This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document L:2016:075:FULL
Official Journal of the European Union, L 75, 22 March 2016
Official Journal of the European Union, L 75, 22 March 2016
Official Journal of the European Union, L 75, 22 March 2016
Display all documents published in this Official Journal
|
ISSN 1977-0677 |
||
|
Official Journal of the European Union |
L 75 |
|
|
||
|
English edition |
Legislation |
Volume 59 |
|
|
|
Corrigenda |
|
|
|
* |
|
|
|
|
|
(1) Text with EEA relevance |
|
EN |
Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period. The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
II Non-legislative acts
INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS
|
22.3.2016 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
L 75/1 |
COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2016/414
of 10 March 2016
authorising the Republic of Austria to sign and ratify, and Malta to accede to, the Hague Convention of 15 November 1965 on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, in the interest of the European Union
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 81(2), in conjunction with point (a) of Article 218(6) thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,
Having regard to the consent of the European Parliament (1),
Whereas:
|
(1) |
The Hague Convention of 15 November 1965 on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters (‘the Convention’) simplifies the methods of transmission of judicial and extrajudicial documents between the Contracting States. It thus facilitates judicial cooperation in cross-border civil and commercial litigation. |
|
(2) |
Many countries, including the Member States except the Republic of Austria and Malta, are parties to the Convention. The Republic of Austria and Malta have expressed their interest in becoming parties to the Convention. It is in the interest of the Union that all Member States are parties to the Convention. In addition, in the framework of Union external policy in the area of civil justice, the Union promotes accession to, and ratification of, the Convention by third States. |
|
(3) |
The Union has external competence with regard to the Convention in so far as its provisions affect the rules laid down in certain provisions of Union legislation or in so far as the accession of additional Member States to the Convention alters the scope of certain provisions of Union legislation, such as Article 28(4) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2). |
|
(4) |
The Convention does not allow for participation by regional economic integration organisations such as the Union. As a result, the Union is not in a position to accede to the Convention. |
|
(5) |
The Council should therefore authorise the Republic of Austria to sign and ratify, and Malta to accede to, the Convention, in the interest of the Union. The Member States retain their competence in those areas of the Convention which do not affect Union rules or alter their scope, in accordance with Article 3(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. |
|
(6) |
The United Kingdom and Ireland are bound by Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) and are therefore taking part in the adoption and application of this Decision. |
|
(7) |
In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No 22 on the position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Decision and is not bound by it or subject to its application, |
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
The Council hereby authorises the Republic of Austria to sign and ratify, and Malta to accede to, the Hague Convention of 15 November 1965 on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, in the interest of the Union.
The text of the Convention is attached to this Decision.
Article 2
1. The Republic of Austria shall take the necessary steps to deposit its instrument of ratification of the Convention with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of the Netherlands within a reasonable time and at the latest by 31 December 2017.
2. The Republic of Austria shall inform the Council and the Commission of the date of its deposit of the instrument of ratification.
Article 3
1. After this Decision takes effect Malta shall notify the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of the Netherlands of the date on which the Convention will become applicable to Malta.
2. Malta shall likewise inform the Council and the Commission of the date referred to in paragraph 1.
Article 4
This Decision shall take effect on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Article 5
This Decision is addressed to Malta and the Republic of Austria.
Done at Brussels, 10 March 2016.
For the Council
The President
K.H.D.M. DIJKHOFF
(1) Not yet published in the Official Journal.
(2) Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ L 351, 20.12.2012, p. 1).
(3) Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (service of documents), and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 (OJ L 324, 10.12.2007, p. 79).
|
22.3.2016 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
L 75/3 |
CONVENTION
on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters
(Concluded 15 November 1965)
THE STATES SIGNATORY TO THE PRESENT CONVENTION,
DESIRING to create appropriate means to ensure that judicial and extrajudicial documents to be served abroad shall be brought to the notice of the addressee in sufficient time,
DESIRING to improve the organisation of mutual judicial assistance for that purpose by simplifying and expediting the procedure,
HAVE RESOLVED to conclude a Convention to this effect and have agreed upon the following provisions:
Article 1
The present Convention shall apply in all cases, in civil or commercial matters, where there is occasion to transmit a judicial or extrajudicial document for service abroad.
This Convention shall not apply where the address of the person to be served with the document is not known.
CHAPTER I
JUDICIAL DOCUMENTS
Article 2
Each Contracting State shall designate a Central Authority which will undertake to receive requests for service coming from other Contracting States and to proceed in conformity with the provisions of Articles 3 to 6.
Each State shall organise the Central Authority in conformity with its own law.
Article 3
The authority or judicial officer competent under the law of the State in which the documents originate shall forward to the Central Authority of the State addressed a request conforming to the model annexed to the present Convention, without any requirement of legalisation or other equivalent formality.
The document to be served or a copy thereof shall be annexed to the request. The request and the document shall both be furnished in duplicate.
Article 4
If the Central Authority considers that the request does not comply with the provisions of the present Convention it shall promptly inform the applicant and specify its objections to the request.
Article 5
The Central Authority of the State addressed shall itself serve the document or shall arrange to have it served by an appropriate agency, either —
|
a) |
by a method prescribed by its internal law for the service of documents in domestic actions upon persons who are within its territory, or |
|
b) |
by a particular method requested by the applicant, unless such a method is incompatible with the law of the State addressed. |
Subject to sub-paragraph (b) of the first paragraph of this Article, the document may always be served by delivery to an addressee who accepts it voluntarily.
If the document is to be served under the first paragraph above, the Central Authority may require the document to be written in, or translated into, the official language or one of the official languages of the State addressed.
That part of the request, in the form attached to the present Convention, which contains a summary of the document to be served, shall be served with the document.
Article 6
The Central Authority of the State addressed or any authority which it may have designated for that purpose, shall complete a certificate in the form of the model annexed to the present Convention.
The certificate shall state that the document has been served and shall include the method, the place and the date of service and the person to whom the document was delivered. If the document has not been served, the certificate shall set out the reasons which have prevented service.
The applicant may require that a certificate not completed by a Central Authority or by a judicial authority shall be countersigned by one of these authorities.
The certificate shall be forwarded directly to the applicant.
Article 7
The standard terms in the model annexed to the present Convention shall in all cases be written either in French or in English. They may also be written in the official language, or in one of the official languages, of the State in which the documents originate.
The corresponding blanks shall be completed either in the language of the State addressed or in French or in English.
Article 8
Each Contracting State shall be free to effect service of judicial documents upon persons abroad, without application of any compulsion, directly through its diplomatic or consular agents.
Any State may declare that it is opposed to such service within its territory, unless the document is to be served upon a national of the State in which the documents originate.
Article 9
Each Contracting State shall be free, in addition, to use consular channels to forward documents, for the purpose of service, to those authorities of another Contracting State which are designated by the latter for this purpose.
Each Contracting State may, if exceptional circumstances so require, use diplomatic channels for the same purpose.
Article 10
Provided the State of destination does not object, the present Convention shall not interfere with —
|
a) |
the freedom to send judicial documents, by postal channels, directly to persons abroad, |
|
b) |
the freedom of judicial officers, officials or other competent persons of the State of origin to effect service of judicial documents directly through the judicial officers, officials or other competent persons of the State of destination, |
|
c) |
the freedom of any person interested in a judicial proceeding to effect service of judicial documents directly through the judicial officers, officials or other competent persons of the State of destination. |
Article 11
The present Convention shall not prevent two or more Contracting States from agreeing to permit, for the purpose of service of judicial documents, channels of transmission other than those provided for in the preceding Articles and, in particular, direct communication between their respective authorities.
Article 12
The service of judicial documents coming from a Contracting State shall not give rise to any payment or reimbursement of taxes or costs for the services rendered by the State addressed.
The applicant shall pay or reimburse the costs occasioned by —
|
a) |
the employment of a judicial officer or of a person competent under the law of the State of destination, |
|
b) |
the use of a particular method of service. |
Article 13
Where a request for service complies with the terms of the present Convention, the State addressed may refuse to comply therewith only if it deems that compliance would infringe its sovereignty or security.
It may not refuse to comply solely on the ground that, under its internal law, it claims exclusive jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the action or that its internal law would not permit the action upon which the application is based.
The Central Authority shall, in case of refusal, promptly inform the applicant and state the reasons for the refusal.
Article 14
Difficulties which may arise in connection with the transmission of judicial documents for service shall be settled through diplomatic channels.
Article 15
Where a writ of summons or an equivalent document had to be transmitted abroad for the purpose of service, under the provisions of the present Convention, and the defendant has not appeared, judgment shall not be given until it is established that —
|
a) |
the document was served by a method prescribed by the internal law of the State addressed for the service of documents in domestic actions upon persons who are within its territory, or |
|
b) |
the document was actually delivered to the defendant or to his residence by another method provided for by this Convention, |
and that in either of these cases the service or the delivery was effected in sufficient time to enable the defendant to defend.
Each Contracting State shall be free to declare that the judge, notwithstanding the provisions of the first paragraph of this Article, may give judgment even if no certificate of service or delivery has been received, if all the following conditions are fulfilled —
|
a) |
the document was transmitted by one of the methods provided for in this Convention, |
|
b) |
a period of time of not less than six months, considered adequate by the judge in the particular case, has elapsed since the date of the transmission of the document, |
|
c) |
no certificate of any kind has been received, even though every reasonable effort has been made to obtain it through the competent authorities of the State addressed. |
Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding paragraphs the judge may order, in case of urgency, any provisional or protective measures.
Article 16
When a writ of summons or an equivalent document had to be transmitted abroad for the purpose of service, under the provisions of the present Convention, and a judgment has been entered against a defendant who has not appeared, the judge shall have the power to relieve the defendant from the effects of the expiration of the time for appeal from the judgment if the following conditions are fulfilled —
|
a) |
the defendant, without any fault on his part, did not have knowledge of the document in sufficient time to defend, or knowledge of the judgment in sufficient time to appeal, and |
|
b) |
the defendant has disclosed a prima facie defence to the action on the merits. |
An application for relief may be filed only within a reasonable time after the defendant has knowledge of the judgment.
Each Contracting State may declare that the application will not be entertained if it is filed after the expiration of a time to be stated in the declaration, but which shall in no case be less than one year following the date of the judgment.
This Article shall not apply to judgments concerning status or capacity of persons.
CHAPTER II
EXTRAJUDICIAL DOCUMENTS
Article 17
Extrajudicial documents emanating from authorities and judicial officers of a Contracting State may be transmitted for the purpose of service in another Contracting State by the methods and under the provisions of the present Convention.
CHAPTER III
GENERAL CLAUSES
Article 18
Each Contracting State may designate other authorities in addition to the Central Authority and shall determine the extent of their competence.
The applicant shall, however, in all cases, have the right to address a request directly to the Central Authority.
Federal States shall be free to designate more than one Central Authority.
Article 19
To the extent that the internal law of a Contracting State permits methods of transmission, other than those provided for in the preceding Articles, of documents coming from abroad, for service within its territory, the present Convention shall not affect such provisions.
Article 20
The present Convention shall not prevent an agreement between any two or more Contracting States to dispense with —
|
a) |
the necessity for duplicate copies of transmitted documents as required by the second paragraph of Article 3, |
|
b) |
the language requirements of the third paragraph of Article 5 and Article 7, |
|
c) |
the provisions of the fourth paragraph of Article 5, |
|
d) |
the provisions of the second paragraph of Article 12. |
Article 21
Each Contracting State shall, at the time of the deposit of its instrument of ratification or accession, or at a later date, inform the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands of the following —
|
a) |
the designation of authorities, pursuant to Articles 2 and 18, |
|
b) |
the designation of the authority competent to complete the certificate pursuant to Article 6, |
|
c) |
the designation of the authority competent to receive documents transmitted by consular channels, pursuant to Article 9. |
Each Contracting State shall similarly inform the Ministry, where appropriate, of —
|
a) |
opposition to the use of methods of transmission pursuant to Articles 8 and 10, |
|
b) |
declarations pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 15 and the third paragraph of Article 16, |
|
c) |
all modifications of the above designations, oppositions and declarations. |
Article 22
Where Parties to the present Convention are also Parties to one or both of the Conventions on civil procedure signed at The Hague on 17th July 1905, and on 1st March 1954, this Convention shall replace as between them Articles 1 to 7 of the earlier Conventions.
Article 23
The present Convention shall not affect the application of Article 23 of the Convention on civil procedure signed at The Hague on 17th July 1905, or of Article 24 of the Convention on civil procedure signed at The Hague on 1st March 1954.
These Articles shall, however, apply only if methods of communication, identical to those provided for in these Conventions, are used.
Article 24
Supplementary agreements between Parties to the Conventions of 1905 and 1954 shall be considered as equally applicable to the present Convention, unless the Parties have otherwise agreed.
Article 25
Without prejudice to the provisions of Articles 22 and 24, the present Convention shall not derogate from Conventions containing provisions on the matters governed by this Convention to which the Contracting States are, or shall become, Parties.
Article 26
The present Convention shall be open for signature by the States represented at the Tenth Session of the Hague Conference on Private International Law.
It shall be ratified, and the instruments of ratification shall be deposited with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands.
Article 27
The present Convention shall enter into force on the sixtieth day after the deposit of the third instrument of ratification referred to in the second paragraph of Article 26.
The Convention shall enter into force for each signatory State which ratifies subsequently on the sixtieth day after the deposit of its instrument of ratification.
Article 28
Any State not represented at the Tenth Session of the Hague Conference on Private International Law may accede to the present Convention after it has entered into force in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 27. The instrument of accession shall be deposited with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands.
The Convention shall enter into force for such a State in the absence of any objection from a State, which has ratified the Convention before such deposit, notified to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands within a period of six months after the date on which the said Ministry has notified it of such accession.
In the absence of any such objection, the Convention shall enter into force for the acceding State on the first day of the month following the expiration of the last of the periods referred to in the preceding paragraph.
Article 29
Any State may, at the time of signature, ratification or accession, declare that the present Convention shall extend to all the territories for the international relations of which it is responsible, or to one or more of them. Such a declaration shall take effect on the date of entry into force of the Convention for the State concerned.
At any time thereafter, such extensions shall be notified to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands.
The Convention shall enter into force for the territories mentioned in such an extension on the sixtieth day after the notification referred to in the preceding paragraph.
Article 30
The present Convention shall remain in force for five years from the date of its entry into force in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 27, even for States which have ratified it or acceded to it subsequently.
If there has been no denunciation, it shall be renewed tacitly every five years.
Any denunciation shall be notified to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands at least six months before the end of the five year period.
It may be limited to certain of the territories to which the Convention applies.
The denunciation shall have effect only as regards the State which has notified it. The Convention shall remain in force for the other Contracting States.
Article 31
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands shall give notice to the States referred to in Article 26, and to the States which have acceded in accordance with Article 28, of the following —
|
a) |
the signatures and ratifications referred to in Article 26; |
|
b) |
the date on which the present Convention enters into force in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 27; |
|
c) |
the accessions referred to in Article 28 and the dates on which they take effect; |
|
d) |
the extensions referred to in Article 29 and the dates on which they take effect; |
|
e) |
the designations, oppositions and declarations referred to in Article 21; |
|
f) |
the denunciations referred to in the third paragraph of Article 30. |
In witness whereof the undersigned, being duly authorised thereto, have signed the present Convention.
Done at The Hague, on the 15th day of November, 1965, in the English and French languages, both texts being equally authentic, in a single copy which shall be deposited in the archives of the Government of the Netherlands, and of which a certified copy shall be sent, through the diplomatic channel, to each of the States represented at the Tenth Session of the Hague Conference on Private International Law.
REGULATIONS
|
22.3.2016 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
L 75/10 |
COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2016/415
of 21 March 2016
withdrawing the acceptance of the undertaking for two exporting producers and repealing Decision 2008/577/EC accepting an undertaking offered in connection with the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (the ‘basic Regulation’), and in particular Article 8 thereof,
Informing the Member States,
Whereas:
A. EXISTING MEASURES
|
(1) |
The Council, by Regulation (EC) No 2022/95 (2), imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia. Following an expiry and interim review, the Council, by Regulation (EC) No 658/2002 (3), imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia. Following another expiry and interim review, the Council, by Regulation (EC) No 661/2008 (4), imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia. Following another expiry review the Commission, by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 999/2014 (5), imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia. |
|
(2) |
The Commission, by Decision 2008/577/EC (6) (‘the Decision’) accepted a price undertaking (‘the undertaking’), inter alia, from the Russian producers JSC Acron and JSC Dorogobuzh, members of Acron Holding Company (referred to jointly as Acron) concerning imports of ammonium nitrate produced by these companies and sold to the first independent customer in the Union. |
|
(3) |
By the same Decision, the Commission also accepted an undertaking from Open Joint Stock Company (OJSC) Azot Cherkassy, Ukraine. Measures on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Ukraine expired on 17 June 2012 (7), thus the related undertaking also expired on the same day. |
|
(4) |
By the same Decision, the Commission also accepted an undertaking from EuroChem group. By Decision 2012/629/EU (8), the Commission withdrew its acceptance of the undertaking offered by the EuroChem Group because of the impracticability of the undertaking. |
|
(5) |
The undertaking accepted from Acron is based on three elements, namely (1) an indexation of the minimum prices in accordance with public international quotations, (2) a quantitative ceiling and (3) a commitment not to sell the products covered by the undertaking to the same customers in the European Union to which they sell other products, with the exception of certain other products for which Acron undertook to respect specific price regimes. |
|
(6) |
As referred to in recital (14) of Decision 2008/577/EC, when accepting the undertaking, the sales structure of Acron was such that the Commission considered the risk of circumventing the undertaking as limited. |
B. CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES
Acron's business relationships
|
(7) |
In May 2012, Acron informed the Commission of its intention to acquire stake in a chemical company in the Union. In August 2012, Acron informed the Commission of a change in its corporate structure, namely that it acquired minority shares in this chemical company in the Union, indicating that this corporate change had no repercussions on the implementation of the undertaking. After assessing the evidence provided by Acron, the Commission did not initially consider that this change in Acron's corporate structure had an impact on the undertaking. However, new evidence currently available to the Commission shows that Acron had submitted incomplete information when originally informing the Commission of the change in its structure. In particular, the Commission had not been informed that this Union producer manufactures and sells not only chemical products, but also fertilizers including ammonium nitrate. Furthermore, the evidence currently available to the Commission also showed that Acron's shareholding further increased since it was notified to the Commission in August 2012. |
Preliminary assessment
|
(8) |
The Commission analysed the implications of the evidence available to it, and considered that there is a high risk of cross-compensation. Indeed, if the fertilizer production and sales facility in the Union, in which Acron's acquired shares, sells any of its products to the same customers as Acron, the prices for such transactions could be set in a way to compensate for the Minimum Import Price subject to the undertaking. Such a compensation would however not be identifiable by monitoring activities since the price structure for the majority of products produced by the fertilizer production and sales facility in which Acron's acquired shares is not subject to any publicly available source. Thus it cannot be assessed whether the prices paid by the customers respond to the value of the products or take into account a potential rebate in order to compensate transactions subject to the undertaking for which a Minimum Import Price has to be respected. Consequently, the monitoring of the undertaking would become impracticable and unworkable. |
|
(9) |
The Commission informed Acron accordingly and announced that, in light of the circumstances described in recitals (7) and (8), it considered that the undertaking should be withdrawn. Acron was given an opportunity to comment. |
C. WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND HEARING
|
(10) |
Acron submitted written submissions and was granted the opportunity to be heard. In response to the disclosure document, Acron reiterated the arguments already submitted when it was first informed of the incompliance of the undertaking with its shareholding in a Union producer of fertilizers. Those arguments have been addressed in the disclosure document and are also addressed in this Regulation. |
|
(11) |
Several parties have sent written submissions to the Commission supporting Acron's position (they however were not the addressees of the Commission's disclosure and request for comments). These parties stated that they have not been involved in cross-compensation practices with Acron. However, such statements per se do not alleviate the risk of cross compensation. In any event, it is standing practice of the Commission not to accept price undertakings if the risk of cross-compensation is high, regardless of whether or not a cross-compensation actually took place. |
|
(12) |
Acron claimed to have been acting in good faith when it informed the Commission, in accordance with the definition of related party and pursuant to clause 5.14 of the undertaking, of some changes in its corporate structure. |
|
(13) |
In addition, Acron claimed that it should be considered as a financial investor in the Union company and that its shareholding conferred to Acron only limited statutory rights in decision making, therefore not giving Acron control over the Union company in the sense of Union competition law. |
|
(14) |
Acron underlined that Union law and the national competition laws do not allow exchanging commercially sensitive information or coordinating sales with its competitors in the Union or elsewhere, which would be indispensable for any cross-compensation. |
|
(15) |
The Commission considers that Acron's arguments should be rejected for the following reasons. |
|
(16) |
Firstly, the Undertaking, offered by Acron, contains a definition of related party. As stipulated in Clause 1 of the undertaking, holding 5 % or more of shares in another company is sufficient to be considered as a related party; this is the benchmark that should be taken into account when assessing the monitorability and practicability of the undertaking. |
|
(17) |
Moreover, the Commission re-iterates the problems of cross-compensation referred to in recital (8). In addition, it cannot be excluded that some of the price quotations (being the basis for the price indexation mechanism of the undertaking) could be influenced by sales of the related producer in the Union. |
|
(18) |
Acron itself admitted that shareholdings in the Union producer create a presumption of the existence of a risk of cross-compensation, although rebuttable. Considerations based on competition law, be it national or that of the Union, that such behaviour is theoretically not in Acron's interest, are not relevant for the assessment of the monitorability and practicability of the undertaking. Indeed, such considerations do not per se alleviate the risk of cross-compensation. |
|
(19) |
Acron claimed that cross-compensation is neither in its own commercial interest nor in the commercial interest of the related Union producer. This statement per se does not alleviate the risk of cross-compensation, notably because the notion of commercial interest cannot be assessed in abstract terms. Further, according to the Commission's assessment, the incentives for cross-compensation cannot be excluded as both the related Union producer and Acron sell in the Union other products than ammonium nitrate potentially to the same customers. It would be impracticable, if not impossible, to trace such sales in the Union. In this respect, it is worth noting the complex structure of Acron's and the related Union producer's company groups. Thus, a high risk of cross-compensation exists with sales of ammonium nitrate or other products to the same customers. |
|
(20) |
Secondly, the Union based producer cannot be subject to monitoring activities as it cannot be party to an undertaking since according to Article 8 of the basic Regulation undertakings can be offered only by exporters. |
|
(21) |
Thirdly, even if the Union producer could be party to the undertaking, quod non, the monitoring of such an undertaking would be impracticable as stated in recitals (8) and (19) above. |
|
(22) |
Therefore, based on the evidence available to it, it is concluded that following the change in the corporate structure of Acron, there is a high risk of cross-compensation and the undertaking accepted from Acron becomes impracticable and therefore should be withdrawn. |
|
(23) |
Finally, Acron suggested the implementation of an additional monitoring mechanism in the context of the undertaking. Specifically, Acron offered to regularly provide to the Commission an audited report on the cash-flows between the two company groups. However, this new mechanism would make the monitoring of the undertaking even more complex and burdensome and it would not alleviate the identified risks and problems of cross-compensation. |
|
(24) |
None of the arguments presented by Acron are such as to alter the Commission's assessment that the monitoring of the undertaking has become impracticable. |
D. REPEAL OF DECISION 2008/577/EC
|
(25) |
Therefore, in accordance with Article 8(9) of the basic Regulation and also in accordance with the relevant clauses of the undertaking authorising the Commission to unilaterally withdraw the undertaking, the Commission has concluded that the acceptance of the undertaking offered by Acron should be withdrawn and Commission Decision 2008/577/EC should be repealed. Accordingly, the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 999/2014 should apply to imports of the product concerned produced by Acron (Taric additional code A532), |
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Acceptance of the undertaking in relation to the companies JSC Acron, Veliky Novgorod, Russia and JSC Dorogobuzh, Dorogobuzh, Russia, members of ‘Acron’ Holding Company concerning imports of ammonium nitrate produced by these companies and sold to the first independent customer in the Union (Taric additional code A532) is hereby withdrawn.
Article 2
Decision 2008/577/EC is hereby repealed.
Article 3
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 21 March 2016.
For the Commission
The President
Jean-Claude JUNCKER
(1) OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51.
(2) OJ L 198, 23.8.1995, p. 1.
(3) OJ L 102, 18.4.2002, p. 1.
(4) OJ L 185, 12.7.2008, p. 1.
(5) OJ L 280, 24.9.2014, p. 19.
(6) OJ L 185, 12.7.2008, p. 43.
(7) OJ C 171, 16.6.2012, p. 25.
(8) OJ L 277, 11.10.2012, p. 8.
|
22.3.2016 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
L 75/14 |
COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2016/416
of 21 March 2016
establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (1),
Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,
Whereas:
|
(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, |
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 21 March 2016.
For the Commission,
On behalf of the President,
Jerzy PLEWA
Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development
(1) OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 671.
(2) OJ L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1.
ANNEX
Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables
|
(EUR/100 kg) |
||
|
CN code |
Third country code (1) |
Standard import value |
|
0702 00 00 |
IL |
125,9 |
|
MA |
88,1 |
|
|
TR |
110,3 |
|
|
ZZ |
108,1 |
|
|
0707 00 05 |
MA |
83,5 |
|
TR |
140,8 |
|
|
ZZ |
112,2 |
|
|
0709 93 10 |
MA |
56,0 |
|
TR |
162,4 |
|
|
ZZ |
109,2 |
|
|
0805 10 20 |
EG |
45,9 |
|
IL |
76,9 |
|
|
MA |
55,3 |
|
|
TN |
69,6 |
|
|
TR |
64,8 |
|
|
ZZ |
62,5 |
|
|
0805 50 10 |
MA |
138,5 |
|
TR |
73,5 |
|
|
ZZ |
106,0 |
|
|
0808 10 80 |
BR |
87,2 |
|
US |
133,3 |
|
|
ZA |
110,3 |
|
|
ZZ |
110,3 |
|
|
0808 30 90 |
AR |
143,9 |
|
CL |
163,8 |
|
|
CN |
106,6 |
|
|
TR |
153,6 |
|
|
ZA |
99,9 |
|
|
ZZ |
133,6 |
|
(1) Nomenclature of countries laid down by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1106/2012 of 27 November 2012 implementing Regulation (EC) No 471/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on Community statistics relating to external trade with non-member countries, as regards the update of the nomenclature of countries and territories (OJ L 328, 28.11.2012, p. 7). Code ‘ZZ’ stands for ‘of other origin’.
DECISIONS
|
22.3.2016 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
L 75/16 |
COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION (EU) 2016/417
of 17 March 2016
excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD)
(notified under document C(2016) 1509)
(Only the Danish, Dutch, English, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Italian, Lithuanian, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Spanish, Swedish texts are authentic)
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008 (1), and in particular Article 52 thereof,
After consulting the Committee on the Agricultural Funds,
Whereas:
|
(1) |
In accordance with Article 31 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 (2) and as from 1 January 2015 in accordance with Article 52 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 the Commission is to carry out the necessary verifications, communicate to the Member States the results of those verifications, take note of the comments of the Member States, initiate a bilateral discussion so that an agreement may be reached with the Member States in question, and formally communicate its conclusions to them. |
|
(2) |
The Member States have had an opportunity to request the launch of a conciliation procedure. That opportunity has been used in some cases and the reports issued on the outcome have been examined by the Commission. |
|
(3) |
In accordance with Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013, only agricultural expenditure which has been incurred in a way that has not infringed Union law may be financed. |
|
(4) |
In the light of the verifications carried out, the outcome of the bilateral discussions and the conciliation procedures, part of the expenditure declared by the Member States does not fulfil this requirement and cannot, therefore, be financed under the EAGF and the EAFRD. |
|
(5) |
The amounts that are not recognised as being chargeable to the EAGF and the EAFRD should be indicated. Those amounts do not relate to expenditure incurred more than 24 months before the Commission's written notification of the results of the verifications to the Member States. |
|
(6) |
As regards the cases covered by this decision, the assessment of the amounts to be excluded on grounds of non-compliance with Union law was notified by the Commission to the Member States in a summary report on the subject. |
|
(7) |
This Decision is without prejudice to any financial conclusions that the Commission may draw from the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union in cases pending on 31 December 2015, |
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
The amounts set out in the Annex and related to expenditure incurred by the Member States' accredited paying agencies and declared under the EAGF or the EAFRD shall be excluded from Union financing.
Article 2
This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Belgium, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Republic of Lithuania, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, Romania, the Republic of Finland, the Kingdom of Sweden, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Done at Brussels, 17 March 2016.
For the Commission
Phil HOGAN
Member of the Commission
(1) OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 549.
(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ L 209, 11.8.2005, p. 1).
ANNEX
Budget Item:
|
Member State |
Measure |
FY |
Reason |
Type |
Correction % |
Currency |
Amount |
Deductions |
Financial Impact |
|
DE |
Starch |
2003 |
Reimbursement following judgment in case T-557/13 |
FLAT RATE |
10,00 % |
EUR |
1 901 395,66 |
0,00 |
1 901 395,66 |
|
|
Starch |
2004 |
Reimbursement following judgment in case T-557/13 |
FLAT RATE |
10,00 % |
EUR |
1 883 474,60 |
0,00 |
1 883 474,60 |
|
|
Starch |
2005 |
Reimbursement following judgment in case T-557/13 |
FLAT RATE |
10,00 % |
EUR |
2 408 081,08 |
0,00 |
2 408 081,08 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total DE: |
EUR |
6 192 951,34 |
0,00 |
6 192 951,34 |
|
Member State |
Measure |
FY |
Reason |
Type |
Correction % |
Currency |
Amount |
Deductions |
Financial Impact |
|
GR |
Cross Compliance |
2009 |
Reimbursement following judgment in case T-107/14 |
FLAT RATE |
2,00 % |
EUR |
4 936 572,90 |
55 807,14 |
4 880 765,76 |
|
|
Cross Compliance |
2010 |
Reimbursement following judgment in case T-107/14 |
FLAT RATE |
2,00 % |
EUR |
547,38 |
751,51 |
– 204,13 |
|
|
Other Direct Aid — Article 69 of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 — except Ovine and Bovine |
2007 |
Reimbursement following judgment in case T-241/13 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
358 518,51 |
0,00 |
358 518,51 |
|
|
Other Direct Aid — Article 69 of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 — except Ovine and Bovine |
2008 |
Reimbursement following judgment in case T-241/13 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
– 12,58 |
0,00 |
– 12,58 |
|
|
Other Direct Aid — Article 69 of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 — except Ovine and Bovine |
2009 |
Reimbursement following judgment in case T-241/13 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
1 066,26 |
0,00 |
1 066,26 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total GR: |
EUR |
5 296 692,47 |
56 558,65 |
5 240 133,82 |
|
Member State |
Measure |
FY |
Reason |
Type |
Correction % |
Currency |
Amount |
Deductions |
Financial Impact |
|
NL |
Irregularities |
2007 |
Reimbursement following judgment in case T-126/14 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
4 703 231,78 |
0,00 |
4 703 231,78 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total NL: |
EUR |
4 703 231,78 |
0,00 |
4 703 231,78 |
|
Currency |
Amount |
Deductions |
Financial Impact |
|
EUR |
16 192 875,59 |
56 558,65 |
16 136 316,94 |
Budget Item:
|
Member State |
Measure |
FY |
Reason |
Type |
Correction % |
Currency |
Amount |
Deductions |
Financial Impact |
|
FI |
Rural Development EAFRD Axis 1+3 — Investment orientated measures (2007-2013) |
2009 |
Reimbursement following judgment in case T-124/14 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
32 799,76 |
0,00 |
32 799,76 |
|
|
Rural Development EAFRD Axis 1+3 — Investment orientated measures (2007-2013) |
2010 |
Reimbursement following judgment in case T-124/14 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
255 575,05 |
0,00 |
255 575,05 |
|
|
Rural Development EAFRD Axis 1+3 — Investment orientated measures (2007-2013) |
2011 |
Reimbursement following judgment in case T-124/14 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
301 891,12 |
0,00 |
301 891,12 |
|
|
Rural Development EAFRD Axis 1+3 — Investment orientated measures (2007-2013) |
2012 |
Reimbursement following judgment in case T-124/14 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
337 561,65 |
0,00 |
337 561,65 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total FI: |
EUR |
927 827,58 |
0,00 |
927 827,58 |
|
GR |
Cross Compliance |
2010 |
Reimbursement following judgment in case T-107/14 |
FLAT RATE |
2,00 % |
EUR |
201 962,44 |
0,00 |
201 962,44 |
|
|
Rural Development EAFRD Axis 2 (2007-2013, area related measures) |
2009 |
Reimbursement following judgment in case T-346/13 |
FLAT RATE |
2,00 % |
EUR |
959 020,82 |
0,00 |
959 020,82 |
|
|
Rural Development EAFRD Axis 2 (2007-2013, area related measures) |
2010 |
Reimbursement following judgment in case T-346/13 |
FLAT RATE |
2,00 % |
EUR |
992 833,01 |
0,00 |
992 833,01 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total GR: |
EUR |
2 153 816,27 |
0,00 |
2 153 816,27 |
|
Currency |
Amount |
Deductions |
Financial Impact |
|
EUR |
3 081 643,85 |
0,00 |
3 081 643,85 |
Budget Item:
|
Member State |
Measure |
FY |
Reason |
Type |
Correction % |
Currency |
Amount |
Deductions |
Financial Impact |
|
BE |
Irregularities |
2012 |
Clearance of accounts |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
– 9 601 619,00 |
0,00 |
– 9 601 619,00 |
|
|
Irregularities |
2006 |
Non-reporting of interest (2006) |
ONE OFF |
0,00 % |
EUR |
– 3 717 323,80 |
0,00 |
– 3 717 323,80 |
|
|
Irregularities |
2007 |
Non-reporting of interest (2007) |
ONE OFF |
0,00 % |
EUR |
– 1 331,61 |
0,00 |
– 1 331,61 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total BE: |
EUR |
– 13 320 274,41 |
0,00 |
– 13 320 274,41 |
|
Member State |
Measure |
FY |
Reason |
Type |
Correction % |
Currency |
Amount |
Deductions |
Financial Impact |
|
DK |
Fruit and Vegetables — Operational Programmes |
2011 |
Recognition and Operational programmes: VMP and PO main activities checks |
FLAT RATE |
5,00 % |
EUR |
– 153 323,91 |
– 7 977,91 |
– 145 346,00 |
|
|
Fruit and Vegetables — Operational Programmes |
2012 |
Recognition and Operational programmes: VMP and PO main activities checks |
FLAT RATE |
5,00 % |
EUR |
– 98 614,78 |
0,00 |
– 98 614,78 |
|
|
Fruit and Vegetables — Operational Programmes |
2013 |
Recognition and Operational programmes: VMP and PO main activities checks |
FLAT RATE |
5,00 % |
EUR |
– 1 638,51 |
0,00 |
– 1 638,51 |
|
|
Fruit and Vegetables — Operational programmes incl. withdrawals |
2014 |
Recognition and Operational programmes: VMP and PO main activities checks |
FLAT RATE |
5,00 % |
EUR |
– 409,20 |
0,00 |
– 409,20 |
|
|
Fruit and Vegetables — Operational Programmes |
2011 |
Recognition PO |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
– 159 558,14 |
0,00 |
– 159 558,14 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total DK: |
EUR |
– 413 544,54 |
– 7 977,91 |
– 405 566,63 |
|
Member State |
Measure |
FY |
Reason |
Type |
Correction % |
Currency |
Amount |
Deductions |
Financial Impact |
|
DE |
Certification |
2010 |
Not recovered financial errors from previous years |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
– 7 427,16 |
0,00 |
– 7 427,16 |
|
|
Certification |
2011 |
Not recovered financial errors from previous years |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
– 84,61 |
0,00 |
– 84,61 |
|
|
Certification |
2012 |
Not recovered financial errors from previous years |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
– 363,89 |
0,00 |
– 363,89 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total DE: |
EUR |
– 7 875,66 |
0,00 |
– 7 875,66 |
|
Member State |
Measure |
FY |
Reason |
Type |
Correction % |
Currency |
Amount |
Deductions |
Financial Impact |
|
ES |
Irregularities |
2007 |
Application of the new PACA |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
– 28 221,44 |
0,00 |
– 28 221,44 |
|
|
Irregularities |
2008 |
Application of the new PACA |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
– 19 882,61 |
0,00 |
– 19 882,61 |
|
|
Irregularities |
2009 |
Application of the new PACA |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
– 50 479,42 |
0,00 |
– 50 479,42 |
|
|
Irregularities |
2010 |
Application of the new PACA |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
– 3 712,91 |
0,00 |
– 3 712,91 |
|
|
Certification |
2011 |
Corrections linked to FY2009 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
– 46 445,53 |
0,00 |
– 46 445,53 |
|
|
Irregularities |
2007 |
Delays in the recovery process |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
– 24 376,08 |
0,00 |
– 24 376,08 |
|
|
Irregularities |
2008 |
Delays in the recovery process |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
– 17 173,48 |
0,00 |
– 17 173,48 |
|
|
Irregularities |
2009 |
Delays in the recovery process |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
– 43 601,28 |
0,00 |
– 43 601,28 |
|
|
Irregularities |
2010 |
Delays in the recovery process |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
– 3 207,00 |
0,00 |
– 3 207,00 |
|
|
Irregularities |
2007 |
Interest calculation for FY2006 and FY2007 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
– 23 059,55 |
0,00 |
– 23 059,55 |
|
|
Decoupled Direct Aids |
2014 |
Weaknesses in on-the-spot checks |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
– 47 510,41 |
0,00 |
– 47 510,41 |
|
|
Wine — Restructuring |
2009 |
Weakness in a key control: overcompensation of flat rates |
FLAT RATE |
10,00 % |
EUR |
– 59 660,14 |
0,00 |
– 59 660,14 |
|
|
Wine — Restructuring |
2010 |
Weakness in a key control: overcompensation of flat rates |
FLAT RATE |
10,00 % |
EUR |
– 1 392 719,07 |
0,00 |
– 1 392 719,07 |
|
|
Wine — Restructuring |
2011 |
Weakness in a key control: overcompensation of flat rates |
FLAT RATE |
10,00 % |
EUR |
– 2 440 054,08 |
– 5,65 |
– 2 440 048,43 |
|
|
Wine — Restructuring |
2012 |
Weakness in a key control: overcompensation of flat rates |
FLAT RATE |
10,00 % |
EUR |
– 13 697 204,46 |
0,00 |
– 13 697 204,46 |
|
|
Wine — Restructuring |
2013 |
Weakness in a key control: overcompensation of flat rates |
FLAT RATE |
10,00 % |
EUR |
– 16 379 396,64 |
– 2 665,74 |
– 16 376 730,90 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total ES: |
EUR |
– 34 276 704,10 |
– 2 671,39 |
– 34 274 032,71 |
|
Member State |
Measure |
FY |
Reason |
Type |
Correction % |
Currency |
Amount |
Deductions |
Financial Impact |
|
FI |
Certification |
2011 |
Correction for failure to start recovery procedures |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
– 7 835,62 |
0,00 |
– 7 835,62 |
|
|
Certification |
2012 |
Correction for failure to start recovery procedures |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
– 11 413,17 |
0,00 |
– 11 413,17 |
|
|
Certification |
2013 |
Correction for failure to start recovery procedures |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
– 1 271,91 |
0,00 |
– 1 271,91 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total FI: |
EUR |
20 520,70 |
0,00 |
20 520,70 |
|
Member State |
Measure |
FY |
Reason |
Type |
Correction % |
Currency |
Amount |
Deductions |
Financial Impact |
|
FR |
Irregularities |
2009 |
Amount declared irrecoverable due to bankruptcy of the beneficiary. However, the PA did not participate to the bankruptcy proceedings, due to a late answer |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
– 40 352,24 |
0,00 |
– 40 352,24 |
|
|
Irregularities |
2009 |
Debts not valued in the Annex III table, then not recovered due to a decision from the Member State, or where the delays in the recovery procedure are attributable to the Member State |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
– 3 268 314,30 |
0,00 |
– 3 268 314,30 |
|
|
Irregularities |
2010 |
Delays in the follow up of pre-debts |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
– 4 375 725,65 |
0,00 |
– 4 375 725,65 |
|
|
Irregularities |
2010 |
EAFRD sanctions wrongly calculated or not registered in Annex III table |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
– 794,08 |
0,00 |
– 794,08 |
|
|
Irregularities |
2010 |
Financial corrections in relation to EAGF Irregularities: halt in recovery procedures not properly justified and debt not recorded |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
– 1 800,42 |
0,00 |
– 1 800,42 |
|
|
Irregularities |
2009 |
FR19: Case where the lack of recovery is attributable to the negligence of the Member State (case no FR/1998/054); FR20: Case having escaped the application of the 50/50 rule due to a wrong PACA reported in the Annex III table (case no SHSP1999900001) |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
– 1 904 968,31 |
0,00 |
– 1 904 968,31 |
|
|
Irregularities |
2009 |
Interests not reported in the Annex III table, thus escaping the application of the 50/50 rule |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
– 6 370,48 |
0,00 |
– 6 370,48 |
|
|
Cross Compliance |
2011 |
Leniency of the sanctioning system, CY2010 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
– 13 900 346,00 |
– 27 800,69 |
– 13 872 545,31 |
|
|
Cross Compliance |
2012 |
Leniency of the sanctioning system, CY2011 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
– 5 015 760,00 |
– 22 903,73 |
– 4 992 856,27 |
|
|
Cross Compliance |
2013 |
Leniency of the sanctioning system, CY2012 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
– 5 883 866,00 |
– 26 488,62 |
– 5 857 377,38 |
|
|
Irregularities |
2010 |
Negligence in the recovery procedure attributable to the Member State authorities: the Paying agency did not participate to debtors' bankruptcy proceedings |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
– 44 471,48 |
0,00 |
– 44 471,48 |
|
|
Irregularities |
2009 |
Non-calculation of interests on recovered amounts (pastry butter) |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
– 264 337,54 |
0,00 |
– 264 337,54 |
|
|
Irregularities |
2010 |
Non-calculation of interests on the Pastry butter measure |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
– 96 600,46 |
0,00 |
– 96 600,46 |
|
|
Cross Compliance |
2011 |
Non-definition of GAEC, inappropriate on the spot checks for SMR1 and 2 and 5, CY 2010 |
FLAT RATE |
2,00 % |
EUR |
– 15 999 850,09 |
– 287 378,67 |
– 15 712 471,42 |
|
|
Cross Compliance |
2012 |
Non-definition of GAEC, inappropriate on the spot checks for SMR1 and 2 and 5, CY 2010 |
FLAT RATE |
2,00 % |
EUR |
2 342,47 |
0,00 |
2 342,47 |
|
|
Cross Compliance |
2013 |
Non-definition of GAEC, inappropriate on the spot checks for SMR1 and 2 and 5, CY 2010 |
FLAT RATE |
2,00 % |
EUR |
– 707,23 |
0,00 |
– 707,23 |
|
|
Cross Compliance |
2010 |
Non-definition of GAEC, inappropriate on the spot checks for SMR1 and 2 and 5, CY 2011 |
FLAT RATE |
2,00 % |
EUR |
– 167 635,51 |
– 8 744,49 |
– 158 891,02 |
|
|
Cross Compliance |
2011 |
Non-definition of GAEC, inappropriate on the spot checks for SMR1 and 2 and 5, CY 2011 |
FLAT RATE |
2,00 % |
EUR |
– 44 605,02 |
– 11 415,70 |
– 33 189,32 |
|
|
Cross Compliance |
2012 |
Non-definition of GAEC, inappropriate on the spot checks for SMR1 and 2 and 5, CY 2011 |
FLAT RATE |
2,00 % |
EUR |
– 15 835 116,53 |
– 136 742,25 |
– 15 698 374,28 |
|
|
Cross Compliance |
2013 |
Non-definition of GAEC, inappropriate on the spot checks for SMR1 and 2 and 5, CY 2011 |
FLAT RATE |
2,00 % |
EUR |
– 2 104,03 |
– 110,28 |
– 1 993,75 |
|
|
Cross Compliance |
2011 |
Non-definition of GAEC, inappropriate on the spot checks for SMR1 and 2 and 5, CY 2012 |
FLAT RATE |
2,00 % |
EUR |
– 253 702,72 |
– 11 415,70 |
– 242 287,02 |
|
|
Cross Compliance |
2012 |
Non-definition of GAEC, inappropriate on the spot checks for SMR1 and 2 and 5, CY 2012 |
FLAT RATE |
2,00 % |
EUR |
– 60 987,30 |
– 33,15 |
– 60 954,15 |
|
|
Cross Compliance |
2013 |
Non-definition of GAEC, inappropriate on the spot checks for SMR1 and 2 and 5, CY 2012 |
FLAT RATE |
2,00 % |
EUR |
– 15 882 638,43 |
– 346 705,47 |
– 15 535 932,96 |
|
|
Irregularities |
2009 |
Recovery procedures cancelled for formal reasons, where negligence was attributable to the Member State. |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
– 71 193,30 |
0,00 |
– 71 193,30 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total FR: |
EUR |
– 83 119 904,65 |
– 879 738,75 |
– 82 240 165,90 |
|
Member State |
Measure |
FY |
Reason |
Type |
Correction % |
Currency |
Amount |
Deductions |
Financial Impact |
|
GB |
Decoupled Direct Aids |
2013 |
Weaknesses in LPIS and absence of recoveries, CY 2012 |
FLAT RATE |
2,00 % |
EUR |
– 41 356 361,86 |
0,00 |
– 41 356 361,86 |
|
|
Decoupled Direct Aids |
2014 |
Weaknesses in LPIS and absence of recoveries, CY 2012 |
FLAT RATE |
2,00 % |
EUR |
– 37 543,55 |
0,00 |
– 37 543,55 |
|
|
Decoupled Direct Aids |
2014 |
Weaknesses in LPIS and absence of recoveries, CY 2013 |
FLAT RATE |
2,00 % |
EUR |
– 40 099 448,21 |
0,00 |
– 40 099 448,21 |
|
|
Decoupled Direct Aids |
2015 |
Weaknesses in LPIS and absence of recoveries, CY 2014 |
FLAT RATE |
2,00 % |
EUR |
– 38 524 608,30 |
0,00 |
– 38 524 608,30 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total GB: |
EUR |
– 120 017 961,92 |
0,00 |
– 120 017 961,92 |
|
Member State |
Measure |
FY |
Reason |
Type |
Correction % |
Currency |
Amount |
Deductions |
Financial Impact |
|
GR |
Decoupled Direct Aids |
2013 |
Absence of extrapolation of results |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
– 6 095,07 |
0,00 |
– 6 095,07 |
|
|
Irregularities |
2013 |
Delays in the recovery procedures and negligence in the follow up of the debts. |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
– 203 932,27 |
0,00 |
– 203 932,27 |
|
|
Decoupled Direct Aids |
2013 |
Incorrect application of obvious error |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
– 30 000,00 |
0,00 |
– 30 000,00 |
|
|
Decoupled Direct Aids |
2013 |
Incorrect application of sanctions for late claims |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
– 985,65 |
0,00 |
– 985,65 |
|
|
Fruit and Vegetables — Exceptional support measures |
2011 |
Non-harvesting operations as of the entry into force of Regulation (EU) No 585/2011 — Scope of the on-the-spot checks |
FLAT RATE |
10,00 % |
EUR |
– 240 659,00 |
0,00 |
– 240 659,00 |
|
|
Decoupled Direct Aids |
2013 |
Weakness in the definition of eligible permanent pasture |
FLAT RATE |
25,00 % |
EUR |
– 99 103 011,64 |
0,00 |
– 99 103 011,64 |
|
|
Decoupled Direct Aids |
2014 |
Weakness in the definition of eligible permanent pasture, obvious errors and remote sensing OTSC |
FLAT RATE |
10,00 % |
EUR |
– 30 531 692,80 |
0,00 |
– 30 531 692,80 |
|
|
Decoupled Direct Aids |
2014 |
Weakness in the definition of eligible permanent pasture, obvious errors and remote sensing OTSC |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
– 37 163 161,78 |
0,00 |
– 37 163 161,78 |
|
|
Decoupled Direct Aids |
2013 |
Weakness in the remote sensing on-the-spot checks |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
– 564 313,10 |
0,00 |
– 564 313,10 |
|
|
Fruit and Vegetables — Exceptional support measures |
2011 |
Withdrawal operations as of the entry into force of Regulation (EU) No 585/2011 |
FLAT RATE |
10,00 % |
EUR |
– 84 786,51 |
0,00 |
– 84 786,51 |
|
|
Fruit and Vegetables — Exceptional support measures |
2011 |
Withdrawal operations before the entry into force of Regulation (EU) No 585/2011 |
FLAT RATE |
10,00 % |
EUR |
– 28 125,34 |
0,00 |
– 28 125,34 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total GR: |
EUR |
– 167 956 763,16 |
0,00 |
– 167 956 763,16 |
|
Member State |
Measure |
FY |
Reason |
Type |
Correction % |
Currency |
Amount |
Deductions |
Financial Impact |
|
IT |
Cross Compliance |
2010 |
Application of a tolerance, farmers with animals, CY2009 |
FLAT RATE |
5,00 % |
EUR |
– 65 691,69 |
– 10,44 |
– 65 681,25 |
|
|
Cross Compliance |
2011 |
Application of a tolerance, farmers with animals, CY2010 |
FLAT RATE |
5,00 % |
EUR |
– 88 702,46 |
– 11,88 |
– 88 690,58 |
|
|
Cross Compliance |
2009 |
Application of a tolerance, weaknesses in report of eligibility checks and veterinarian checks, farmers with animals, CY2008 |
FLAT RATE |
5,00 % |
EUR |
– 2 884 942,56 |
– 3 768,57 |
– 2 881 173,99 |
|
|
Cross Compliance |
2010 |
Application of a tolerance, weaknesses in report of eligibility checks and veterinarian checks, farmers with animals, CY2009 |
FLAT RATE |
5,00 % |
EUR |
– 1 389 806,32 |
– 3 342,68 |
– 1 386 463,64 |
|
|
Cross Compliance |
2011 |
Application of a tolerance, weaknesses in report of eligibility checks and veterinarian checks, farmers with animals, CY2010 |
FLAT RATE |
5,00 % |
EUR |
– 1 243 958,54 |
– 3 694,76 |
– 1 240 263,78 |
|
|
Cross Compliance |
2010 |
Application of a tolerance, weaknesses in report of eligibility checks, farmers with animals, CY2009 |
FLAT RATE |
5,00 % |
EUR |
– 591 374,91 |
– 397,18 |
– 590 977,73 |
|
|
Cross Compliance |
2011 |
Application of a tolerance, weaknesses in report of eligibility checks, farmers with animals, CY2010 |
FLAT RATE |
5,00 % |
EUR |
– 649 949,87 |
– 218,52 |
– 649 731,35 |
|
|
Milk — Quota |
2012 |
Correction of milk levy |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
229 851,79 |
229 851,79 |
0,00 |
|
|
Irregularities |
2011 |
Incorrect reporting in the Annex III table and Negligence in the recovery procedure. |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
– 5 470 744,00 |
0,00 |
– 5 470 744,00 |
|
|
Financial audit — Late payments and payment deadlines |
2012 |
Late payment |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
– 6 172 870,18 |
– 6 305 956,88 |
133 086,70 |
|
|
Irregularities |
2013 |
Negligence in the recovery procedure |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
– 63 891 740,43 |
0,00 |
– 63 891 740,43 |
|
|
Cross Compliance |
2009 |
Previous corrections CY2008 |
FLAT RATE |
2,00 % |
EUR |
0,00 |
– 372,46 |
372,46 |
|
|
Cross Compliance |
2009 |
Previous corrections CY2008 |
FLAT RATE |
5,00 % |
EUR |
0,00 |
– 6 991,99 |
6 991,99 |
|
|
Cross Compliance |
2010 |
Previous corrections CY2009 |
FLAT RATE |
2,00 % |
EUR |
0,00 |
– 67,76 |
67,76 |
|
|
Cross Compliance |
2010 |
Previous corrections CY2009 |
FLAT RATE |
5,00 % |
EUR |
0,00 |
– 2 534,97 |
2 534,97 |
|
|
Cross Compliance |
2009 |
Weaknesses in report of eligibility checks and veterinarian checks, farmers with animals, CY2008 |
FLAT RATE |
2,00 % |
EUR |
– 625 639,55 |
– 63,25 |
– 625 576,30 |
|
|
Cross Compliance |
2010 |
Weaknesses in report of eligibility checks and veterinarian checks, farmers with animals, CY2009 |
FLAT RATE |
2,00 % |
EUR |
– 602 924,23 |
– 214,77 |
– 602 709,46 |
|
|
Cross Compliance |
2009 |
Weaknesses in report of eligibility checks, farmers without animals, CY2008 |
FLAT RATE |
2,00 % |
EUR |
– 1 917 822,51 |
0,00 |
– 1 917 822,51 |
|
|
Cross Compliance |
2010 |
Weaknesses in report of eligibility checks, farmers without animals, CY2009 |
FLAT RATE |
2,00 % |
EUR |
– 1 533 726,99 |
0,00 |
– 1 533 726,99 |
|
|
Cross Compliance |
2011 |
Weaknesses in report of eligibility checks, farmers without animals, CY2010 |
FLAT RATE |
2,00 % |
EUR |
– 1 081 038,12 |
0,00 |
– 1 081 038,12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total IT: |
EUR |
– 87 981 080,57 |
– 6 097 794,32 |
– 81 883 286,25 |
|
Member State |
Measure |
FY |
Reason |
Type |
Correction % |
Currency |
Amount |
Deductions |
Financial Impact |
|
NL |
Certification |
2013 |
Financial correction |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
– 2 692 849,00 |
0,00 |
– 2 692 849,00 |
|
|
Fruit and Vegetables — Operational Programmes |
2010 |
Insufficient checks on recognition FY 2010-2013 |
FLAT RATE |
5,00 % |
EUR |
– 1 267 405,71 |
– 13 670,46 |
– 1 253 735,25 |
|
|
Fruit and Vegetables — Operational Programmes |
2011 |
Insufficient checks on recognition FY 2010-2013 |
FLAT RATE |
5,00 % |
EUR |
– 3 682 681,34 |
0,00 |
– 3 682 681,34 |
|
|
Fruit and Vegetables — Operational Programmes |
2012 |
Insufficient checks on recognition FY 2010-2013 |
FLAT RATE |
5,00 % |
EUR |
– 2 608 143,33 |
0,00 |
– 2 608 143,33 |
|
|
Fruit and Vegetables — Operational Programmes |
2013 |
Insufficient checks on recognition FY 2010-2013 |
FLAT RATE |
5,00 % |
EUR |
– 362 117,22 |
0,00 |
– 362 117,22 |
|
|
Fruit and Vegetables — Operational programmes incl. withdrawals |
2014 |
Insufficient checks on recognition FY 2014 |
FLAT RATE |
5,00 % |
EUR |
– 26 061,78 |
0,00 |
– 26 061,78 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total NL: |
EUR |
– 10 639 258,38 |
– 13 670,46 |
– 10 625 587,92 |
|
Member State |
Measure |
FY |
Reason |
Type |
Correction % |
Currency |
Amount |
Deductions |
Financial Impact |
|
PT |
Certification |
2009 |
Amounts recorded in debtor's ledger but not recovered |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
– 101 980,26 |
0,00 |
– 101 980,26 |
|
|
Certification |
2012 |
Known error EAGF IACS |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
– 343,56 |
0,00 |
– 343,56 |
|
|
Certification |
2012 |
MLE for EAGF Non-IACS |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
– 240 677,39 |
0,00 |
– 240 677,39 |
|
|
Other Direct Aid — Article 68-72 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 |
2011 |
Non-performance of on-the-spot checks |
FLAT RATE |
2,00 % |
EUR |
– 126 701,30 |
0,00 |
– 126 701,30 |
|
|
Other Direct Aid — Article 68-72 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 |
2012 |
Non-performance of on-the-spot checks |
FLAT RATE |
2,00 % |
EUR |
– 99 604,68 |
0,00 |
– 99 604,68 |
|
|
Other Direct Aid — Article 68-72 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 |
2013 |
Non-performance of on-the-spot checks |
FLAT RATE |
2,00 % |
EUR |
– 159 456,24 |
0,00 |
– 159 456,24 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total PT: |
EUR |
– 728 763,43 |
0,00 |
– 728 763,43 |
|
Member State |
Measure |
FY |
Reason |
Type |
Correction % |
Currency |
Amount |
Deductions |
Financial Impact |
|
RO |
Fruit and Vegetables — Exceptional support measures |
2011 |
EHEC non-harvesting |
FLAT RATE |
10,00 % |
EUR |
– 260,03 |
0,00 |
– 260,03 |
|
|
Irregularities |
2013 |
Recovery procedure not initiated within 1 year from the PACA |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
– 5 758,63 |
0,00 |
– 5 758,63 |
|
|
Irregularities |
2014 |
Recovery procedure not initiated within 1 year from the PACA |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
– 12 741,33 |
0,00 |
– 12 741,33 |
|
|
Fruit and Vegetables — Operational Programmes |
2011 |
Shortcomings in the PO recognition |
FLAT RATE |
5,00 % |
EUR |
– 8 275,06 |
0,00 |
– 8 275,06 |
|
|
Fruit and Vegetables — Operational Programmes |
2012 |
Shortcomings in the PO recognition |
FLAT RATE |
5,00 % |
EUR |
– 56 494,53 |
0,00 |
– 56 494,53 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total RO: |
EUR |
– 83 529,58 |
0,00 |
– 83 529,58 |
|
Member State |
Measure |
FY |
Reason |
Type |
Correction % |
Currency |
Amount |
Deductions |
Financial Impact |
|
SE |
Decoupled Direct Aids |
2012 |
CY 2011 Weakness in LPIS update after OTSC, lack of retroactive recoveries, cross-checks, non-conforming paper applications |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
– 851 382,71 |
0,00 |
– 851 382,71 |
|
|
Decoupled Direct Aids |
2013 |
CY 2012 Weakness in LPIS update after OTSC, lack of retroactive recoveries |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
– 831 883,84 |
0,00 |
– 831 883,84 |
|
|
Decoupled Direct Aids |
2014 |
CY 2013 Lack of retroactive recoveries |
ESTIMATED AMOUNT |
|
EUR |
– 414 905,24 |
0,00 |
– 414 905,24 |
|
|
Decoupled Direct Aids |
2014 |
CY 2013 Weakness in risk analysis RS + failure to evaluate and update it |
FLAT RATE |
2,00 % |
EUR |
– 8 811 286,44 |
0,00 |
– 8 811 286,44 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total SE: |
EUR |
– 10 909 458,23 |
0,00 |
– 10 909 458,23 |
|
Currency |
Amount |
Deductions |
Financial Impact |
|
EUR |
– 529 475 639,33 |
– 7 001 852,83 |
– 522 473 786,50 |
Budget Item:
|
Member State |
Measure |
FY |
Reason |
Type |
Correction % |
Currency |
Amount |
Deductions |
Financial Impact |
|
AT |
Rural Development EAFRD Axis 2 (2007-2013, non area related measures) |
2012 |
Scope of the on-the-spot checks |
FLAT RATE |
5,00 % |
EUR |
– 70 795,87 |
0,00 |
– 70 795,87 |
|
|
Rural Development EAFRD Axis 2 (2007-2013, non area related measures) |
2013 |
Scope of the on-the-spot checks |
FLAT RATE |
5,00 % |
EUR |
– 142 245,32 |
0,00 |
– 142 245,32 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total AT: |
EUR |
– 213 041,19 |
0,00 |
– 213 041,19 |
|
Member State |
Measure |
FY |
Reason |
Type |
Correction % |
Currency |
Amount |
Deductions |
Financial Impact |
|
DE |
Certification |
2011 |
Financial errors in the EAFRD non-IACS population |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
– 232 843,16 |
0,00 |
– 232 843,16 |
|
|
Rural Development EAFRD Axis 1+3 — Investment orientated measures (2007-2013) |
2013 |
Known error in the management of the measure 323-C |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
– 24 474,17 |
0,00 |
– 24 474,17 |
|
|
Certification |
2013 |
Known errors resulting from the substantive testing of the IACS population |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
– 19 704,48 |
0,00 |
– 19 704,48 |
|
|
Certification |
2013 |
Most Likely Error (MLE) resulting from the substantive testing of the IACS population |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
– 268 082,29 |
0,00 |
– 268 082,29 |
|
|
Rural Development EAFRD Investment — public beneficiaries |
2013 |
No procurement procedure followed for IT tools purchase |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
– 2 706 123,93 |
0,00 |
– 2 706 123,93 |
|
|
Certification |
2009 |
Outstanding financial errors from previous year |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
– 5 069,40 |
0,00 |
– 5 069,40 |
|
|
Certification |
2010 |
Outstanding financial errors from previous year |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
– 4 538,21 |
0,00 |
– 4 538,21 |
|
|
Certification |
2011 |
Outstanding financial errors from previous year |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
– 365,82 |
0,00 |
– 365,82 |
|
|
Certification |
2012 |
Outstanding financial errors from previous year |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
– 560,65 |
0,00 |
– 560,65 |
|
|
Rural Development EAFRD Axis 1+3 — Investment orientated measures (2007-2013) |
2012 |
Public Procurement Procedures not properly assessed and checked |
FLAT RATE |
5,00 % |
EUR |
– 841 263,73 |
0,00 |
– 841 263,73 |
|
|
Rural Development EAFRD Axis 1+3 — Investment orientated measures (2007-2013) |
2013 |
Public Procurement Procedures not properly assessed and checked |
FLAT RATE |
5,00 % |
EUR |
– 1 543 911,96 |
0,00 |
– 1 543 911,96 |
|
|
Rural Development EAFRD Investment — public beneficiaries |
2014 |
Public Procurement Procedures not properly assessed and checked |
FLAT RATE |
5,00 % |
EUR |
– 1 441 912,56 |
0,00 |
– 1 441 912,56 |
|
|
Certification |
2012 |
Review of the control statistics |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
– 69 518,37 |
0,00 |
– 69 518,37 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total DE: |
EUR |
– 7 158 368,73 |
0,00 |
– 7 158 368,73 |
|
Member State |
Measure |
FY |
Reason |
Type |
Correction % |
Currency |
Amount |
Deductions |
Financial Impact |
|
ES |
Certification |
2011 |
Correction for the known error EAFRD IACS |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
– 2 916,99 |
0,00 |
– 2 916,99 |
|
|
Certification |
2011 |
Correction for the known error EAFRD non IACS |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
– 5 013,25 |
0,00 |
– 5 013,25 |
|
|
Certification |
2011 |
Correction for the MLE EAFRD IACS |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
– 20 953,46 |
0,00 |
– 20 953,46 |
|
|
Rural Development EAFRD Axis 2 (2007-2013, area related measures) |
2014 |
Payments for the sub-measure of AE — 'Organic farming' |
FLAT RATE |
5,00 % |
EUR |
– 9 130,61 |
0,00 |
– 9 130,61 |
|
|
Rural Development EAFRD Axis 2 (2007-2013, area related measures) |
2014 |
Payments to the beneficiaries before the finalisation of the OTSC (AEM) |
FLAT RATE |
2,00 % |
EUR |
– 106 066,65 |
0,00 |
– 106 066,65 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total ES: |
EUR |
– 144 080,96 |
0,00 |
– 144 080,96 |
|
Member State |
Measure |
FY |
Reason |
Type |
Correction % |
Currency |
Amount |
Deductions |
Financial Impact |
|
FI |
Certification |
2011 |
Correction for failure to start recovery procedures |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
– 28 672,16 |
– 108,34 |
– 28 563,82 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total FI: |
EUR |
– 28 672,16 |
– 108,34 |
– 28 563,82 |
|
Member State |
Measure |
FY |
Reason |
Type |
Correction % |
Currency |
Amount |
Deductions |
Financial Impact |
|
FR |
Certification |
2010 |
6 yearly grass premium paid instead of 5 |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
– 12 978,78 |
0,00 |
– 12 978,78 |
|
|
Certification |
2010 |
Correction for the MLE on the EAFRD-non IACS population |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
– 1 270 251,62 |
0,00 |
– 1 270 251,62 |
|
|
Rural Development EAFRD Investment — private beneficiaries |
2010 |
Eligibility criteria not verified |
FLAT RATE |
2,00 % |
EUR |
– 143 933,09 |
– 143 933,09 |
0,00 |
|
|
Rural Development EAFRD Investment — private beneficiaries |
2010 |
Eligibility criteria not verified |
FLAT RATE |
5,00 % |
EUR |
– 359 832,71 |
0,00 |
– 359 832,71 |
|
|
Rural Development EAFRD Axis 1+3 — Investment orientated measures (2007-2013) |
2010 |
Eligibility criteria not verified |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
– 20 653,38 |
0,00 |
– 20 653,38 |
|
|
Rural Development EAFRD Investment — private beneficiaries |
2011 |
Eligibility criteria not verified |
FLAT RATE |
2,00 % |
EUR |
– 653 002,96 |
– 653 002,96 |
0,00 |
|
|
Rural Development EAFRD Investment — private beneficiaries |
2011 |
Eligibility criteria not verified |
FLAT RATE |
5,00 % |
EUR |
– 1 632 507,39 |
– 9 777,90 |
– 1 622 729,49 |
|
|
Rural Development EAFRD Axis 1+3 — Investment orientated measures (2007-2013) |
2011 |
Eligibility criteria not verified |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
– 131 070,04 |
0,00 |
– 131 070,04 |
|
|
Rural Development EAFRD Investment — private beneficiaries |
2012 |
Eligibility criteria not verified |
FLAT RATE |
2,00 % |
EUR |
– 714 128,24 |
– 714 128,24 |
0,00 |
|
|
Rural Development EAFRD Investment — private beneficiaries |
2012 |
Eligibility criteria not verified |
FLAT RATE |
5,00 % |
EUR |
– 1 785 320,60 |
0,00 |
– 1 785 320,60 |
|
|
Rural Development EAFRD Axis 1+3 — Investment orientated measures (2007-2013) |
2012 |
Eligibility criteria not verified |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
– 149 439,53 |
0,00 |
– 149 439,53 |
|
|
Rural Development EAFRD Investment — private beneficiaries |
2013 |
Eligibility criteria not verified |
FLAT RATE |
2,00 % |
EUR |
– 179 735,46 |
– 179 735,46 |
0,00 |
|
|
Rural Development EAFRD Investment — private beneficiaries |
2013 |
Eligibility criteria not verified |
FLAT RATE |
5,00 % |
EUR |
– 449 338,69 |
0,00 |
– 449 338,69 |
|
|
Rural Development EAFRD Axis 1+3 — Investment orientated measures (2007-2013) |
2013 |
Eligibility criteria not verified |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
– 44 643,36 |
0,00 |
– 44 643,36 |
|
|
Certification |
2010 |
Known error on the EAFRD Non IACS population: VAT co-financed by the EU funds for public entities |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
– 813 607,17 |
0,00 |
– 813 607,17 |
|
|
Cross Compliance |
2010 |
Non-definition of GAEC, inappropriate on the spot checks for SMR1 and 2 and 5, CY 2010 |
FLAT RATE |
2,00 % |
EUR |
– 728 973,79 |
– 87 084,56 |
– 641 889,23 |
|
|
Cross Compliance |
2011 |
Non-definition of GAEC, inappropriate on the spot checks for SMR1 and 2 and 5, CY 2010 |
FLAT RATE |
2,00 % |
EUR |
– 276 681,27 |
– 98 285,34 |
– 178 395,93 |
|
|
Cross Compliance |
2012 |
Non-definition of GAEC, inappropriate on the spot checks for SMR1 and 2 and 5, CY 2010 |
FLAT RATE |
2,00 % |
EUR |
– 20 437,53 |
0,00 |
– 20 437,53 |
|
|
Cross Compliance |
2013 |
Non-definition of GAEC, inappropriate on the spot checks for SMR1 and 2 and 5, CY 2010 |
FLAT RATE |
2,00 % |
EUR |
– 667,67 |
0,00 |
– 667,67 |
|
|
Cross Compliance |
2011 |
Non-definition of GAEC, inappropriate on the spot checks for SMR1 and 2 and 5, CY 2011 |
FLAT RATE |
2,00 % |
EUR |
– 729 955,39 |
0,00 |
– 729 955,39 |
|
|
Cross Compliance |
2012 |
Non-definition of GAEC, inappropriate on the spot checks for SMR1 and 2 and 5, CY 2011 |
FLAT RATE |
2,00 % |
EUR |
– 694 669,61 |
– 128 311,12 |
– 566 358,49 |
|
|
Cross Compliance |
2013 |
Non-definition of GAEC, inappropriate on the spot checks for SMR1 and 2 and 5, CY 2011 |
FLAT RATE |
2,00 % |
EUR |
– 2 004,69 |
0,00 |
– 2 004,69 |
|
|
Cross Compliance |
2012 |
Non-definition of GAEC, inappropriate on the spot checks for SMR1 and 2 and 5, CY 2012 |
FLAT RATE |
2,00 % |
EUR |
– 445 542,80 |
0,00 |
– 445 542,80 |
|
|
Cross Compliance |
2013 |
Non-definition of GAEC, inappropriate on the spot checks for SMR1 and 2 and 5, CY 2012 |
FLAT RATE |
2,00 % |
EUR |
– 618 564,62 |
– 95 434,72 |
– 523 129,90 |
|
|
Rural Development EAFRD Investment — private beneficiaries |
2010 |
Reasonableness of costs not checked |
FLAT RATE |
2,00 % |
EUR |
– 466 051,99 |
– 466 051,99 |
0,00 |
|
|
Rural Development EAFRD Investment — private beneficiaries |
2010 |
Reasonableness of costs not checked |
FLAT RATE |
5,00 % |
EUR |
– 1 165 129,98 |
– 200 489,14 |
– 964 640,84 |
|
|
Rural Development EAFRD Investment — private beneficiaries |
2011 |
Reasonableness of costs not checked |
FLAT RATE |
2,00 % |
EUR |
– 1 318 962,23 |
– 1 318 962,23 |
0,00 |
|
|
Rural Development EAFRD Investment — private beneficiaries |
2011 |
Reasonableness of costs not checked |
FLAT RATE |
5,00 % |
EUR |
– 3 297 405,58 |
– 67 253,62 |
– 3 230 151,96 |
|
|
Rural Development EAFRD Investment — private beneficiaries |
2012 |
Reasonableness of costs not checked |
FLAT RATE |
2,00 % |
EUR |
– 1 646 751,71 |
– 1 646 751,71 |
0,00 |
|
|
Rural Development EAFRD Investment — private beneficiaries |
2012 |
Reasonableness of costs not checked |
FLAT RATE |
5,00 % |
EUR |
– 4 116 879,28 |
– 62 387,68 |
– 4 054 491,60 |
|
|
Rural Development EAFRD Investment — private beneficiaries |
2013 |
Reasonableness of costs not checked |
FLAT RATE |
2,00 % |
EUR |
– 346 040,61 |
– 346 040,61 |
0,00 |
|
|
Rural Development EAFRD Investment — private beneficiaries |
2013 |
Reasonableness of costs not checked |
FLAT RATE |
5,00 % |
EUR |
– 865 101,55 |
– 58 386,10 |
– 806 715,45 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total FR: |
EUR |
– 25 100 263,32 |
– 6 276 016,47 |
– 18 824 246,85 |
|
Member State |
Measure |
FY |
Reason |
Type |
Correction % |
Currency |
Amount |
Deductions |
Financial Impact |
|
GB |
Rural Development EAFRD Axis 4 LEADER (2007-2013) |
2012 |
Measure 413: one-off correction due to the lack of checks on the reasonableness of costs and on the availability of 3 quotations in one project |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
– 9 791,59 |
0,00 |
– 9 791,59 |
|
|
Rural Development EAFRD Axis 4 LEADER (2007-2013) |
2012 |
Measure 411/413: weaknesses identified in several key controls (project selection, checks on the reliability of the applicant and on double financing, OTSC) |
FLAT RATE |
5,00 % |
EUR |
– 116 143,13 |
– 489,58 |
– 115 653,55 |
|
|
Rural Development EAFRD Axis 4 LEADER (2007-2013) |
2013 |
Measure 411/413: weaknesses identified in several key controls (project selection, checks on the reliability of the applicant and on double financing, OTSC) |
FLAT RATE |
5,00 % |
EUR |
– 1 731 861,46 |
0,00 |
– 1 731 861,46 |
|
|
Rural Development EAFRD Axis 4 LEADER (2007-2013) |
2014 |
Measure 411/413: weaknesses identified in several key controls (project selection, checks on the reliability of the applicant and on double financing, OTSC) |
FLAT RATE |
5,00 % |
EUR |
– 748 948,33 |
0,00 |
– 748 948,33 |
|
|
Rural Development EAFRD Axis 2 (2007-2013, area related measures) |
2012 |
Measure 214: weakness in the administrative cross-check on livestock density |
FLAT RATE |
5,00 % |
EUR |
– 3 121 252,71 |
0,00 |
– 3 121 252,71 |
|
|
Rural Development EAFRD Axis 2 (2007-2013, area related measures) |
2013 |
Measure 214: weakness in the administrative cross-check on livestock density |
FLAT RATE |
5,00 % |
EUR |
– 3 258 827,27 |
0,00 |
– 3 258 827,27 |
|
|
Rural Development EAFRD Axis 2 (2007-2013, area related measures) |
2014 |
Measure 214: weakness in the administrative cross-check on livestock density |
FLAT RATE |
5,00 % |
EUR |
– 1 291 507,12 |
0,00 |
– 1 291 507,12 |
|
|
Rural Development EAFRD Axis 2 (2007-2013, non area related measures) |
2012 |
Measure 216: weakness in check on double financing, on VAT registration, on in-situ visits, on cost reasonableness, delivery of the investment and on the scope of the on-the-spot checks |
FLAT RATE |
2,00 % |
EUR |
– 70 521,65 |
0,00 |
– 70 521,65 |
|
|
Rural Development EAFRD Axis 2 (2007-2013, non area related measures) |
2013 |
Measure 216: weakness in check on double financing, on VAT registration, on in-situ visits, on cost reasonableness, delivery of the investment and on the scope of the on-the-spot checks |
FLAT RATE |
2,00 % |
EUR |
– 761 093,10 |
0,00 |
– 761 093,10 |
|
|
Rural Development EAFRD Axis 2 (2007-2013, non area related measures) |
2014 |
Measure 216: weakness in check on double financing, on VAT registration, on in-situ visits, on cost reasonableness, delivery of the investment and on the scope of the on-the-spot checks |
FLAT RATE |
2,00 % |
EUR |
– 733 293,71 |
0,00 |
– 733 293,71 |
|
|
Rural Development EAFRD Axis 2 (2007-2013, non area related measures) |
2012 |
Measure 227: weakness in checks on reliability of the applicant, on in-situ visits, on verification of the delivery of the investment and in the scope of the on-the-spot checks |
FLAT RATE |
5,00 % |
EUR |
– 42 403,20 |
0,00 |
– 42 403,20 |
|
|
Rural Development EAFRD Axis 2 (2007-2013, non area related measures) |
2013 |
Measure 227: weakness in checks on reliability of the applicant, on in-situ visits, on verification of the delivery of the investment and in the scope of the on-the-spot checks |
FLAT RATE |
5,00 % |
EUR |
– 364 039,25 |
0,00 |
– 364 039,25 |
|
|
Rural Development EAFRD Axis 2 (2007-2013, non area related measures) |
2014 |
Measure 227: weakness in checks on reliability of the applicant, on in-situ visits, on verification of the delivery of the investment and in the scope of the on-the-spot checks |
FLAT RATE |
5,00 % |
EUR |
– 366 157,36 |
0,00 |
– 366 157,36 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total GB: |
EUR |
– 12 615 839,88 |
– 489,58 |
– 12 615 350,30 |
|
Member State |
Measure |
FY |
Reason |
Type |
Correction % |
Currency |
Amount |
Deductions |
Financial Impact |
|
GR |
Rural Development EAFRD Axis 1+3 — Investment orientated measures (2007-2013) |
2010 |
Inappropriate application of selection criteria |
FLAT RATE |
5,00 % |
EUR |
– 506 480,19 |
0,00 |
– 506 480,19 |
|
|
Rural Development EAFRD Axis 1+3 — Investment orientated measures (2007-2013) |
2011 |
Inappropriate application of selection criteria |
FLAT RATE |
5,00 % |
EUR |
– 699 174,68 |
0,00 |
– 699 174,68 |
|
|
Rural Development EAFRD Axis 1+3 — Investment orientated measures (2007-2013) |
2012 |
Inappropriate application of selection criteria |
FLAT RATE |
5,00 % |
EUR |
– 1 002 840,61 |
0,00 |
– 1 002 840,61 |
|
|
Rural Development EAFRD Axis 1+3 — Investment orientated measures (2007-2013) |
2013 |
Inappropriate application of selection criteria |
FLAT RATE |
5,00 % |
EUR |
– 899 008,70 |
0,00 |
– 899 008,70 |
|
|
Rural Development EAFRD Axis 1+3 — Investment orientated measures (2007-2013) |
2011 |
Sanction policy is not effective, proportionate and dissuasive |
ONE OFF |
0,00 % |
EUR |
– 536 620,15 |
0,00 |
– 536 620,15 |
|
|
Rural Development EAFRD Axis 1+3 — Investment orientated measures (2007-2013) |
2012 |
Sanction policy is not effective, proportionate and dissuasive |
ONE OFF |
0,00 % |
EUR |
– 100 072,61 |
0,00 |
– 100 072,61 |
|
|
Rural Development EAFRD Axis 1+3 — Investment orientated measures (2007-2013) |
2013 |
Sanction policy is not effective, proportionate and dissuasive |
ONE OFF |
0,00 % |
EUR |
– 136 263,56 |
0,00 |
– 136 263,56 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total GR: |
EUR |
– 3 880 460,50 |
0,00 |
– 3 880 460,50 |
|
Member State |
Measure |
FY |
Reason |
Type |
Correction % |
Currency |
Amount |
Deductions |
Financial Impact |
|
IT |
Cross Compliance |
2010 |
Application of a tolerance, farmers with animals, CY2009 |
FLAT RATE |
5,00 % |
EUR |
– 78 405,91 |
0,00 |
– 78 405,91 |
|
|
Cross Compliance |
2011 |
Application of a tolerance, farmers with animals, CY2010 |
FLAT RATE |
5,00 % |
EUR |
– 38 637,69 |
0,00 |
– 38 637,69 |
|
|
Cross Compliance |
2009 |
Application of a tolerance, weaknesses in report of eligibility checks and veterinarian checks, farmers with animals, CY2008 |
FLAT RATE |
5,00 % |
EUR |
– 143 572,52 |
0,00 |
– 143 572,52 |
|
|
Cross Compliance |
2010 |
Application of a tolerance, weaknesses in report of eligibility checks and veterinarian checks, farmers with animals, CY2009 |
FLAT RATE |
5,00 % |
EUR |
– 100 094,63 |
0,00 |
– 100 094,63 |
|
|
Cross Compliance |
2011 |
Application of a tolerance, weaknesses in report of eligibility checks and veterinarian checks, farmers with animals, CY2010 |
FLAT RATE |
5,00 % |
EUR |
– 134 296,47 |
– 3 255,87 |
– 131 040,60 |
|
|
Cross Compliance |
2010 |
Application of a tolerance, weaknesses in report of eligibility checks, farmers with animals, CY2009 |
FLAT RATE |
5,00 % |
EUR |
– 42 005,10 |
0,00 |
– 42 005,10 |
|
|
Cross Compliance |
2011 |
Application of a tolerance, weaknesses in report of eligibility checks, farmers with animals, CY2010 |
FLAT RATE |
5,00 % |
EUR |
– 43 429,85 |
0,00 |
– 43 429,85 |
|
|
Cross Compliance |
2009 |
Previous corrections CY2008 |
FLAT RATE |
5,00 % |
EUR |
0,00 |
– 13 570,69 |
13 570,69 |
|
|
Cross Compliance |
2010 |
Previous corrections CY2009 |
FLAT RATE |
5,00 % |
EUR |
0,00 |
– 12 124,12 |
12 124,12 |
|
|
Cross Compliance |
2009 |
Weaknesses in report of eligibility checks and veterinarian checks, farmers with animals, CY2008 |
FLAT RATE |
2,00 % |
EUR |
– 19 365,24 |
0,00 |
– 19 365,24 |
|
|
Cross Compliance |
2010 |
Weaknesses in report of eligibility checks and veterinarian checks, farmers with animals, CY2009 |
FLAT RATE |
2,00 % |
EUR |
– 23 218,80 |
0,00 |
– 23 218,80 |
|
|
Cross Compliance |
2009 |
Weaknesses in report of eligibility checks, farmers without animals, CY2008 |
FLAT RATE |
2,00 % |
EUR |
– 90 181,34 |
0,00 |
– 90 181,34 |
|
|
Cross Compliance |
2010 |
Weaknesses in report of eligibility checks, farmers without animals, CY2009 |
FLAT RATE |
2,00 % |
EUR |
– 96 173,02 |
0,00 |
– 96 173,02 |
|
|
Cross Compliance |
2011 |
Weaknesses in report of eligibility checks, farmers without animals, CY2010 |
FLAT RATE |
2,00 % |
EUR |
– 104 882,23 |
0,00 |
– 104 882,23 |
|
|
Rural Development EAFRD Axis 2 (2007-2013, area related measures) |
2011 |
Weaknesses on the on-the-spot controls — Measure 211 |
FLAT RATE |
5,00 % |
EUR |
540,56 |
0,00 |
540,56 |
|
|
Rural Development EAFRD Axis 2 (2007-2013, area related measures) |
2012 |
Weaknesses on the on-the-spot controls — Measure 211 |
FLAT RATE |
5,00 % |
EUR |
– 248 449,43 |
0,00 |
– 248 449,43 |
|
|
Rural Development EAFRD Axis 2 (2007-2013, area related measures) |
2013 |
Weaknesses on the on-the-spot controls — Measure 211 |
FLAT RATE |
5,00 % |
EUR |
– 215 733,48 |
0,00 |
– 215 733,48 |
|
|
Rural Development EAFRD Axis 2 (2007-2013, area related measures) |
2014 |
Weaknesses on the on-the-spot controls — Measure 211 |
FLAT RATE |
5,00 % |
EUR |
– 175 805,33 |
0,00 |
– 175 805,33 |
|
|
Rural Development EAFRD Axis 2 (2007-2013, area related measures) |
2011 |
Weaknesses on the on-the-spot controls — Measure 214 |
FLAT RATE |
2,00 % |
EUR |
193,13 |
0,00 |
193,13 |
|
|
Rural Development EAFRD Axis 2 (2007-2013, area related measures) |
2012 |
Weaknesses on the on-the-spot controls — Measure 214 |
FLAT RATE |
2,00 % |
EUR |
– 341 406,39 |
0,00 |
– 341 406,39 |
|
|
Rural Development EAFRD Axis 2 (2007-2013, area related measures) |
2013 |
Weaknesses on the on-the-spot controls — Measure 214 |
FLAT RATE |
2,00 % |
EUR |
– 416 214,54 |
0,00 |
– 416 214,54 |
|
|
Rural Development EAFRD Axis 2 (2007-2013, area related measures) |
2014 |
Weaknesses on the on-the-spot controls — Measure 214 |
FLAT RATE |
2,00 % |
EUR |
– 454 241,45 |
0,00 |
– 454 241,45 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total IT: |
EUR |
– 2 765 379,73 |
– 28 950,68 |
– 2 736 429,05 |
|
Member State |
Measure |
FY |
Reason |
Type |
Correction % |
Currency |
Amount |
Deductions |
Financial Impact |
|
LT |
Rural Development EAFRD Axis 2 (2007-2013, area related measures) |
2009 |
Weaknesses in the on-the-spot controls — Measure 214 |
FLAT RATE |
2,00 % |
EUR |
– 84 153,64 |
0,00 |
– 84 153,64 |
|
|
Rural Development EAFRD Axis 2 (2007-2013, area related measures) |
2010 |
Weaknesses in the on-the-spot controls — Measure 214 |
FLAT RATE |
2,00 % |
EUR |
– 144 593,73 |
0,00 |
– 144 593,73 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total LT: |
EUR |
– 228 747,37 |
0,00 |
– 228 747,37 |
|
Member State |
Measure |
FY |
Reason |
Type |
Correction % |
Currency |
Amount |
Deductions |
Financial Impact |
|
PL |
Rural Development EAFRD Axis 1 — Measures with flat rate support |
2010 |
Weaknesses in early retirement scheme payments |
FLAT RATE |
2,00 % |
EUR |
– 234 331,35 |
0,00 |
– 234 331,35 |
|
|
Rural Development EAFRD Axis 1 — Measures with flat rate support |
2010 |
Weaknesses in early retirement scheme payments |
FLAT RATE |
5,00 % |
EUR |
– 3 515 081,52 |
0,00 |
– 3 515 081,52 |
|
|
Rural Development EAFRD Axis 1 — Measures with flat rate support |
2011 |
Weaknesses in early retirement scheme payments |
FLAT RATE |
2,00 % |
EUR |
– 675 353,06 |
0,00 |
– 675 353,06 |
|
|
Rural Development EAFRD Axis 1 — Measures with flat rate support |
2011 |
Weaknesses in early retirement scheme payments |
FLAT RATE |
5,00 % |
EUR |
– 10 229 852,44 |
0,00 |
– 10 229 852,44 |
|
|
Rural Development EAFRD Axis 1 — Measures with flat rate support |
2012 |
Weaknesses in early retirement scheme payments |
FLAT RATE |
2,00 % |
EUR |
– 717 693,11 |
0,00 |
– 717 693,11 |
|
|
Rural Development EAFRD Axis 1 — Measures with flat rate support |
2012 |
Weaknesses in early retirement scheme payments |
FLAT RATE |
5,00 % |
EUR |
– 10 110 275,83 |
0,00 |
– 10 110 275,83 |
|
|
Rural Development EAFRD Axis 1 — Measures with flat rate support |
2013 |
Weaknesses in early retirement scheme payments |
FLAT RATE |
2,00 % |
EUR |
– 758 347,29 |
0,00 |
– 758 347,29 |
|
|
Rural Development EAFRD Axis 1 — Measures with flat rate support |
2013 |
Weaknesses in early retirement scheme payments |
FLAT RATE |
5,00 % |
EUR |
– 11 230 876,11 |
0,00 |
– 11 230 876,11 |
|
|
Rural Development EAFRD Axis 1 — Measures with flat rate support |
2011 |
Weaknesses in the semi-subsistence farming scheme |
FLAT RATE |
10,00 % |
EUR |
– 3 614 511,65 |
0,00 |
– 3 614 511,65 |
|
|
Rural Development EAFRD Axis 1 — Measures with flat rate support |
2011 |
Weaknesses in the semi-subsistence farming scheme |
ONE OFF |
11,00 % |
EUR |
– 4 467 373,95 |
0,00 |
– 4 467 373,95 |
|
|
Rural Development EAFRD Axis 1 — Measures with flat rate support |
2012 |
Weaknesses in the semi-subsistence farming scheme |
FLAT RATE |
10,00 % |
EUR |
– 619,90 |
0,00 |
– 619,90 |
|
|
Rural Development EAFRD Axis 1 — Measures with flat rate support |
2012 |
Weaknesses in the semi-subsistence farming scheme |
ONE OFF |
11,00 % |
EUR |
– 766,17 |
0,00 |
– 766,17 |
|
|
Rural Development EAFRD Axis 1 — Measures with flat rate support |
2013 |
Weaknesses in the semi-subsistence farming scheme |
FLAT RATE |
10,00 % |
EUR |
7 909,14 |
0,00 |
7 909,14 |
|
|
Rural Development EAFRD Axis 1 — Measures with flat rate support |
2013 |
Weaknesses in the semi-subsistence farming scheme |
ONE OFF |
11,00 % |
EUR |
9 775,34 |
0,00 |
9 775,34 |
|
|
Rural Development EAFRD Investment — private beneficiaries |
2011 |
Weaknesses in verification of cost reasonableness; SME criterion verification and scope of on the spot checks |
FLAT RATE |
5,00 % |
EUR |
– 2 046 731,11 |
0,00 |
– 2 046 731,11 |
|
|
Rural Development EAFRD Investment — private beneficiaries |
2012 |
Weaknesses in verification of cost reasonableness; SME criterion verification and scope of on the spot checks |
FLAT RATE |
5,00 % |
EUR |
– 5 369 057,29 |
0,00 |
– 5 369 057,29 |
|
|
Rural Development EAFRD Investment — private beneficiaries |
2013 |
Weaknesses in verification of cost reasonableness; SME criterion verification and scope of on the spot checks |
FLAT RATE |
5,00 % |
EUR |
– 3 857 372,46 |
0,00 |
– 3 857 372,46 |
|
|
Rural Development EAFRD Investment — private beneficiaries |
2014 |
Weaknesses in verification of cost reasonableness; SME criterion verification and scope of on the spot checks |
FLAT RATE |
5,00 % |
EUR |
– 437 316,75 |
0,00 |
– 437 316,75 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total PL: |
EUR |
– 57 247 875,51 |
0,00 |
– 57 247 875,51 |
|
Member State |
Measure |
FY |
Reason |
Type |
Correction % |
Currency |
Amount |
Deductions |
Financial Impact |
|
PT |
Certification |
2009 |
known error EAFRD IACS population |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
– 74 565,74 |
– 5 457,44 |
– 69 108,30 |
|
|
Certification |
2009 |
known error EAFRD non-IACS population |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
– 487,20 |
– 11,93 |
– 475,27 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total PT: |
EUR |
– 75 052,94 |
– 5 469,37 |
– 69 583,57 |
|
Member State |
Measure |
FY |
Reason |
Type |
Correction % |
Currency |
Amount |
Deductions |
Financial Impact |
|
RO |
Rural Development EAFRD Investment — public beneficiaries |
2010 |
Insufficient checks on the public procurement procedure |
FLAT RATE |
10,00 % |
EUR |
– 3 837 667,96 |
0,00 |
– 3 837 667,96 |
|
|
Rural Development EAFRD Axis 1+3 — Investment orientated measures (2007-2013) |
2011 |
Insufficient checks on the public procurement procedure |
FLAT RATE |
5,00 % |
EUR |
– 362 166,32 |
0,00 |
– 362 166,32 |
|
|
Rural Development EAFRD Investment — public beneficiaries |
2011 |
Insufficient checks on the public procurement procedure |
FLAT RATE |
10,00 % |
EUR |
– 30 088 395,70 |
0,00 |
– 30 088 395,70 |
|
|
Rural Development EAFRD Axis 1+3 — Investment orientated measures (2007-2013) |
2012 |
Insufficient checks on the public procurement procedure |
FLAT RATE |
5,00 % |
EUR |
– 4 835 357,49 |
0,00 |
– 4 835 357,49 |
|
|
Rural Development EAFRD Investment — public beneficiaries |
2012 |
Insufficient checks on the public procurement procedure |
FLAT RATE |
10,00 % |
EUR |
– 26 711 026,12 |
0,00 |
– 26 711 026,12 |
|
|
Rural Development EAFRD Axis 1+3 — Investment orientated measures (2007-2013) |
2013 |
Insufficient checks on the public procurement procedure |
FLAT RATE |
5,00 % |
EUR |
– 15 638 250,66 |
0,00 |
– 15 638 250,66 |
|
|
Rural Development EAFRD Investment — public beneficiaries |
2010 |
No penalties applied when end-of-works dates are exceeded |
EXTRAPOLATED |
2,44 % |
EUR |
– 959 810,35 |
0,00 |
– 959 810,35 |
|
|
Rural Development EAFRD Investment — public beneficiaries |
2011 |
No penalties applied when end-of-works dates are exceeded |
EXTRAPOLATED |
2,44 % |
EUR |
– 7 525 183,01 |
0,00 |
– 7 525 183,01 |
|
|
Rural Development EAFRD Investment — public beneficiaries |
2012 |
No penalties applied when end-of-works dates are exceeded |
EXTRAPOLATED |
2,44 % |
EUR |
– 8 104 689,34 |
0,00 |
– 8 104 689,34 |
|
|
Rural Development EAFRD Investment — public beneficiaries |
2013 |
No penalties applied when end-of-works dates are exceeded |
EXTRAPOLATED |
2,44 % |
EUR |
– 5 405 977,31 |
0,00 |
– 5 405 977,31 |
|
|
Certification |
2011 |
Late initiation of recovery procedures under EAFRD |
ONE OFF |
|
EUR |
– 7 084,36 |
0,00 |
– 7 084,36 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total RO: |
EUR |
– 103 475 608,62 |
0,00 |
– 103 475 608,62 |
|
Currency |
Amount |
Deductions |
Financial Impact |
|
EUR |
– 212 933 390,91 |
– 6 311 034,44 |
– 206 622 356,47 |
|
22.3.2016 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
L 75/57 |
COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION (EU) 2016/418
of 18 March 2016
on the compliance of unit rates for charging zones for 2016 under Article 17 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 391/2013
(notified under document C(2016) 1583)
(Only the Bulgarian, Czech, Danish, Estonian, English, German, Greek, Italian, Portuguese, Slovak, Swedish, Spanish, Croatian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Hungarian, Maltese, Polish, Romanian, Slovenian and Finnish texts are authentic)
(Text with EEA relevance)
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 550/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2004 on the provision of air navigation services in the Single European Sky (the service provision Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 16(1) thereof,
Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 391/2013 of 3 May 2013 laying down a common charging scheme for air navigation services (2), and in particular Article 17(1)(d) thereof
Whereas:
|
(1) |
Implementing Regulation (EU) No 391/2013 lays down a common charging scheme for air navigation services. The common charging scheme is an integral element in reaching the objectives of the performance scheme as established under Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 390/2013 (4). |
|
(2) |
Commission Implementing Decision 2014/132/EU (5) sets the Union-wide performance targets, including a cost-efficiency target for en route air navigation services expressed in determined unit costs for the provision of those services, for the second reference period, which covers the years 2015 to 2019 inclusive. |
|
(3) |
Pursuant to Article 17(1)(b) and (c) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 391/2013, the Commission is to assess the unit rates for charging zones for 2016 submitted by the Member States to the Commission by 1 June 2015 following the requirements of Article 9(1) and 9(2) of that Regulation. That assessment concerns the compliance of those unit rates with Implementing Regulations (EU) No 390/2013 and (EU) No 391/2013. |
|
(4) |
The Commission has carried out its assessment of the unit rates with the support of Eurocontrol's Performance Review Unit and Central Route Charges Office, using the data and additional information provided by the Member States by 1 June 2015 as well as the reports of national supervisory authorities on the assessment of costs exempt from the cost-sharing mechanism. The Commission assessment also took into account the explanations given and corrections made before the consultation meeting on the unit rates for 2016 for en route services that was held on 24 and 25 June 2015 in application of Article 9(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 391/2013, as well as the corrections made by Member States to the unit rates following subsequent contacts with the Commission. |
|
(5) |
On the basis of that assessment, the Commission has found, in accordance with Article 17(1)(d) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 391/2013, that the unit rates for charging zones for 2016 submitted by Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom are in compliance with Implementing Regulations (EU) No 390/2013 and (EU) No 391/2013. |
|
(6) |
Pursuant to Article 17(1)(d) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 391/2013, the Member States concerned should be notified of that finding, |
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
The unit rates for charging zones for 2016 set out in the Annex are in compliance with Implementing Regulations (EU) No 390/2013 and (EU) No 391/2013.
Article 2
This Decision is addressed to the Republic of Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Republic of Estonia, Ireland, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the Republic of Croatia, the Italian Republic, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, Romania, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic, the Republic of Finland, the Kingdom of Sweden, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Done at Brussels, 18 March 2016.
For the Commission
Violeta BULC
Member of the Commission
(1) OJ L 96, 31.3.2004, p. 10.
(2) OJ L 128, 9.5.2013, p. 31.
(3) Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2004 laying down the framework for the creation of the single European sky (the framework Regulation) (OJ L 96, 31.3.2004, p. 1).
(4) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 390/2013 of 3 May 2013 laying down a performance scheme for air navigation services and network functions OJ L 128, 9.5.2013, p. 1.
(5) Commission Implementing Decision 2014/132/EU of 11 March 2014 setting the Union-wide performance targets for the air traffic management network and alert thresholds for the second reference period 2015-19 (OJ L 71, 12.3.2014, p. 20).
ANNEX
|
|
Charging zone |
Submitted 2016 en route unit rate in national currency (*) (ISO Code) |
|
1 |
Austria |
73,63 |
|
2 |
Bulgaria |
44,16 |
|
3 |
Croatia |
359,09 |
|
4 |
Cyprus |
33,57 |
|
5 |
Czech Republic |
1 160,75 |
|
6 |
Denmark |
460,05 |
|
7 |
Estonia |
30,69 |
|
8 |
Finland |
56,23 |
|
9 |
Greece |
36,02 |
|
10 |
Hungary |
10 872,57 |
|
11 |
Ireland |
29,67 |
|
12 |
Italy |
80,08 |
|
13 |
Latvia |
27,31 |
|
14 |
Lithuania |
44,90 |
|
15 |
Malta |
25,79 |
|
16 |
Poland |
145,47 |
|
17 |
Portugal |
39,90 |
|
18 |
Romania |
162,62 |
|
19 |
Slovakia |
52,54 |
|
20 |
Slovenia |
65,38 |
|
21 |
Spain Canarias |
58,36 |
|
22 |
Spain Continental |
71,69 |
|
23 |
Sweden |
579,36 |
|
24 |
United Kingdom |
72,89 |
(*) These unit rates do not include the administrative unit rate referred to in Article 18(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 391/2013 and which applies to States party to Eurocontrol's Multilateral Agreement relating to route charges.
|
22.3.2016 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
L 75/60 |
COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION (EU) 2016/419
of 18 March 2016
on the non-compliance of unit rates for charging zones for 2016 under Article 17 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 391/2013
(notified under document C(2016) 1588)
(Only the Dutch, French and German texts are authentic)
(Text with EEA relevance)
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 550/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2004 on the provision of air navigation services in the Single European Sky (the service provision Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 15(4) thereof,
Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 391/2013 of 3 May 2013 laying down a common charging scheme for air navigation services (2), and in particular Article 17(1)(e) thereof,
Whereas:
|
(1) |
Implementing Regulation (EU) No 391/2013 lays down a common charging scheme for air navigation services. The common charging scheme is an integral element in reaching the objectives of the performance scheme as established under Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 390/2013 (4). |
|
(2) |
Commission Implementing Decision 2014/132/EU (5) sets the Union-wide performance targets, including a cost-efficiency target for en route air navigation services expressed in determined unit costs for the provision of those services, for the second reference period, which covers the years 2015 to 2019 inclusive. |
|
(3) |
Pursuant to Article 17(1)(b) and (c) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 391/2013, the Commission is to assess the unit rates for charging zones for 2015 submitted by the Member States to the Commission by 1 June 2014 following the requirements of Article 9(1) and 9(2) of that Regulation. That assessment concerns the compliance of those unit rates with Implementing Regulations (EU) No 390/2013 and (EU) No 391/2013. |
|
(4) |
The Commission has carried out its assessment of the unit rates with the support of Eurocontrol's Performance Review Unit and Central Route Charges Office, using the data and additional information provided by the Member States by 1 June 2015 as well as the reports of national supervisory authorities on the assessment of costs exempt from the cost-sharing mechanism submitted in accordance with Article 14(2)(f) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 391/2013. The Commission assessment also took into account the explanations given and corrections made before the consultation meeting on the unit rates for 2016 for en route services that was held on 25 and 26 June 2015 in application of Article 9(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 391/2013, as well as the corrections made by Member States to the unit rates following subsequent contacts with the Commission. |
|
(5) |
On the basis of that assessment, having regard to Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/670 (6), and Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/420 (7), the Commission has found, in accordance with Article 17(1)(e) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 391/2013, that the 2016 unit rates for charging zones of Belgium, Luxembourg, France, Germany, and the Netherlands, are not in compliance with Implementing Regulations (EU) No 390/2013 and (EU) No 391/2013. |
|
(6) |
Article 11(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 390/2013 provides that the national supervisory authorities of the Member States are to draw up performance plans containing targets consistent with the Union-wide performance targets. Pursuant to Article 11(2) and Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 391/2013, unit rates are calculated on the basis of the en route determined costs and the forecast service units specified in the performance plan of a Member State, i.e. the en route determined unit costs. Until the performance targets of Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands are considered consistent with Union-wide targets, the unit rates calculated on their basis cannot be considered compliant with Implementing Regulations (EU) No 390/2013 and (EU) No 391/2013. |
|
(7) |
Pursuant to Article 17(1)(e) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 391/2013, the Member States concerned should be notified of the Commission's findings. |
|
(8) |
In accordance with Article 17(1)(e) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 391/2013, Member States shall within 1 month submit to the Commission revised unit rates, |
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
The unit rates for charging zones for 2016 set out in the Annex are not in compliance with Implementing Regulations (EU) No 390/2013 and (EU) No 391/2013.
Article 2
This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany, the French Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, and the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
Done at Brussels, 18 March 2016.
For the Commission
Violeta BULC
Member of the Commission
(1) OJ L 96, 31.3.2004, p. 10.
(2) OJ L 128, 9.5.2013, p. 31.
(3) Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2004 laying down the framework for the creation of the single European sky (the framework Regulation) (OJ L 96, 31.3.2004, p. 1).
(4) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 390/2013 of 3 May 2013 laying down a performance scheme for air navigation services and network functions (OJ L 128, 9.5.2013, p. 1).
(5) Commission Implementing Decision 2014/132/EU of 11 March 2014 setting the Union-wide performance targets for the air traffic management network and alert thresholds for the second reference period 2015-19 (OJ L 71, 12.3.2014, p. 20).
(6) Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/670 of 27 April 2015 on the compliance of unit rates for charging zones for 2015 under Article 17 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 391/2013 (OJ L 110, 29.4.2015, p. 25).
(7) Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/420 of 18 March 2016 on the non-compliance of unit rates for charging zones for 2015 under Article 17 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 391/2013 (see page 63 of this Official Journal).
ANNEX
Submitted en route unit rates for charging zones for 2016 found not to be in compliance
|
|
Charging zone |
Submitted 2016 en route unit rate in national currency (*) (ISO Code) |
|
1 |
Belgium-Luxembourg |
65,41 |
|
2 |
France |
67,54 |
|
3 |
Germany |
82,59 |
|
4 |
Netherlands |
67,00 |
(*) These unit rates do not include the administrative unit rate referred to in Article 18(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 391/2013 and applying to those States parties to Eurocontrol's Multilateral Agreement relating to route charges.
|
22.3.2016 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
L 75/63 |
COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION (EU) 2016/420
of 18 March 2016
on the non-compliance of unit rates for charging zones for 2015 under Article 17 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 391/2013
(notified under document C(2016) 1592)
(Only the Dutch, French and German texts are authentic)
(Text with EEA relevance)
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 550/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2004 on the provision of air navigation services in the Single European Sky (the service provision Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 16(1) thereof,
Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 391/2013 of 3 May 2013 laying down a common charging scheme for air navigation services (2), and in particular Article 17(1)(e) thereof,
Whereas:
|
(1) |
Implementing Regulation (EU) No 391/2013 lays down a common charging scheme for air navigation services. The common charging scheme is an integral element in reaching the objectives of the performance scheme as established under Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 390/2013 (4). |
|
(2) |
Commission Implementing Decision 2014/132/EU (5) sets the Union-wide performance targets, including a cost-efficiency target for en route air navigation services expressed in determined unit costs for the provision of those services, for the second reference period, which covers the years 2015 to 2019 inclusive. |
|
(3) |
Pursuant to Article 17(1)(c) and 17(2) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 391/2013, the Commission is to assess the unit rates for charging zones for 2015 submitted by the Member States to the Commission following the revision of performance targets as a result of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/347 (6). The assessment concerns the compliance of those unit rates with Implementing Regulations (EU) No 390/2013 and (EU) No 391/2013. |
|
(4) |
The Commission has carried out its assessment of the unit rates with the support of the Performance Review Body, which is charged with assisting the Commission in the implementation of the performance scheme pursuant to Article 3 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 390/2013, and Eurocontrol's Central Route Charges Office, using the data and additional information provided by the Member States by 1 June 2015 as well as relevant information submitted as part of the revised performance plans. The assessment also took into account the corrections by Member States to the unit rates following subsequent contacts between the Commission, the Performance Review Body and the Member States concerned. Furthermore, the assessment of the unit rates for 2015 took into account the report by the Performance Review Body on the revised performance plans for the second reference period, which was submitted to the Commission on 15 October 2015. |
|
(5) |
On the basis of that assessment, the Commission has found, in accordance with Article 17(1)(e) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 391/2013, that the unit rates for charging zones for 2015 submitted by Belgium, Germany, France, Luxembourg and the Netherlands are not in compliance with Implementing Regulations (EU) No 390/2013 and (EU) No 391/2013. |
|
(6) |
Article 11(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 390/2013 provides that the national supervisory authorities of the Member States are to draw up performance plans containing targets consistent with the Union-wide performance targets. Pursuant to Article 11(2) and Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 391/2013, unit rates are calculated on the basis of the en route determined costs and the forecast service units specified in the performance plan of a Member State, i.e. the en route determined unit costs. Until the performance targets of Belgium, Germany, France, Luxembourg and the Netherlands are considered consistent with Union-wide targets, the unit rates calculated on their basis cannot be considered to be compliant with Implementing Regulations (EU) No 390/2013 and (EU) No 391/2013. |
|
(7) |
Pursuant to Article 17(1)(e) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 391/2013, the Member States concerned should be notified of the Commission's findings. |
|
(8) |
Given that the revised performance plans for the second reference period were not adopted before 1 November of the year preceding the second reference period, it is recalled that, in accordance with Article 17(2) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 391/2013, the Member States are required to recalculate the unit rates for charging zones for 2015 where necessary on the basis of the final adopted performance plans and to carry over any difference due to the temporary application of the unit rates set out in this Decision in the calculation of the unit rates of the following year. |
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
The unit rates for charging zones for 2015 set out in the Annex are not in compliance with Implementing Regulations (EU) No 390/2013 and (EU) No 391/2013.
Article 2
This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany, the French Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
Done at Brussels, 18 March 2016.
For the Commission
Violeta BULC
Member of the Commission
(1) OJ L 96, 31.3.2004, p. 10.
(2) OJ L 128, 9.5.2013, p. 31.
(3) Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2004 laying down the framework for the creation of the single European sky (the framework Regulation) (OJ L 96, 31.3.2004, p. 1).
(4) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 390/2013 of 3 May 2013 laying down a performance scheme for air navigation services and network functions (OJ L 128, 9.5.2013, p. 1).
(5) Commission Implementing Decision 2014/132/EU of 11 March 2014 setting the Union-wide performance targets for the air traffic management network and alert thresholds for the second reference period 2015-19 (OJ L 71, 12.3.2014, p. 20).
(6) Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/347 of 2 March 2015 concerning the inconsistency of certain targets included in the national or functional airspace block plans submitted pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council with the Union-wide performance targets for the second reference period and setting out recommendations for the revision of those targets (OJ L 60, 4.3.2015, p. 48).
ANNEX
Submitted en route unit rates for charging zones for 2015 found not to be in compliance
|
|
Charging zone |
Submitted 2015 en route unit rate in national currency (*) (ISO Code) |
|
1 |
Belgium-Luxembourg |
68,76 |
|
2 |
France |
69,34 |
|
3 |
Germany |
88,22 |
|
4 |
Netherlands |
66,57 |
(*) These unit rates do not include the administrative unit rate referred to in Article 18(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 391/2013 and which apply to states party to Eurocontrol's Multilateral Agreement relating to route charges.
|
22.3.2016 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
L 75/66 |
COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION (EU) 2016/421
of 18 March 2016
on the non-compliance of unit rates for the charging zone of Switzerland for 2015 and 2016 under Article 17 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 391/2013
(notified under document C(2016) 1594)
(Only the French, German and Italian texts are authentic)
(Text with EEA relevance)
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
Having regard to the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (‘the Agreement’) (1),
Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 550/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2004 on the provision of air navigation services in the Single European Sky (the service provision Regulation) (2), and in particular Article 16(1) thereof,
Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 391/2013 of 3 May 2013 laying down a common charging scheme for air navigation services (3), and in particular Article 17(1)(e) thereof,
Whereas:
|
(1) |
Implementing Regulation (EU) No 391/2013 lays down a common charging scheme for air navigation services. The common charging scheme is an integral element in reaching the objectives of the performance scheme as established under Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (4) and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 390/2013 (5). |
|
(2) |
Commission Implementing Decision 2014/132/EU (6) sets the Union-wide performance targets, including a cost-efficiency target for en route air navigation services expressed in determined unit costs for the provision of those services, for the second reference period, which covers the years 2015 to 2019 inclusive. |
|
(3) |
Pursuant to Article 17(1)(c) and 17(2) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 391/2013, the Commission is to assess the unit rates for charging zones for 2015 and 2016 submitted by the Member States to the Commission following the revision of performance targets as a result of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/347 (7). The assessment concerns the compliance of those unit rates with Implementing Regulations (EU) No 390/2013 and (EU) No 391/2013. |
|
(4) |
The Commission has carried out its assessment of the unit rates with the support of the Performance Review Body, which is charged with assisting the Commission in the implementation of the performance scheme pursuant to Article 3 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 390/2013, and Eurocontrol's Central Route Charges Office, using the data and additional information provided by Switzerland by 1 June 2015 as well as relevant information submitted as part of the revised performance plan. The assessment of the unit rates for 2015 and 2016 took into account the report by the Performance Review Body on the revised performance plans for the second reference period, which was submitted to the Commission on 15 October 2015. |
|
(5) |
On the basis of that assessment, the Commission has found, in accordance with Article 17(1)(e) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 391/2013, that the unit rates for charging zones for 2015 and 2016 submitted by Switzerland are not in compliance with Implementing Regulations (EU) No 390/2013 and (EU) No 391/2013. |
|
(6) |
Article 11(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 390/2013 provides that the national supervisory authorities of the Member States are to draw up performance plans containing targets consistent with the Union-wide performance targets. Pursuant to Article 11(2) and Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 391/2013, unit rates are calculated on the basis of the en route determined costs and the forecast service units specified in the performance plan of a Member State, i.e. the en route determined unit costs. Until the performance targets of Switzerland are considered consistent with Union-wide targets, the unit rates calculated on their basis cannot be considered to be compliant with Implementing Regulations (EU) No 390/2013 and (EU) No 391/2013. |
|
(7) |
Pursuant to Article 17(1)(e) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 391/2013, the Member States concerned should be notified of the Commission's findings. |
|
(8) |
Given that the revised performance plans for the second reference period were not adopted before 1 November of the year preceding the second reference period, it is recalled that, in accordance with Article 17(2) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 391/2013, the Member States are required to recalculate the unit rates for charging zones where necessary on the basis of the final adopted performance plans and to carry over any difference due to the temporary application of the unit rates set out in this Decision in the calculation of the unit rates of the following year. |
|
(9) |
In accordance with the last paragraph of Article 17(1), unit rates are set in national currency. The unit rates contained in this Decision are therefore presented in Swiss Franc, |
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
The 2015 unit rate of 118,97 and the 2016 unit rate of 113,69 for the charging zone of Switzerland are not in compliance with Implementing Regulations (EU) No 390/2013 and (EU) No 391/2013.
Article 2
This Decision is addressed to the Swiss Confederation.
Done at Brussels, 18 March 2016.
For the Commission
Violeta BULC
Member of the Commission
(1) OJ L 114, 30.4.2002, p. 73.
(2) OJ L 96, 31.3.2004, p. 10.
(3) OJ L 128, 9.5.2013, p. 31.
(4) Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2004 laying down the framework for the creation of the single European sky (the framework Regulation) (OJ L 96, 31.3.2004, p. 1).
(5) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 390/2013 of 3 May 2013 laying down a performance scheme for air navigation services and network functions (OJ L 128, 9.5.2013, p. 1).
(6) Commission Implementing Decision 2014/132/EU of 11 March 2014 setting the Union-wide performance targets for the air traffic management network and alert thresholds for the second reference period 2015-19 (OJ L 71, 12.3.2014, p. 20).
(7) Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/347 of 2 March 2015 concerning the inconsistency of certain targets included in the national or functional airspace block plans submitted pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council with the Union-wide performance targets for the second reference period and setting out recommendations for the revision of those targets (OJ L 60, 4.3.2015, p. 48).
|
22.3.2016 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
L 75/68 |
COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION (EU) 2016/422
of 18 March 2016
on the compliance of unit rates for charging zones for 2015 under Article 17 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 391/2013
(notified under document C(2016) 1595)
(Only the German, Italian and Slovak texts are authentic)
(Text with EEA relevance)
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 550/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2004 on the provision of air navigation services in the Single European Sky (the service provision Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 16(1) thereof,
Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 391/2013 of 3 May 2013 laying down a common charging scheme for air navigation services (2), and in particular Article 17(1)(d) thereof,
Whereas:
|
(1) |
Implementing Regulation (EU) No 391/2013 lays down a common charging scheme for air navigation services. The common charging scheme is an integral element in reaching the objectives of the performance scheme as established under Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 390/2013 (4). |
|
(2) |
Commission Implementing Decision 2014/132/EU (5) sets the Union-wide performance targets, including a cost-efficiency target for en route air navigation services expressed in determined unit costs for the provision of those services, for the second reference period, which covers the years 2015 to 2019 inclusive. |
|
(3) |
Pursuant to Article 17(1)(c) and 17(2) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 391/2013, the Commission is to assess the unit rates for charging zones for 2015 submitted by the Member States to the Commission following the revision of performance targets as a result of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/348 (6). The assessment concerns the compliance of those unit rates with Implementing Regulations (EU) No 390/2013 and (EU) No 391/2013. |
|
(4) |
The Commission has carried out its assessment of the unit rates with the support of Eurocontrol's Performance Review Unit and Central Route Charges Office, using the data and additional information provided by the Member States by 1 June 2015 as well as relevant information submitted as part of the revised performance plans. The assessment also took into account corrections by Member States to the unit rates following subsequent contacts with the Commission. Furthermore, the assessment of the unit rates for 2015 took into account the report of the Performance Review Body on the revised performance plans for the second reference period, which was submitted to the Commission on 15 October 2015. |
|
(5) |
On the basis of that assessment, the Commission has found, in accordance with Article 17(1)(d) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 391/2013, that the 2015 unit rates for the en route charging zones of Italy, Austria and the Slovak Republic are in compliance with Implementing Regulations (EU) No 390/2013 and (EU) No 391/2013. |
|
(6) |
Pursuant to Article 17(1)(d) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 391/2013, the Member States concerned should be notified of that finding. |
|
(7) |
Given that the 2015 unit rates concerned are based on performance plans adopted after 1 November of the year preceding the second reference period, it is recalled that, in accordance with Article 17(2) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 391/2013, the difference in revenue due to the temporary application of initial unit rate in 2015 should be carried over in the calculation of the unit rate for 2016. |
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
The 2015 unit rates for the en route charging zone set out in the Annex are in compliance with Implementing Regulations (EU) No 390/2013 and (EU) No 391/2013.
Article 2
This Decision is addressed to the Italian Republic, the Republic of Austria and the Slovak Republic.
Done at Brussels, 18 March 2016.
For the Commission
Violeta BULC
Member of the Commission
(1) OJ L 96, 31.3.2004, p. 10.
(2) OJ L 128, 9.5.2013, p. 31.
(3) Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2004 laying down the framework for the creation of the single European sky (the framework Regulation) (OJ L 96, 31.3.2004, p. 1).
(4) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 390/2013 of 3 May 2013 laying down a performance scheme for air navigation services and network functions (OJ L 128, 9.5.2013, p. 1).
(5) Commission Implementing Decision 2014/132/EU of 11 March 2014 setting the Union-wide performance targets for the air traffic management network and alert thresholds for the second reference period 2015-19 (OJ L 71, 12.3.2014, p. 20).
(6) Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/348 of 2 March 2015 concerning the consistency of certain targets included in the national or functional airspace block plans submitted pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council with the Union-wide performance targets for the second reference period (OJ L 60, 4.3.2015, p. 55).
ANNEX
|
|
Charging zone |
Submitted 2015 en route unit rate in national currency (*) (ISO Code) |
|
1 |
Austria |
73,34 |
|
2 |
Italy |
80,49 |
|
3 |
Slovak Republic |
54,99 |
(*) These unit rates do not include the administrative unit rate referred to in Article 18(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 391/2013 and which apply to States party to Eurocontrol's Multilateral Agreement relating to route charges.
|
22.3.2016 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
L 75/70 |
COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION (EU) 2016/423
of 18 March 2016
authorising certain laboratories in Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and the United States to carry out serological tests to monitor the effectiveness of rabies vaccines in dogs, cats and ferrets
(notified under document C(2016) 1609)
(Text with EEA relevance)
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Having regard to Council Decision 2000/258/EC of 20 March 2000 designating a specific institute responsible for establishing the criteria necessary for standardising the serological tests to monitor the effectiveness of rabies vaccines (1), and in particular Article 3(2) thereof,
Whereas:
|
(1) |
Decision 2000/258/EC designates the Agence française de sécurité sanitaire des aliments (AFSSA) in Nancy, France, as the specific institute responsible for establishing the criteria necessary for standardising the serological tests to monitor the effectiveness of rabies vaccines. The AFSSA has now been integrated into the Agence nationale de sécurité sanitaire de l'alimentation, de l'environnement et du travail (ANSES) in France. |
|
(2) |
Decision 2000/258/EC provides, inter alia, that the ANSES is to appraise laboratories in third countries that have applied for approval to carry out serological tests to monitor the effectiveness of rabies vaccines. |
|
(3) |
The competent authority of Egypt has submitted an application for the approval of the Animal Health Research Institute in Giza, and the ANSES has established and submitted to the Commission a favourable appraisal report dated 29 September 2015 for this laboratory. |
|
(4) |
The competent authority of the United Arab Emirates has submitted an application for the approval of the Central Veterinary Research Laboratory in Dubai, and the ANSES has established and submitted to the Commission a favourable appraisal report dated 29 September 2015 for this laboratory. |
|
(5) |
The competent authority of the United States has submitted an application for the approval of the Atlanta Health Associates Rabies Laboratory in Cumming, the Virology Laboratory of Auburn University College of Veterinary Medicine in Auburn and the Rabies Laboratory of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta (‘the US laboratories’), and the ANSES has established and submitted to the Commission a favourable appraisal report dated 29 September 2015 for the US laboratories. |
|
(6) |
The Animal Health Research Institute in Giza, the Central Veterinary Research Laboratory in Dubai and the US laboratories should therefore be authorised to carry out serological tests to monitor the effectiveness of rabies vaccines in dogs, cats and ferrets. |
|
(7) |
The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed, |
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
In accordance with Article 3(2) of Decision 2000/258/EC, the following laboratories are hereby authorised to perform serological tests to monitor the effectiveness of rabies vaccines in dogs, cats and ferrets:
|
(a) |
|
|
(b) |
|
|
(c) |
|
|
(d) |
|
|
(e) |
|
Article 2
This Decision shall apply from 15 April 2016.
Article 3
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 18 March 2016.
For the Commission
Vytenis ANDRIUKAITIS
Member of the Commission
(1) OJ L 79, 30.3.2000, p. 40.
Corrigenda
|
22.3.2016 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
L 75/72 |
Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/113 of 28 January 2016 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of high fatigue performance steel concrete reinforcement bars originating in the People's Republic of China
( Official Journal of the European Union L 23 of 29 January 2016 )
On page 16, title:
for:
‘Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/113’,
read:
‘Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/113’.