chapter III thereof, in particular by releasing financial resources to support specific projects conducted by multilateral institutions, such as the OPCW. Accordingly, on 9 December 2013, the Council adopted Decision 2013/726/CFSP (1) in support of the activities of OPCW in the framework of UNSCR 2118 (2013), the OPCW Executive Council Decision of 27 September 2013 on the destruction of Syrian chemical weapons and subsequent and related resolutions and decisions. Furthermore, on 17 February 2015, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2015/259 (2) in support of activities of the OPCW in the framework of the implementation of the Strategy.

(5)

On 23 September 2015, the OPCW Director-General addressed a letter to the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (‘the High Representative’) seeking a financial contribution from the Union to a trust fund for OPCW missions in the Syrian Arab Republic, including activities related to the OPCW FFM in support of the JIM in its analysis of allegations of the use of chemicals, including chlorine or any other toxic chemical, as weapons.

(6)

On 24 September 2015, the Head of the OPCW-UN JIM addressed a letter to the High Representative seeking financial support for the JIM through a trust fund.

(7)

Following the accession of the Syrian Arab Republic to the CWC, effective from 14 October 2013, the OPCW is responsible for verifying the Syrian Arab Republic's compliance with the CWC and the terms of any relevant OPCW Executive Council Decisions and for reporting, in coordination with the UN Secretary-General, as needed, to the UN Security Council on non-compliance with UNSCR 2118 (2013).

(8)

The technical implementation of this Decision should be entrusted to the OPCW and the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs (UNODA) as the implementing office of the JIM trust fund. The projects supported by the Union can only be financed through voluntary contributions to the respective OPCW and JIM trust funds. Such contributions to be provided by the Union will be instrumental in enabling the OPCW and the JIM to fulfil the tasks set out in UNSCR 2235 (2015).

(9)

The supervision of the proper implementation of the Union's financial contribution should be entrusted to the Commission,

(a)

OPCW special missions in the Syrian Arab Republic, including activities related to the OPCW FFM in support of the JIM in its analysis of allegations of use of chemicals, including chlorine or any other toxic chemical, as weapons;

(b)

OPCW-UN JIM, including its establishment and ability to begin its full operations under UNSCR 2235 (2015).

1.12.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 314/58

(1)

On 26 July 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran.

(2)

By its judgment of 18 September 2015 in Case T-121/13, the General Court of the European Union annulled the Council's decision to include Oil Industry Pension Fund Investment Company (OPIC) on the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures set out in Annex II to Decision 2010/413/CFSP.

(3)

OPIC should be included again on the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures, on the basis of a new statement of reasons.

(4)

Decision 2010/413/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly,

1.12.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 314/60

(1)

Directive 91/496/EEC lays down the principles of veterinary checks on animals entering the Union from third countries. It lays down the measures which can be adopted by the Commission, if a disease liable to present a serious threat to animal or public health manifests itself or spreads in the territory of a third country.

(2)

Directive 97/78/EC lays down the principles of veterinary checks on products entering the Union from third countries. It lays down the measures which can be adopted by the Commission, if a disease liable to present a serious threat to animal or public health manifests itself or spreads in the territory of a third country.

(3)

Foot-and-mouth disease is one of the most contagious diseases of cattle, sheep, goats and pigs. The virus causing the disease has the potential for rapid spread, notably through products obtained from infected animals and contaminated inanimated objects including means of transport like livestock vehicles. The virus can also persist in a contaminated environment outside the host animal for several weeks depending on the temperature.

(4)

Following outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in Algeria, Libya and Tunisia in 2014, Commission Implementing Decision 2014/689/EU (3) provided for protection measures to avoid the introduction in the Union of that disease.

(5)

In particular, Implementing Decision 2014/689/EU established measures on the cleansing and disinfection of livestock vehicles and vessels from Algeria, Libya and Tunisia. As Morocco is a potential country of transit for the livestock vehicles returning from Algeria, Libya and Tunisia to the Union, those measures also applied to vehicles and vessels from that country. That Decision was applicable until 1 October 2015.

(6)

On 2 November 2015 Morocco notified to the World Organisation for Animal Health (‘OIE’) the confirmation of an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease of serotype O in the western part of its territory.

(7)

The presence of foot-and-mouth disease in Morocco is liable to constitute a serious risk to the livestock population of the Union.

(8)

The foot-and-mouth disease situation in Libya remains uncertain and a significant number of consignments of live bovine animals is exported from EU Member States to that country.

(9)

In addition, Libya and Morocco are potential countries of transit for the livestock vehicles returning from other African countries to the Union.

(10)

Therefore, the foot-and-mouth disease situation in Libya and Morocco requires to adopt protection measures at Union level which take into account the survival of the foot-and-mouth disease virus in the environment and potential transmission routes of that virus.

(11)

Livestock vehicles and vessels used for the transport of live animals to Libya and Morocco may be contaminated with the foot-and-mouth disease virus in those countries and therefore constitute a risk of introducing the disease upon their return to the Union.

(12)

Appropriate cleansing and disinfection of livestock vehicles and vessels is the most appropriate way to reduce the risk of rapid virus transmission over large distances.

(13)

It is therefore appropriate to ensure that all livestock vehicles and vessels which have transported live animals to destinations in Libya and Morocco are appropriately cleansed and disinfected and that such cleansing and disinfection is properly documented in a declaration to be submitted by the operator or driver to the competent authority at the point of entry into the Union.

(14)

The operator or driver should ensure that for each livestock vehicle and vessel which has transported live animals to destinations in Libya and Morocco, a cleansing and disinfection certificate is retained for a minimum period of three years.

(15)

Member States should also have the possibility to subject vehicles which transport feed from or have transported feed to infected countries, and for which a significant risk of introduction of foot-and-mouth disease into the territory of the Union cannot be excluded, to on-the-spot disinfection of the wheels or any other part of the vehicle deemed necessary to mitigate that risk.

(16)

In addition, although imports of live animals of species susceptible to foot-and-mouth disease are not authorised from any country in Africa, the importation of certain categories of equidae is authorised from Morocco in accordance with Council Directive 2009/156/EC (4) and equidae from that third country may transit the Union on their way to another third country in accordance with Commission Decision 2010/57/EU (5). Therefore, Member States should have the possibility to subject livestock vehicles carrying equidae coming from that third country to on-the-spot disinfection of the wheels or any other part of the vehicle deemed necessary to mitigate the risk of introduction of foot-and-mouth disease into the Union.

(17)

The measures provided for by this Decision should apply for a period of time which allows a full evaluation of the evolution of the foot-and-mouth disease in the affected areas.

(18)

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

(a)

subject the livestock vehicle or vessel to proper cleansing and disinfection at a place designated by the competent authority, as close as possible to the point of entry into the Member State concerned and issue the certificate referred to in paragraph 3;

(b)

where there is no suitable facility for the cleansing and disinfection in the vicinity of the point of entry or where there is a risk that residual animal products may escape from the uncleansed livestock vehicle or vessel: